Look up some of the questionnaires the IRS put together ONLY for the Tea Party groups. They were asking things like "how much money do you plan to take in, four years in the future?" No, that's not a standard question for 501 groups of any sort.

They also asked for a full list of board members, and all of their family members who might have served on the boards of other organizations, along with any family members who "was, is, or plans to be running for public office."

They also asked for all contacts the groups had made with the press, including op-eds, interviews, and letters to the editor. That part alone should have sent the civil libertarians screaming for the hills.

They wanted full records of any rallies the groups had held - including expenses, income, and "copies of all materials with regards to the event."

A 501(c)(4) organization qualifies as a "social welfare" group if they're arguing for something they believe will improve society. That's it. The (c)(4) part is actually more restrictive than a lot of other types - except for the donation reporting requirements, and the lack of tax-deductible status for a lot of those donations. Yes, the Tea Party groups took the avenue that causes their members to pay MORE taxes in the long run...

The various Tea Party groups that were being harassed by the IRS were being targeted by offices across the country, and it went on well after the story was made public. It's still going on, to some degree - out of 27 known groups, twelve of them are still in a holding pattern due to this harassment.

The "it was low level employees" bit is pretty much just a plain old lie. The amount of paperwork and long, detailed forms that were generated pretty much guaranteed that someone in at least middle management was organizing the effort. The similarity of questionnaires from multiple offices shows a pretty high level of coordination.

"I've always applauded this logic; quote a comment an official makes that aligns with your views, dismiss the comments they make that don't."

There's a huge difference between "official admits their offices did something stupid" and "official admits their offices did something stupid and shoves the blame off on some unnamed flunky." The important part is the damning admission, not the qualifier.

The big question is "why did the IRS suddenly admit this?" They were in full denial for most of the last year - what happened to make them suddenly decide to come clean? Are they looking at the Benghazi whistleblowers and worrying that someone in the IRS might get inspired?

"'That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review,' Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association." The woman who heads up the division that handles nonprofits said this.

In other words, no, it wasn't profiling, it was just plain old political nastiness. "Absolutely incorrect" is the right phrase here.

"Profiling" would - maybe- come into play if the groups in question had a history of tax fraud. Unfortunately for the folks who did this, the TEA Party name comes partly from "Taxed Enough Already." No, they don't promote tax fraud - they just don't think we need any MORE taxes. They tend to be fairly law-and-order types, they just want some of the laws changed - or at least a moratorium on new ones that cost more money.

"You were studying ecology and didn't know those predictions were nonsense made by a crackpot?"

One of my advisors is one of the current Big Names in AGW - and he was the one who told me about the coming ice age.

So yeah, crackpot.

The problem is that those particular joints only work up to a point - at higher temperatures, they expand too far.

With higher heating, you also get deformation in between the joints.

The US has been using continuous-welded rails for decades now - yes, with various "breather" or "slip" fittings - and you still see warped and deformed rails each summer.

Back in the heat wave of 2010, the German ICE system had to cancel some trips because heat warped the tracks...

If the high summer temps ever get around to climbing like the AGW folks claim, high speed rail will be pretty tough.

You see, even with those highly-engineered rails, too much heat can cause expansion that warps the metal.

Of course, we haven't seen an increase in such warming-caused warping.

Odd, that.

(No, it's not because the rails are so much better - HSR uses welded, continuous rail, which is more susceptible to that sort of thing)

I was studying ecology in the mid-1970s, and the panic then was certainly "the ice age is coming NOW!"

If you're "remembering" the predictions as being 3000-5000 AD, then you're probably recalling the "normal" ice age predictions of the time. The panic-mongers were claiming that the ice age was already starting to happen in the 1970s, and that we'd be well frozen over by 2000 or so.

Home Depot has them for under $10 now.

In Florida.

"from stationary sources"

Kinda forgot automobiles and other vehicles.

Not to mention that once you exclude cars and power plants, third place is pretty far down the list.

Electric shock?

Much better.

Speaking of bad at reading comprehension: where did I disagree with the previous comment, other than my last paragraph?

I merely pointed out some additional information.

"That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

Two of the homes listed in the first publication of gun owners' names have had their homes burglarized - and one of them only had their gun safe stolen.

Meanwhile, there have been calls by leglislators to confiscate guns - by forcing registration and/or using current registration lists.

Neither of those are "straw men." Indeed, they were mostly just predictions based on knowing how people think and act.

"Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned," ...then why are some people calling for gun bans? And trying to pass laws that effectively ban guns? And why are there many places in the US with fairly comprehensive gun bans, like Chicago?

"Once an academic has a job, they can then expect to work 60-80 hours per week for the first five to six years."

Sorry, but no.

You do realize that you're claiming that a new college teacher would be working 12 hour days, five days a week, at minimum? Up to almost seven days a week at the high end?

I spent a lot of time in college (attending and working), and the sight of a teacher - of any sort - working on campus during nights and weekends was rare indeed. Unless they were "counseling" a coed to improve her grades...

That final link is hilarious - if you think about the claims that are made in it.

He makes a big point of the "free" work he has to do prepping for the class (preparing the syllabus, et cetera), then adds in extra time during the semester for coming up with the tests - which should be part of preparing the syllabus.

Of course, for most college teachers, "preparation" is "what book do I read out of each week?" Total real time? About an hour.

He then talks about office hours - 8 hours per week, just sitting there waiting for the students to come bask in his knowledge. Never mind, of course, that most professors only get a few students per day, and they never spend more than a few minutes on each. Most of the rest of the time is spent doing that class prep he moans about.

In other words, he double counted most of the things he pretended that he does each week.

Let's look at this realistically...

Monday- Wednesday-Friday:
8-9 class
9-10 kill time until office hours
10-12, office hours (Two students drop in for ten minutes each, do all actual paperwork and class prep during this time.)
12-1 lunch
1-2 second class
2-3 office hours (One student, maybe. Grade papers until four if tests that week)
Go home

Tuesday-Thursday:
9:30-11 third class
11-12 office hours (One student, maybe. Take early lunch if bored)
12-1 lunch
2-3:30 fourth class
3:30-4 office hours (Nobody shows up, go home early most days.)
Go home

Here's the funny part... he pretends he has MORE work the second year. This assumes he lost all of his tests and prep paperwork from the previous semesters, and has to completely rebuild his syllabus from square one every semester. Um... nope. Hell, in a lot of cases, new professors get "hand-me-down" course outlines and support materials from the guys who had to teach the class in previous years.

...using climate change as an excuse to raise rates? A win-win.

If the scaremongers are right, they cover possible extra expenses... which have not - in any sense - shown up. No extra bad weather, hurricanes, et cetera. Just higher payouts from covering more people.

If they're wrong, the insurance companies get more money for free, and they get the environmental folks to help them get the rate increases approved from various government entities.

"We need to raise our rates to allow for extra payouts from climate change."

"Do we get a refund if you don't have to pay out more?"

"No. But don't you feel better knowing that we might?"