This thread is dead I know and I have only now went back to see any replies. I have a couple critics, one which thinks what I said is ridiculous and the other said it was grossly inaccurate to the point of making their jaw drop. First, I want to give them their due. Yes, hillbillies are all over the state. There is an old joke that says that Akron is the capitol of West Virginia. And, it is true that I have over-generalized. The included article was intended to give more information to those who wanted more details.

However, I would suggest that the county map election results for Ohio have vindicated quite strongly that my generalization -- even if it is a bit too general -- is fundamentally accurate. 15 of the 88 counties in Ohio went for Obama. Of the 15, only four were in central or south Ohio. Three of those are the more urban cities of Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati -- but only the core cities. The other 11 are all bunched up along the northern border of the state next to Lake Erie.

You can see the map for yourself here.

What is curious is that Romney's Mormon religion which is monolatrous and technically has Satan as Jesus's spiritual brother must count as very close to Satan worship in any fundamentalist Christian theology. That and lowering taxes on the rich... well there you have it.

Because Ohio is split between north and south much like the rest of the eastern US with the north more liberal and democrat and the south more conservative and republican. The division crosses economic and cultural lines. In southern Ohio you will find lots of people with southern or hillbilly accents while northern Ohio has typical mid-western accents. The southern areas are "bible belt", northern areas not so much. The southern economy is agricultural, rural and resource based (coal), the northern is old industrial (auto & steel). Here's an article on it: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/05/3901108/5-ohios-analyzed-in-swing-state.html. It's a serendipitous mirroring of the red state/ blue state division of the whole USA. That is why it doesn't come together.

A couple points regarding Canada:
1. The Average Canadian is now richer than the average American.

2. Regarding Canada's federal debt. As of a year ago Canada's total Public Debt hit $1.1 Trillion, but that was only 57.9 % debt to GDP ratio. That is regarded as low and is perfectly fine. Canada can handle that just fine and still sustain robust economic growth. The US recently exceeded a ratio of 100% debt to GDP ratio. That is bad because when the debt ratio exceeds 85-90 % then economic growth is inhibited significantly.

Canada did the right thing running up the deficit during the recession so as to maintain economic growth. The U.S also had to do the same to keep the recession from expanding into a full blown depression. But Canada had good fundamentals -- a relatively low debt -- so it could run large deficits for a while without undue long term effects. It can lower spending later and bring the deficit down using expanded revenues from future GDP growth. The U.S was not in as good a shape having already run large deficits through out the Bush years. Now we are saddled with a huge debt burden that is sapping our growth dooming us to many years of low growth and high unemployment.

This is a list of the ten countries most in debt based on this percentage.

That part has me confused. He's never been a non-believer in AGW.

This is misleading almost to an extreme. Muller was well known for being skeptical of the research. He in particular attacked the "Hockey Stick" (See his article from 2004: Global Warming Bombshell. His criticisms were such that he was universally regarded as a skeptic prior to BEST (see Quotes by Richard Muller, and his skepticism regarding the research was consistent. Note that Watts initially supported BEST, and that work was financed in part by the Koch brothers. Do you think that would be the case if Muller was regarded as being a "warmist"? Your popular technology article appears convincing until you read the linked sources. From those it is clear that your are right sort of, Muller never was a AGW denier per se, but the quotes read in context show that he was highly skeptical of the research which is why he was universally categorized as being one of the AGW skeptics prior to 2010. The point is that he was open minded which is why he changed his mind.

Life is a gift and your misery is in your mind only. External circumstances do not matter, only what you think matters. Do you really want to hurt and destroy the love of your life like this? She would be devastated by this. Do you have a mother, father? Other family? What will this do to them? I know, the death of someone close to you is a pain you can never erase, but if that person had killed themselves it would be so much worse because it would be so senseless. You seem like someone who cares about others, so why would you do so selfish and cowardly an act as this? And cause all this pain to all those who love you? Don't. Get help. You don't have to do this. It gets better.

Muller's claim that he's a "recently converted skeptic", which is a flat-out lie as he has always been a warmist.

