Yes, subsistence families in third-world or developing nations (the primary target for golden rice) take pride in being helpless wards of the state. It has absolutely nothing to do with poor soil conditions or less-than-hospitable growing climates (optimal growing temperature is 16- 21 C or 61-70 F, much cooler than many African nations). Those lazy fucks would rather depend on the state to save them! I suggest a quick trip to wikipedia entry on carrots to increase your knowledge. A little can go a long way.

Alton Brown is another pretty geeky cooking reference. He focused on not only the "how" of something but the "why" of it. I highly recommend his show, Good Eats, which was pretty darn funny to boot, and either of his cookbooks. It'll give you a solid grasp of the basics and a little confidence to experiment with your food.

Ssssh! Do you want to make the hippies cry?

You're painting with a rather broad brush. There are quite a few high-profile churches/televangelists/pastors who seem more interested in the lining their own pockets than feeding and clothing those in need. There are also a lot of churches where the pastors and staff live just above the poverty line so they can operate food banks, homeless shelters, and other poverty-relief efforts. The latter just don't make news that often.

...and in fact they really don't have the legal authority to ban bulbs, regardless of what laws they pass.

I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but can you elaborate on that sentence? Wouldn't the ability to pass the ban as law give them legal authority? Or you were you refering to Constitutional law? Genuine curiosity here, not trolling.

Hell, NK shelled South Korea a few years back and the world collectively wagged its finger at them.

I understand what you're saying but you're just drawing the line at a much higher income discrepancy. Who decideds what constitutes "a disgusting, obscene, amount of money and resources"? You? A farmer in India? A Russian oil tycoon? The poverty-line in Zimbabwe is $202-US/month, $2424.00-US anually. Does that give a Zimbabwe resident living in povery the right to help themselves to anyone's goods? Does that give them the right to help themselves to the resources of of a US citizen living in povery. After all a single-person household in the US pulls in around $11,000.00-US/year, nearly 4.5x the amount of the hypothetical Zimbabwe resident. At what point do you draw the line?

Your beggar's cup analogy isn't quite accurate either, since you, the original of the holder of the resource, is deciding to write the loss off. This is quite different than someone else deciding to make that decision on your behalf.

Be that as it may, I'm talking strictly about the legal terms, not about moral or ethical concerns.

To my understanding, booking photos are technically public record except in cases where the records have been sealed by the courts. Private Citizen A posting a audio/visual recording of Private Citizen B without B's permission is a legally-distinct matter.

While we're all free to do so, not everyone has the capability to do so. Yes, there are tutorials freely available on the web, but, frankly, not everyone is computer-savy enough or intelligent enough to grasp them. Asking someone else to do it kind of defeats the point of examining it yourself. I imagine it would also be an enormous pain in the ass to examine the washing machine, dryer, microwave, light fixtures, jacuzzi, DVD player, window fixtures, refrigerator, stove, sprinklers, and thermostat each time you have to buy a new appliance or move into a new residence.

USAA also has a much smaller pool of potential clients so I doubt they can afford to alienate many of their customers. Around 1% of the US population is currently serving in the military (source: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/03/137536111/by-the-numbers-todays-military). Accounting for former military and for USAA's inclusion of spouses and children for eligibility I'd estimate their customer pool is maxes out around 10% of the total US population. Their competitors (I'm not including small local banks in this) can go after anyone.

Technically the US Department of Transportation requires external markings in the form of placards on the exterior of the vehicle transporting the material. However, unlike the actual container, the placard is not required to say anything other than "Class 7 Radioactive Material", no specific activity, no quantity, no nothing. DOE material can side-step some of those labeling requirements via DOD regulations. Source: HAZMAT/HAZCOM training about three years ago.

There, fixed that for you. I'm fairly certain legalizing things like meth and cocaine wouldn't do much to aid the addicted. Just because one drug is harmless doesn't mean they all are.

I don't disagree that certain criminal acts are products of desperation, for instance a thief stealing to feed himself or a young woman using fake ID to escape an abusive boyfriend, but your proposition assumes that if given the option, people will always do the legal/right thing.** This doesn't account for criminals who commit their crimes in spite of other options. The perpetrators of the giant economic con-job that ended up causing an economic melt-down were, in all likelyhood, quite capable of feeding themselves and their families without financial shennanigans. I have met individuals who financed their lifetstyles with criminal activity because, frankly, it paid better than working a legal job. Now, you could counter that this is an example of a social issue that needs addressing (wage floors, etc) but in doing so you remove some of the agency of the perpetrator, since the criminal is now only capable of taking the path of least resistance.

Again, I don't disagree that some crimes are products of social issues but saying that criminals generally commit crimes because they have no other choice is problematic at best.

**Yes, "right" and "legal" are not always equivalent and in several instances can be in direct conflict with one another but that's outside the parameters of our discussion at the moment.

"But! But! But! I work just as hard as that other guy! Why should he have nicer stuff than me?" tends to be the basis of the arguements most people will use when discussing why it's unfair that some people have more money than others.