So rose-colored glasses for everyone then? Or maybe green... "The green-tinted spectacles worn by every citizen of the Emerald City are symbolize the Wizard’s deceit and the power of perception. These mandatory spectacles enable a deception, as the Emerald City isn’t really as green as it appears—the city seems so green because the green spectacles color every person’s perception of the city. However, the Wizard doesn’t trick his subjects for any malicious purpose. He only wants his people to be happy, and in the Wizard’s view, this requires a bit of deceit."

I for one welcome our new immortal mice overlords.

While it is fun to think the bird was having fun, I would suggest it was in fact having a frustrating time getting at the food remnants frozen to the can lid. The roof peak was the only level/stable place to stand while pecking at the ice, and each slide was, in fact, a failure to recognize that the lid will slide down the slope when both talons are used for leverage against the ice rather than gripping the slippery rooftop. perhaps inadvertent âoefunâ was had, but each return to the level perch was a reset for pecking purposes, not a ride on the chairlift. Crows are a prime example of how different other animalsâ(TM) intelligence can be from our own. But it is unwise to assume that behavior patterns that look familiar are based on the same intentions, in part because it works both ways. When we see this video we assume a human like trait. When we watch others though, we see various highly intelligent animals make clumsy attempts to do what we like to think of as uniquely human things (e.g., walk on two feet, complex vocalizations, etc), and assume they must be less intelligent than we think. I just remind myself that when I climb a tree i must make the squirrels shake their heads and laugh. âoeLook at him. Damned fool.â

Sometimes people conform around the things because they are obvious and compelling. In an emergency like this consensus with compromise means we are all pulling in the same direction. In such times those who default to contrarianism, are unable to be reasoned with, and insist on indoctrinating others are a real problem. There is space for dissent and even pacifism in wartime. But there is no room for outright insurrection. Especially not in the name of some disingenuous âoeslippery slopeâ censorship argument.

We are not just talking about the pandemic either. We are dealing with climate change, institutional discrimination of all kinds, income inequality, Russian/Chinese/Iranian/etc governments hacking/ratfucking/bounty hunting us, and more and more every day. These things are still things precisely because democracies are bad at the big stuff when they are divided. We need consensus and the only way to reach that is reason backed with evidence. Itâ(TM)s how our justice system works. Itâ(TM)s how our education system works. Itâ(TM)s how the job works that pays for the thing your reading this on.

So when evidence is shouted down with conspiracy theories, even fucking Disney knows itâ(TM)s time to stop subsidizing that particular little billion dollar soap box.

Not talking about Cheeto Jesus. Talking about the last 40 years of big "R" Republican politics. In case you weren't paying attention, the Southern Strategy was the beginning of what has now reached its logical conclusion: play the yokels for fools by claiming to be really into morals and such, while stealing all their money and driving the nation over a cliff. (Or "drowning it in a bathtub".)

And the idea that 60% of republicans did not vote for him in the primaries does not excuse the fact that 90+% voted for him in the general election (against someone who may have been unethical or whatever your hate-du-jour, but was clearly competent and would not have caused the utter chaos the orange one has caused). And moreover, the fact that he still has the support of 80% of republicans currently should say volumes.

Do please pay attention...

He is an ignorant fool. Telling yourself he's really smart and yet needs to be constantly told that he is wrong about life and death matters is the real-world equivalent of telling his fat naked ass that his clothes are the most bigly stable genius ones you have ever seen. Dont be a fool...like him.

There is NO SYMMETRY in US party politics. One party is run by the most greedy and cynical among us who will almost literally tell the naked president his outfit is fabulous. While the other is run by those who often want to overspend and over-legislate, but still has a soul. To equate them in some kind of "I'm sensible and the rest of you are idiots" diatribe is the real danger because it creates a false choice between apathy and blindly joining the blue/red team.

The problem we are facing because of this false choice is that one of the parties is ACTIVELY KILLING PEOPLE because they appeal to the weak minded (and the top 5%, who profit/prey on those same people.) No taxes? Sure, we just need to let the rural "low-information voter" that its good for them because its good for 'Merica.

If you are as smart as you indicate you think you are, you should realize that party politics are not random. They are a function of what sells. Simple answers sell to simple people. And because of various developments in the past two decades (rise of the city, decrease in crime, working women, etc. etc.) the Republican party has taken this race-to-the-bottom to its absolute extreme. I mean look at who they elected...

If the headline was "President Doesn't Give a Shit About Cybersecurity or Russian Hacking", would that pass your test?

