Hodie natus est radici frater!

Wow, I had quite forgotten about that. Thanks for the blast from the past!

I don't think so. That sucker is NOISY.

Cool aerobatics though.

O tempora! O mores!

Actually, they didn't fire him, they just suspended him for a month.

You really should have checked out the story...

Everyone's jumping on the fact that the GP seems to be advocating terrorism. But though he didn't express himself well, I don't think for a moment he actually wants to commit or even encourage terrorist acts. He's simply observing, as indeed Jefferson did, that concentrations of power tend toward tyranny. That's why we have the Constitutional separation of powers: to put bounds on each branch of government so that it can't take over.

I'm not advocating terrorism either; and I'd go so far as to suggest that it was Jefferson's hope that the system of government he and his cohorts had invented would give the citizens sufficient oversight of their government as to make violent revolution unnecessary in the future. Still, I daresay he was aware of the possibility that it might not work.

Flamebait? Come on, mods. You can find very similar statements in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Like this one: "The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of tyrants."

I don't know that we need to blame this on women's groups. Many victims of sexual abuse are indeed traumatized, and it wasn't so long ago in our history that their plight was pretty much ignored. I recall that Freud, having observed that many of his female patients had been molested and that that seemed to be the root of their troubles, acceded to pressure to back off from this theory.

I haven't read the book, but I just read a bunch of the comments on the Amazon page; it's quite an interesting discussion. It's good news, certainly, if not every victim suffers as badly as we expect. To say that this makes abusing children okay makes no more sense than saying it's okay to shoot guns at people because after all, you might miss.

Quite a serious case of thread drift we have here... ;-)

Myth: Someone goes through the trash and pulls out the recyclables before it goes to the landfill. Anything thrown into the trash will end up in the landfill. The labor required to sort through trash after it has already been mixed is prohibitive and almost never happens.

...and yet here we have a story about them doing just that and more.. Fining you if you don't do it.

You've missed the point entirely. The quoted myth is arguing that most or all trash gets sorted anyway. This is not remotely true. The Cleveland authorities look through some people's trash to see whether it contains recyclable materials, not to actually perform the separation for them.

Excuse: Recycling is a burden on families.
Recycling is so popular because the American public wants to do it.

If it were popular the article wouldn't be about people being fined for not doing it.

Another non sequitur. If 40% of the population is doing something, I'd say it's pretty popular, wouldn't you? But that's not even a majority.

From TFA:

Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables.

I wouldn't think Cleveland would spend money on "smart trash carts" unless there were some truth to this claim.