Krugman is probably the perfect example of how most economists are actually just ideologues pretending to be scientists. His pieces for the NYT often read like the rants on DailyKos.

His predictions as to the success or failure of a plan are almost entirely based on who is currently in power (and he has a terrible track record on real world predictions of global financial events from the housing bubble to the state of the EU) and his post analysis almost always centers around the same points (increased government spending being one of this favorite gotos) as to why something either worked or wasn't as bad as it could have been with no real data to back up his suppositions.

Historically the education vs part affiliation in the US breaks down as:

No HS diploma = Strong Democrat advantage (this is also the smallest voting group)
HS diploma = Statistical tie
Some college = Republican advantage
College degree = Republican advantage
Post Doctorate = Democrat advantage

That's been the case for at least the last 14 years according to most exit polls (cnn has some good exit pool data) with the McCain/Obama election being a slight outlier. A similar pattern tends to appear in income distributions with low and exceptionally high earners favoring Dems and middle earners favoring Repubs.

It happened 2 1/5 hours before the EURO conference and while Knight is a white supremacist he was also the head of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association and set up the earlier meeting as part of that while he had access to a free room.

He rented the room for EURO but had access to it all day and decided to use it in the morning for local issues.

There were also representative of the Red Cross and local Sherriffs dept. speaking at the earlier meeting which Scalise attended. This was not at all unusual since Knight was the head of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association which was what the meeting was set up for. It was essentially a town hall type meeting.

He talked at a entirely different meeting booked by the same person in the same room earlier in the day.

The organizer was the head of the Jefferson Heights Civic Association and booked a morning session to discuss Jefferson county local issues. It had an entirely unrelated list of attendees and the only people related to the white supremacist in attendance just happened to show up early for their afternoon meeting and came into the room to find a seat.

The morning meeting was essentially a neighborhood information session which included the Red cross and local sheriffs dept. While it's true the same person organized both, the morning session had no relation to the national white supremacist group. He simply had the room booked for the entire day and decided to use it for a local event in the morning instead of wasting the room. The only cross over attendees were people who arrived early for the afternoon event and happened to come in for a seat.

Imagine, filling in natural flood plains and swamp lands to build luxury ocean front condos leads to flooding in those and surrounding areas during the king tides (highest tides of the year).

Flooding in Florida has a lot less to do with the minimal, and often unmeasurable, sea level rise than it does with greedy construction practices. The entire state is one big sink hole waiting to happen and while a lot of it's problem are man made, most aren't really related to AGW.

There is no plans on introducing a subscription based system. The Mashable writer just has poor comprehension skills.

The Mashable writer seems to be the ONLY original source writer who interpreted "Free for 1 year" as subscription based. Every other reputable site, including Microsoft's own blog of the event, defines free for 1 year just the same way the gp does, if you upgrade in the first year it's free, after that you have to pay an upgrade price.

The NAACP 'bombing' was a small explosion (with the power of a medium firecracker) at the side of a barbershop that shared a wall with the local NAACP office. It left a small black mark on the wall but caused no damage. While it might have been a failed attempt at an actual bombing of the NAACP it could have also been someone ticked off at his hairdresser or just someone drunk and stupid on a Friday night.

The only reason it became a story was that MSNBC, through their layers of fact checking, accidentally put up pictures of a building destroyed in France in connection with the NAACP story. Most stories are using the picture from the front because the picture of the police tape is much more impressive than the actual crime scene photo.

That's because he prefers to issue "presidential memorandum", which while just another form of executive order, is not counted toward the total most reporters use when comparing to other Presidents so they can continue to print the falsehood that Obama isn't issuing executive actions more than other presidents.

At present, he's issued more presidential memorandum than any other president in history (33% more than Bush and 45% more than Clinton) and is on track to beat out Harry Truman for overall executive actions.

There is also a question about the power of those actions; Obama has used executive actions (orders and memorandum) to make major changes to existing legislation as well as create legislation out of thin air.

I don't know the specific in this case because of course I didn't RTFA, but while Congress must pass legislation to allow for new spending (which is how the Republicans are proposing to stop the immigration EO) there is usually a wide degree of latitude given to the Administration on how to spend existing department budgets. A proposal like this might just come out of 'petty cash' of the DOJ or some other Federal agency which, if the case, is a sad comment as to how bloated some of these agencies are.

I think you're the one with a TV problem. The purpose of a trial is to attempt to convict someone of a criminal act where there is a strong enough case that the prosecutor believes there is a reasonable chance of conviction; it is not a fishing expedition. The facts and evidence are supposed to be examined prior to the trial (except those not previously available) and used to determine the likelihood that a crime was even committed and that a conviction can be attained.

Grand juries are special pre-trials in which only the prosecutor present the evidence and their views on how it relates to the case. This is the most favorable circumstance possible for the prosecution, and if they can't convince a majority of the jury that a crime has taken place and the defendant is possibly guilty of it then there is almost no chance at a real trial where the judge will often disallow a significant portion of the evidence.

Filing unfounded charges and bringing someone to trial just to fulfill your voyeuristic needs is not a proper use of the legal system.

I can't say I've ever seen someone complain about price matching before. What exactly prevents a store from competing on price, even with Walmart's price matching policy in place?

There is no law stating you have to shop at Walmart and if a store routinely has lower prices than them most people will go there rather dealing with the hassle of having to have every item price matched? For Walmart, if they are seeing a competing store routinely undercutting their prices they will adjust to compete. That's a rare occurrence, since Walmart has the purchasing muscle to throw around, but it can happen.

Price matching is generally only used on sale items or one or two regular purchases and generally as a convenience so that you don't have to go to another store to continue your shopping. Of course Walmart and other price matching stores hope you don't find the lower price somewhere else but how exactly does the fact that if you do they will match it impact pricing as a whole?

There are so many problems with your idea that I have to assume you've never actually shopped anywhere, ever.

Who determines the "minimum profit" in your proposal? I'm assuming the Government has to set all industry profit rates to prevent price variances.
In your world are all suppliers prices fixed? Can they never drop prices to clear inventory? Can they never reduce production costs to be able to lower wholesale pricing?
Are loss-leaders outlawed?
The questions and problems with your simplistic view, are endless.

There are literally hundreds of ways one store can acquire inventory cheaper than another. Sometimes it's a pure numbers game (Walmart's specialty), other times it just a timing issue (end of life cycle dumping by supplier) and sometimes you may just be able to get in on a one time sale (another store/supplier closing and selling off stock).