I missed one word, an "is" between "news" and "likely".

I called no one dumb, though I did insinuate it by calling people a subset of people who don't get their news from cable TV "smart ones". I stand by that assertion, that people who get their news through the Internet are more literate, skeptical, and open to evidence-based claims than those who get their news through cable TV.

I have no data for my claim, which I admit is a stereotype.

Finally, I don't hate the audience I characterized, though my political differences with that audience may be great.

More than that, his "Steven Colbert" act (that's what it is - an act) is just being a contrarian. He'll be the first to say that his entire interviewing style is to be disinterested in whoever it is that is there, and to just argue with them with the absolute most ridiculous contrary statements he can think of. He, in fact, tells his guests this before any cameras are turned on in order to let them have some fun with it too - he genuinely wants his guests to have a great time when they appear, and thus warns them that this is how the act goes.

That show was never meant to have "integrity" of any sort, and the GP is an idiot.

They make more money by having your eyeballs on their channel, in the form of ratings-metered advertising.

Tell that to the tiny PC I have hooked up to my TV that is better than any DVR equipment I've ever received from a cable or satellite provider, and has an equipment cost of $6/month for the CableCARD.

There are several spin-your-own-DVR solutions out there, you just have to play the game. No, you can't use YouTube as your DVR; and that's not "designing your own DVR" anyway.

Or, "Charge me or let me go. I'm calling a lawyer."

If they're calling in someone, I'm calling in someone too. And if they don't let me without me formally being under arrest for a charge, then I'm suing their asses.

The people still glued to their TV sets and cable television in the US in 2014 are very likely politically and educationally uniform.

Admittedly with no data to hand, the demographic who watches FOX as a source of news likely anti-intellectual, science-denying, god-fearing, economically disenfranchised, and socially regressive.

But even if I'm mistaken in my gross stereotype of the audience for FOX News, judging the "merits" of a TV network according to the size of the TV audience misses the forest for the trees which is that in 2014 the smart ones aren't really watching any cable TV at all.

One guess where those smart people are getting their news. (Hint: the Internet has many, many sources of information where even single individuals can reach millions of people pretty much in real time.)

Even if Sony released it to 100,000 screens I still wouldn't watch it, because it's likely to just be a bad movie that I don't want to pay $12 to see.

Only if the threat is on Pastebin.

Apparently convincing movie theaters not to show a bad movie that they probably didn't want to have to show anyway with a vague threat of violence after cracking Sony's network (yeah, like that hasn't been done before) makes you a superpower.

The theater chains were probably looking for any excuse not to show that thing but not get left out of the next Sony release they actually do want to screen. This way, Sony eats the shit sandwich rather than the theaters. Also known as "the way it should be if you make bad movies."

The Oregon law specifically says that crossing out of state with legally purchased pot is illegal. Idaho is fully in their right to drop the hammer on someone doing so, and Oregon won't say shit about it.

This really isn't that hard to figure out.

Don't forget that in his own post he is saying that laws started in 1860, but it was the evil hegemony of industrialists 80 years later that are to blame.

They would also now need to add Oregon and Alaska. And when even more of these laws pass, they would need to add them too. And don't forget medical use states - need an exemption for all of them too.

At the end of the day, you're just going to have a massive jumble-fuck of legalese that nobody understands. Just do away with the Federal blanket ban already and let States decide, since that's what is happening right now anyway.

What could be interesting is what happens if the next President decides to enforce Federal law in Colorado / Washington / Oregon / Alaska, and if someone makes an 8th Amendment case saying it is "cruel and unusual" to enforce laws at the whim of the Executive.

That could be a precedent that causes repealing of a whole lot of so-called "blue laws" that go unenforced, or just ridiculous laws like Indiana declaring "The value of Pi is 3."

Well, if we're lucky.

And Mexico can't even keep people from being killed by the drug cartels - no way they even give a shit about people getting high.

How is it hard to harass someone on drug charges, if they are not using or possessing drugs at the time of a police stop?

"Can I search your vehicle / bag?"

"Affording my constitutional rights, No."

Now the police either has to show a judge probable cause to get a warrant, or they let you go. So called "reasonable suspicion" doesn't even work because there has to be some form of evidence for that - if you don't have dilated pupils, slurred speech, or loss of coordination / balance they don't have that either.

Know your rights, and exercise them, and most cops don't get to play their cop games. If they do it anyway, you've got a nice legal settlement coming from the city / county / state.