If there are kill switches in US hardware sold internationally, why is the US so worried about the Iranian Air Force and its fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters?

Because if they weren't publicly worried about it, then people would suspect a kill-switch?

And also, right now we're trying to blow Iran up into a bigger threat at home, in order to twist their arm with the prospect of a war.

And you know what? I bet those people who only work a bit over half time will get just as much done as full-timers. It's not like people are normally getting things done for every single one of the 40+ hours in a standard workweek, and personally I find that I tend to take less breaks if I've had a long weekend or vacation recently.

Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.

Okay, I agree with all that - but the original poster's point was that due to the Democrats' restriction of rights, he's supporting the Republicans.

As you say, all of those things were initiated by Republicans and expanded upon by Democrats; thus, none of those things are rights that Democrats are restricting and Republicans aren't.

I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.

I'm curious - which rights are you referring to, specifically? I mean, surely you have some examples of them trying to do that?

Exactly! If this is failure, then I don't think I want to succeed!

Trader Joe's works because they are very focused on the quality of the goods from their suppliers - if the stuff gets too many complaints, it's gone and they look for a new supplier.

Except for their chocolate bars - oh god, except for the bars. If you buy anything that's not Ritter Sport at Trader Joe's, it's absolutely horrible. For some reason, all their store-brand chocolate seems to taste like bitter wax, even stuff that used to be good (like the Chocolate Truffle bars). The chocolate around their various chocolate-dipped candies is still good, but somehow they've managed to completely fuck up the solid chocolate products.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

First off, I think that you've kinda proven my point - who was it that verified the bacterial origin of ulcers? A medical doctor. Who verified the meteorite theory of dinosaur extinction? Paleontologists. Who verified quantum mechanics? Physicists. It's always people from within the discipline that overturn consensus, not outsiders - because it's the scientists in the discipline who know how to prove it.

And as to your second point: when was global warming first theorized? Why, in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius! When did it begin to be widely accepted by climate scientists? The late 1950s! It's been far, far longer than 15 years, and yet somehow the field hasn't turned around. Either there's a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists ignoring evidence that's been around for hundreds of years - or maybe there's something to what they're saying.

Hey now, he's one of the most relevant signatories. If you want to poke fun, poke it at Burt Rutan, whose sole claim is that he makes rockets, or Roger Cohen, who is a "fellow of the American Physical Society" (which is kinda like saying "Roger Cohen, 340 combined GRE")

Yeah, actually, my wife (who is a climate scientist, though she mostly deals in ancient climates (she says that working in climate modelling is too depressing)) smacked me when she saw that I'd said that :)

However you must admit that if a field has gone astray one would hardly expect people from within the field to stand up and criticize it.

Actually, that's exactly what you would expect - people inside the field are exactly the ones who can poke holes in the theory and become famous for it. Scientists don't become famous for going along with the consensus; they become famous for overturning it.

Consider plate tectonics, for instance - it was not widely accepted until the 1950s, simply because earth scientists didn't think it was possible. Who led the revolution? Other earth scientists.

This is a theme you find in pretty much every field of science. Phlogiston? Overturned by early chemists. Luminiferous aether? Overturned by physicists. The plum pudding model of the atom? Overturned by nuclear physicists. All the people who "stood up and criticized" their fields when they'd gone astray are famous to this day; but there have always been people who will stand up and criticize a field even when it's doing fine.

I mean, what do you think would happen if you found real, solid evidence that global warming is not happening? You'd get a Nobel prize out of that at least (in a few decades, after your findings pan out), and if the amount of money and media support that's being poured into the anti-climate-change side of things is any indication, a ton of sinecures would open up almost immediately. You'd be famous, simply because if the evidence undeniable, it will eventually be accepted.