Well, I used "creationism" as shorthand for the result. 52% of Republicans believe that the world was created by God some time in the last 10,000 years. 34% of *Democrats* took that position in the Gallup survey. It is possible that not all of the people who believed that call themselves "creationists"; but generally people reject "-ist" labels put on them by others.

What you have to do is compare favorability ratings for presidents *at the same point in their tenure*. It's normal for presidential approval ratings to drop in their second term as they attempt more contentious things, and then rise somewhat after they are out of office. At this point in George W.'s tenure his approval rate was 36.5%.

The president with the highest second term approval rating since tracking began was Clinton, at 60.6% favorable; edging out even Dwight Eisenhower by 1/10 point. And his approval has risen since. Clinton is president that Americans miss the most (using your argument), because at present he holds a staggering 66% favorable retrospective favorable rating.

 

Taxpayer funding of science has *not* produced politicized science; not during the period, say, from the end of WW2 to the end of the 20th C. Yeah, it *sounds* plausible that federal funding should produce politicized research, but if you ever worked in a science lab or with researchers on Federal grants you'd know that it just didn't happen.

So what has changed? Thus far, for the majority of researchers, not much. But there have been two big issues. One is the rise of political concern over climate change research. The second is the shift of the Republican party from a industrial state based, business-oriented party to a Southern regional party driven by social and religious issues. 52% of Republicans believe in creationism in a recent Gallup poll, as opposed to 34% of Democrats (still shocking). Having a majority membership of a major political party has given religious ideologues political influence they haven't enjoyed since the 1920s.

Sending a message?

True, but energy *sources* are fungible in an electric system. That makes a huge environmental difference, as we're not forced to bear unreasonable *marginal* costs for energy technologies that have environmental dis-economies of scale.

Local shortfalls of wind or solar can be alleviated by a more efficient grid, but even if they are as unreliable as you claim, every 24 kwh net of wind energy put onto the grid is roughly one gallon of petroleum saved and 20 lb of CO2 emissions saved.

The problem with this comparison is that it assumes no energy is consumed in producing and transporting diesel fuel or gasoline.

No, the populist always wins because there are a lot more stupid people than smart people. It's the fundamental flaw of "democracy".

Yes for some of the files, no for others.

The police have to restrict their search to the places and things specified in a warrant. On the other hand they aren't required to turn a blind eye to any evidence of other potential crimes that turns up during a properly conducted search. Suppose search your garage for a stolen car but find piles of money bags from a bank that had recently been robbed instead. They could seize those bags at least temporarily because it's reasonable to assume they been stolen, even though the warrant was for something completely different, and if they're looking for stolen car then it's reasonable for them to look in the garage.

In this case they found files marked as US government property and not for redistribution in some place you might store a gun; say a drawer or file cabinet. It was OK for them to take those files until they'd determined that the reporter had obtained them legally -- which she had. They're no different from anything else which

The problem was her interview notes; these were neither specified on the warrant, nor was there any reason to believe they belonged to anyone else. They had no right to take those. What's more the damage is incalculable. Sure, they government can't use any evidence obtained from the notes in criminal prosecutions, but the concern with whistle-blowers is tht they'll be subjected to non-legal punishment.

Or my case, where I actually did die (ventricular fibrillation) because humans didn't believe I could be having a heart attack. At 28. They sure changed their tune quickly though when I hit the floor without a pulse.

Well yes, they want to protect whistleblowers... from themselves.

No you don't get it. GP thinks that this search is entirely "reasonable".

What evidence? It's not like any crime has been committed by the reporter, so why would there even be a trial? You're missing the entire point of the "raid". They can even say "I'm sorry" now and give the stuff back. Photocopies and scans of relevant documents are surely sitting on the desk of the TSA supervisor already.

No, he's going to let all the Mexicans in and give them a reward. Why? Because it will enrage US-born citizens and create divisiveness. And that is the heart of politics. A divided enemy fighting with himself is much easier to control than a united front that doesn't like you at all. You think Obama's allusions to class warfare, racism, etc, are accidental or spring from innocence/ignorance? No, these are carefully thought out ploys to inflame and anger people. "Together we stand, divided we fall". This is not a new saying. But it shows where your founding fathers' interests were, versus the interests of the modern day politician.

Just make sure you have your burning permit, citizen.

Then pray that your encryption method is not one that the NSA already has the keys for and/or can crack without breaking a sweat...