Prove it please. This article from 2004: Global Warming Bombshell shows his earlier skeptic bonifides. True, even in this article he is concerned that global warming may be real, but he is skeptical of the research and was repeatedly so (see Quotes by Richard Muller. Remember that he did get support from the Koch Brothers who are not ones who would knowingly fund a "warmist". The main difference between him and most other skeptics was that he did not reject AGW out of hand and had a degree of open mindedness and honestly that lead him to do primary independent research which lead him to change his mind, thus proving that honest global warming skeptic doesn't always have to be a oxymoron.

The Chinese policy is not really one to emulate. Here are some resources explaining why:

1. China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis. This explains the demographic changes (way to many men due to the excessing aborting of girls), and an aging population that will likely cause much of China to become old before they become rich. If that proves to be true and Chinese economic growth stalls then the policy may even prove to be counter productive over a longer time frame since poorer people have higher birthrates.

2. Encourages Voluntary Limits, A June 1998 report from U.S. Embassy Beijing.. This explains that China's policy is not that effective as compared with voluntary efforts.

All this is well explained in the recent Ted talk by Hans Rosling: Hans Rosling: Religions and babies

Rosling's talk also makes it clear that religion has very little effect if any. The main consideration is the economic well being of the population. A prosperous people will have fewer children because they do not rely on the children for their "social security", so there is no need to have as many children as possible to ensure their own future welfare. Also, the children of economically well off people are also well cared for, and expensive, so people have fewer of them.

Of course global waning cannot be denied. A few years ago I was more open minded regarded climate skepticism, but the berkeley study(skeptical science finds evidence for global warming), plus this recent weather has removed all my doubts regarding climate change.

Did you read the linked article? As a Christian, I rolled my eyes most at the BBC radio headline, "The Higgs boson is another nail in the coffin of religion." This seems like an equal opportunity attempt to offend. It attacks religion, but with an argument that is so stupid that it ought to offend atheists too who might be associated with such asininity. And this is the BBC who you think wouldn't do this kind of thing.

This is illuminating. Most of the time, those who read text that exhibits bad grammar or ambiguities and discern the intended meaning by the context. So, if the message was between two people who had arranged a ritual cannibalistic meal where they ingest the remains of their newly departed, then both parties would know that the meaning is an invitation to eat Grandma's remains.

I am all for good grammar and spelling, but the internet has made common new forms of interaction in the form of text messages. emails and postings like these. Each type of communication is evolving its own set of rules. Older forms of communication such as private speech, public speaking, phone conversations and letters also have a set of rules. We tolerate a lot of error, bad grammar and ambiguity in private conversation because the effort it takes to properly formulate conversation would destroy the immediacy of conversation. Listen to conversations sometime and observe the errors, the "uhs", the "you-knows", and incomplete sentences. Some conversations are nearly incomprehensible to any but the participants who have the advantage of context and shared experience to resolve ambiguities. Formal written letters or public speeches are held to a much higher standard. More people will receive these communications, so accurate grammar and language is important. But these forms of communication are less immediate and less personal. More effort is put into these more formal forms of communication.

The new forms of communication seem to me to fall between the lax standards of private speech and the strict formal standards of formal letter writing or published articles. For example I find that most text messages are normally intended to be quick and informal forms of communication. Various abbreviations (like "k" for Okay) are created to facilitate fast low-effort communication, and poor grammar in this setting is tolerated in exchange for the low level of effort to facilitate the speed and convenience of texting. Internet postings and emails require a higher standard that texting, but these also are intended to be created and viewed and discarded relatively quickly. (This post for example, won't be read much because I am posting in the afternoon from the west coast of the USA after 600+ other comments have been posted. This entry and all of the comments are already history for most /. readers.) As such they are not normally held to the same standard as we would expect from more formal forms of communication. The one exception is the rhetorical flaming of the grammar in order to score rhetorical points against someone with whom you disagree.

So, while I think we should always encourage good writing and grammar, I think less rigid standards are acceptable in some of these newer modes of communication depending on the need for immediacy instead of accuracy.