Grant me the legal authority to print money anytime I want and make everyone else pay the true cost of it (inflation) and I, too, could pay for anything money can buy. In the Apollo days they at least tried to pretend that debt is important and that there's something deeply wrong with running a government in a way that would bankrupt any business or household.

Oh incidentally, for those who think the group identity of those who suffer is really important, inflation is the most regressive tax there is. The truly wealthy have investments like securities and real estate that scale with inflation. It's the poor who try to improve their standard of living by living within their means, saving, and building wealth over time. That's who is hardest hit by inflation, because it devalues their savings. It's amazing how "regressive taxes" are EVIL and routinely railed against by a certain element, yet this one has gone unnoticed for so long.

The purpose of the TSA is to get Americans (even more) used to the idea that government agents can search you whenever they deem it necessary, without a warrant. Sure, a long time ago some old white men wrote a 4th Amendment saying they can't do that, yeah sure, but by stepping into the airport you automatically agreed to waive your inalienable right, EULA-style. So you see it's all legitimate and there's nothing to see here.

That's how a great deal of business gets done, including by those who have no interest in running for office.

One of the very first requirements for competence (mere competence, not greatness) is the ability to realistically assess what you are (and are not) capable of doing, and in what rough timeframe, and then to plan accordingly.

The real question is, if they so badly mismanage something so common and widely implemented elsewhere as one Web site, why should they be trusted with anything more complex?

He performed a similar flip-flop on the issue of homosexual marriages. It's nothing unusual from a high-level politician.

Personally I believe homosexual marriage is one of those "distraction issues", something that never really goes away so you can pull it out and make a controversy over it anytime something else starts making you look bad. I could speculate that he was initially against homosexual marriage because that is generally consistent with his claim of being a Christian, something that was important at that time because many voters believed he was Muslim (and for some strange reason, people actually care about the private personal beliefs of elected officials whose job couldn't be less personal). I could also speculate that he flip-flopped on it because he perceived that this was the way the winds of popular opinion were blowing.

I doubt very much that any federal politician actually gives a damn about who gets married and whether it's called "marriage" or a "civil union". I do think that getting the federal government involved in a matter that has always been handled by the states is a handy way to grab power and cause people to be even more accustomed than before to federal involvement in daily life. Now that is something politicians really do care about; they rarely miss an opportunity. No Child Left Behind was Bush's method of doing the same thing, since K-12 education had always been the domain of the states.

Abortion, homosexual marriage, gays in the military, flag-burning, rich vs. poor, black vs. white, and others that don't come to mind right now are all distraction issues and have all been used as such. No federal politician actually wants any of them to go away because they like pulling them out when convenient. Sadly the American public (as represented by the mass media) has a terribly short memory.

Jumping on the first flimsy excuse to dismiss the argument is never going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with you. I for one was hoping you would explain why Obama's plan was similar (or maybe, effectively identical) to Romney's. The calmer, more rational person at least provided something to read that I can critically analyze regardless of who's name is on it.

If I had been so deeply affected by a Fox News personality that the mere mention of her Web site made me want to be so childish, I'd be ashamed to admit it. But I would admit it. I don't know you and I don't know the user "mi" but so far he has been the calm, rational, believably sincere person who isn't trying to be dismissive, isn't calling other people names ("moron") and isn't trying to change an abstract debate into a popularity contest concerning who's name is on what.

I want to believe you can do better.

I have no complaints with SpamAssassin running on my Linux host.

I don't understand what you mean here. I can access my isp-privided pop3/imap mail server from anywhere. I can also SSH into my main desktop from anywhere and do it that way. What is Gmail providing that these cannot accomplish (other than targeted marketing)?

Actually in all the ways that truly matter, that's a sign that you really do "get it". Something so frivolous as commercial amusement should never become so important. The real danger is that companies other than EA may really get this right, make such idolatry comfortable, meaning that the dangers of such horribly faulty priorities in life may never be noticed by those who didn't already understand them.

There's something horrifically empty and meaningless about a life in which this or any other form of entertainment would be a really important, high-priority concern.

I would say both the customers and EA are the "bitches" of something far more tragic.

The only reason a large enterprise gives a damn about its customers is because they believe it is more profitable to be seen doing so. If they believe they can profit without bothering, the expense of doing so will be dispensed with.

Giving a damn about your fellow human beings, how you are treating them, what that says about who you are and which ideals you represent, and what kind of world it helps to build one baby step at a time ... well, these humanizing things don't scale nearly as well as do organizations and top-down implementations.

People may say "well it's just a game" because they don't appreciate the full effect of the massive acceptance and endorsement of the business practices creating said game. When large numbers tolerate this and reward it with money (the language and lifeblood of corporations), it becomes much more than just a game. It becomes a precedent.

If we had politicians who didn't give a fuck about public opinion and perhaps even had contempt for the way it was openly swayed and outright engineered by all the fearmongering, we'd have never had a Patriot Act to begin with.

Amending the Constitution to make every Senator an elected official was a huge mistake. It's one of those things that sounds nice until you realize what it actually causes. You really do need state-appointed Senators who can and will halt rash and badly-written laws because they aren't vulnerable to "Senator X voted to make us less safe!" rhetoric at election time. It would also go a long way to curtailing the federal practice of bullying the States by withholding their own damned money if they don't do as they're told.

Is Chris Rock a self-hating African American for doing a skit about how he "loves black people" but "hates niggers" (his words) and fears getting mugged or assaulted by them and owns guns to protect himself from them?

The general unwritten rule of Political Correctness is that a member of a minority group who criticizes that group cannot be considered a racist or ethnocentrist.

Of course you know, the childish concern over who hates whom and what terrible name with which you should brand them has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the truth of what they say. You do know that, right? If the worst racist in the world claims that two plus two equals four, he would be correct, unless you want to give such scum the power to redifine all of mathematics while you're at it.

Actually, prior to mandatory public schooling, America was held in awe by the rest of the world because it had one of the most educated populations known. I urge you to read The Underground History of American Education if you would. It will be quite a revelation.

The public schooling system was inspired by the Hindu caste system in which about 1-2% could rule the rest with no fear of revolts, and the system used by Prussia that regimented their society and gained them power. This was done by old-money families and other monied interests who had a dreadful fear of American entrepreneurial ethic in which over 90% of people owned their own business and had their own independent livelihood. That doesn't jive with factory production and corporate systems at all. The founders of public education were quite open about this in the late 1800s when they gained ground. They didn't hide it; they were proud of their reasons and motivations.