Nowhere do you talk about what is actually true. Which means you're not particularly interested in what's true. You're only interested in putting every "point-of-view" on equal footing. Because after all, who are you gonna believe? The "failing" NY Times? Why not take brietbart seriously? It's much more emotionally satisfying.

Pointing out the fact that social media has become infected with weaponized viral click-bait is not a conspiracy of losers. It is exactly what all journalists do, which is to look into all the reasons why such a historic event took place. The fact that light is shined on such practices means journalism is still alive and well.

The internet is undermining our ability as citizens to discern fact from fiction without resorting to specialized research most do not have time for using tools most do not have. And BTW, yes fascists and fake news outlets are the enemy. Go look up who calls themselves alt-right. Or maybe you only read brietbart?

Simple answer: Because voting for Trump is a choice to look the other way and reward someone who sees women as - to put it lightly - lesser humans, while voting for Clinton in part because she is a woman is an attempt to redress THOUSANDS of years of female disempowerment.

And for the record, very few are voting for her BECAUSE she is a woman, most believe a woman president would by definition be more interested in women's issues than a man - especially one like Trump. And unlike you apparently, most people consider women's issues to be worthy of attention.

Finally, the fact that you consider the nature of one's genitals to be the primary difference between men and women demonstrates a shallow understanding of human nature.

They would of course love to have a competitor for payments, but they cant take the risk of short term retaliation.

Apple will not bring anything new to the retailers. Anyone using Apple Pay already has a debit/credit card they are already quite willing and able to swipe and sign/press. They wouldn't have a phone in the first place. Plus the advantage to the consumer is still theoretical at best. I still remember wondering why swiping is so much worse than near-field "tapping". The effect was exactly the same and there was less that could go wrong with the tech (plus the security risks inherent with broadcast).

Even more importantly, large credit card companies can insinuate a rate increase of a few tenths of a penny and low-margin, high-volume outfits like CVS and Rite Aide will cry uncle and ask what they can do to help. That's power.

If the courts were to give the retailers cover by slapping the CC companies with fines and/or directives for monopolistic behavior that harms the consumer, they might be more willing to push the changes through.

First of all, you're an ignorant blow-hard who could not be more wrong about other nations in the region. (Given that you're likely a "low information" Fox viewer, this is not surprising.) The Lebanese president, half of the cabinet, and half of the parliament are Christian. Fully 10% of the Jordanian parliament are Christian (even though they are only 7% of the population). Before the current civil war, Syria had a strong Christian presence in their culture and government. There are even Christians in the Palestinian Authority (although none in Hamas). So you're A Idiot on that front.

Second, why should the US maintain a "special" relationship with Israel if they are only marginally better than their neighbors when in comes to tolerance and human rights? This is not to say that Muslim-Israeli citizens are treated badly per se (although they do not have much power), but the fact that Israel claims that Gaza and the West Bank without offering any rights to it's residents looks a lot like apartheid to the rest of the world. While the US is unlikely to cut aid significantly (or even at all) in the near future, until they drop either the notion of a Jewish state and grant the Palestinians citizenship or cut Gaza and the WB loose, they are going to continue to feel pressure until they are completely on their own.

It is not all Israel's fault, but they do share the blame and have the power to stop it. And it does have to stop.

...welcome our new genetically engineered super-yeast overlords. May they raise our bread to new heights - like 40 feet in the air maybe...

While the consensus here appears to be that the "ends justified the means", what mechanism should be used to actually label someone a whistleblower vs a criminal/traitor? After all, not everyone thinks the NSA should be barred from reading emails or keeping meta-data. (I tend to agree that they overstepped their mandate and should have more explicit limitations, but not that they are an out-of-control menace that must be stopped at all costs).

If, for example, someone working for the NSA thinks a particular program is "bad" and leaks details that leave it hobbled, should they be given a pass because some percentage of the US population agrees? Should it be based on opinion polls? Maybe just /. commenters? Should we mimic the Romans when they honored Passover by letting the crowds pick a criminal for pardon? We can pardon a Turkey and a whistleblower for Thanksgiving.

The point I am trying to make is that Snowden may deserve leniency based on "mitigating circumstances", but he is not accused of "political" crimes. He is accused of leaking state secrets. Such cases cannot be left to trial by Twitter. Yes, trust in government is at an all-time low, but that does not make it irrelevant. And it certainly doesn't make it wrong on everything. If people get to do whatever they want in the name of "fighting tyranny", we will end up with a kind of "Stand Your Ground" precedent for leakers - "I felt threatened by the NSA spying on penguins in Peru, so no criminal charges should be brought."