Actually, it was Pennsylvania State University that found Mann's research to be scientifically accurate, not the University of Pennsylvania (although you were correct that it was the University where he teaches and that receives income from the funding of his climate research. The interesting thing is that the person who put together the group to investigate him was the President of Pennsylvania State University, the same President who put together the group which initially "investigated" the allegations of sexual misconduct against Sandusky (that found no reason to contact the police about those allegations, even though the law clearly required them to do so).

Stop having any interaction at all with government school teachers. They aren't to blame for anything. There's nothing they can do. About anything. Ever. So they're of no particular use to you.

If you care about them, you'll teach your own children. Or find a school or a teacher who works for you, answers to you, and can be held responsible by you.

Except that if the price increase had waited until the demand increase, than there would not have been a supply increase until after the actual need had passed.

Mann's research has been found to be scientifically accurate by an investigative team appointed by the same University President who could not be bothered to investigate allegations of child molestation against Sandusky, a University President who had a vested interest in Mann's research being found to be scientifically accurate to the tune of several million dollars in research grants.

Why wouldn't "the poor" decide to produce something instead of starving? Why do you think so little of "the poor"?

If you actually looked at a crowd of "the poor" in the US, you'd conclude they're not in danger of starving any time soon.

In a free country, there wouldn't be "the masses", nor would anyone be "kept". Free people are individuals. They make their own choices.

You will never get ME with sugar and power ... chocolate, OTOH

But the Indians rejected upgraded F-15 and F-18's so what does that say for their engineering judgement?

Except that you don't just need to prove that a new drug is safe and effective. You need to prove that it is more effective than existing drugs. Under current regulations, aspirin would not be approved for use.

Patents and Copyrights are for rich companies....not people.

How about if we call them "people who learned from their mistake and are determined not to repeat it"? If you want their help to actually build a better country for the future, you might start there.

And the rest of us actually want smaller, less powerful, less intrusive government.

The erectile dysfunction drugs were all initially being developed for other purposes. It was an accident when the first one, during testing for its original purpose, was discovered to help erectile dysfunction. The others were all the similar drugs under study for the original purpose that the first one was being developed for when the news broke.
So, the fact that drug companies have developed new antibiotics, but haven't made much money is in your mind evidence that market based solutions have failed? And it is evidence that drug companies don't develop them? Maybe the problem is not market based solutions but is rather the government interference in the market?

And now you're assisting your guy with his present-day wrongdoing -- not historical wrongs, but wrongs that are being committed right now and will be committed tomorrow and are planned for many tomorrows to come. And all those people you hate just announced their policy, and they're on the right side of the issue.

Those clods deserve what they get. Maybe the green freaks will let the gas companies build some pipelines. What irony that NE is 200 miles from one of the great gas fields on the planet in the Marcellus Shale. Shiver on, fools.

I did not say anything about that being "a justification" or "the purpose" of anything. The point is that terrorists are less of a threat now. Consider it a complete coincidence if you want. Consider it a mistake to take terrorism seriously in 2001 and 2002 if you want. None of that changes the point.

People who worried about terrorism in 2002 may see less reason be as worried about it now. Why shouldn't they change policy to reflect a new situation?