shirgall

He still plays the gun control circuit.

Indeed, Bill was there to plead with the watchers to make better decisions for Kentucky education, not to change Ken's mind.

To use a common Stef counter-argument, so was eliminating slavery. To not eliminate what is wrong because it would be difficult is cowardice.

From The Naked Gun 33 1/3: Urk, this one is better:

...and this month's Jobs numbers disappoint. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-04/big-adp-miss-179k-jobs-far-below-expectations-lowest-print-jan Most people realize that legislating away low-paying jobs doesn't mean people get higher paying jobs, but the people on top of the victimhood game sure know how to confuse an issue but giving everyone hope that they will be the winner.

It is pointless to debate someone not willing to change their mind, imho, and you find that ilk lurking in any ideology. The most telling point of the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate was the question, "What would change your mind?" from the audience, and Bill Nye said, "any evidence that disproves the theory" and Ken Ham said, "nothing".

George Lucas made repeated references (especially in the "Making Of..." specials) to events in the Star Wars prequel movies "rhyming" with themes from the original series. Unfortunately these rhymes came off rather ham-handedly because there was no one gutsy enough to challenge him during the creative process.

The necessary condition to make it murder is intent. Intent is hard to prove. Manslaughter, however, only requires evidence reckless or negligent behavior would a reasonable person would consider likely to result in death and it did have such a result. When you see a charge fall short of murder then the prosecution could not prove intent. Self-defense is a positive defense, which shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant will have to prove to the jury that a reasonable person knowing what he knew would suspect the victim capable of causing death or grave bodily harm. If the car was operating after a high-speed chase it is entirely likely a policeman would believe it. High speed chases are already evidence of desperation and reckless behavior. Furtive movement cases are real, but it's up to the policeman, his lawyer, his expert witnesses, and his documentation to prove to the jury that it was reasonable to suspect a furtive movement was a danger to his life.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. That idiot is pretty much wikipedia to me. I thought that describing the moderation process as a "drinking club" would up its standing a little.

Unfortunately it rhymes like the Star Wars prequels "rhyme" with the original trilogy.

Whenever you send an email to someone it is a very good idea to put the bottom line up front (called BLUF, which is popular in business writing) so they have the right frame of mind when they read the email. Frankly the paragraph that reads "Trying to engage..." would be a more satisfactory introduction that the list of URLs. Beyond BLUF, perhaps emphasize that you are trying to solve a problem amicably but that you have distasteful alternatives that nonetheless must be considered. If you are trying to evoke empathy, you may want to include your own try at understanding how they feel and how that may be driving their behavior. Because the concern is that your father in particular doesn't listen or dismisses things out of hand, you may want to engage in the same style of writing as newspaper articles, where the lede of the story is right at the top, and deeper levels of detail are elaborated later. It does not take much for people who read emails to read the first sentence, or the first paragraph and either save the rest for later or delete it or ignore it immediately.

I listen to the No Agenda show with Adam Curry and John C Dvorak. http://www.noagendashow.com/ I also subscribe to Peter Schiff's show. http://www.schiffradio.com/

This is why telling someone you are not religious is considered "rejection", and in my experience females deal with rejection far more poorly than males.

A good guideline is that one's home and its upkeep should not take more than 1/3 of one's earnings. Sure, it's a rule of thumb, but you need room for eating, growing, and saving.

Add "Polymath" to the list. "Jack of all trades" becomes "know-it-all" in an instant.

I did state up front that it was from Wired.

Pretty much the definition of a drinking club.

There's a book by Albert Bernstein called Emotional Vampires: Dealing with People Who Drain You Dry that covers a lot of the identification aspect.

It's a hoax because there's a box labeled "glass" in one picture? You can order freakin fluorescent bulbs and they come in a box marked "glass". This "hoax" claim is pretty flimsy.

I took it as an attempt to avoid bikeshedding on that particularly knotty issue. I did not like it but I suspect it was a time-sensitive debate and he wanted to spend time on something else.

The Charles Manson case is quite a bit different. Let's just set the stage, shall we? See http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonsummation.html "The night of the afternoon that Mr. Manson said 'Now is the time for Helter Skelter,' were you still at the ranch that night?" "Yes." "Was this the evening of August the eighth, 1969?" "I believe so." "What took place that evening, Linda, at the ranch?" "I remember I was standing out front at this one point and Charlie came up to me and pulled me off the porch, and I was standing at the very end of the porch, closest to George Spahn's house, and he told me that-" "He told you what?" "He told me to get a change of clothing, a knife, and my driver's license." "Did Mr. Manson tell you to change the clothing you already had on or to bring an additional change of clothing?" "To bring an additional." "To bring an additional change of clothing?" "Yes." "Now, when you walked up to the car, you say Katie and Sadie that is Patricia and Susan-were inside the car. Where was Tex?" "He was standing over by the driver's side." "Was he talking to anyone?" "1 think he was talking to Charlie." "What is the next thing that happened?" "Tex got in the car, and we started-" "What happened at that point?" "We got about to the middle of the driveway, you know, and Charlie called us and told us to stop, and he came to the car to my side of the window, stuck his head in, and told us to leave a sign. He said, 'You girls know what I mean, something witchy,' and that was it." Much of the evidence, of course, I haven't got into yet. There is no question at all that Manson was sending Tex, Sadie, Katie, and Linda out on his mission of murder. Linda testified that they were all wearing dark clothing, Sadie a black T-shirt, Katie a dark T-shirt, Tex with a black turtleneck, sort of a velour velvet shirt. She said all three were wearing dark Levi's. Charles Manson was very much part of the plot, the call to action, and the coverup of those murders. This is quite different than just being a bad parent. Is it reasonable to assume those under Manson's thrall would go off and write poetry, make a movie, or just try their best to live a normal life with that kind of set up? Bad parenting is hardly proximate cause. It may contribute, sure, but it's hard to raise to the level of conspiracy.

I use BeyondPod. The only oddity is that the RSS feed is in reverse order so I have to download unread podcasts when I notice them.

Ah, the debate is just as much of a conundrum for veggies. Do you prefer the flavor and consistency of gas or the brilliant char of charcoal? For veggies, I like to stuff them with cream cheese and spices and grill them over gas in a little tray that holds them upright. The trick is to get them crunchy but not dried out.

Prompted by this: Grilling Over Charcoal Is Objectively, Scientifically Better Than Grilling Over Gashttp://www.wired.com/2013/07/charcoal-grilling-is-objectively-scientifically-better-than-gas-2/ Grilling Over Gas Is Objectively, Scientifically Better Than Grilling Over Charcoalhttp://www.wired.com/2013/07/gas-grilling-is-objectively-scientifically-better-than-charcoal/ Conundrum! Gas is more convenient and makes food taste like bacon. Charcoal gets much hotter than gas, making for better crusts and sears. And, apparently you can't have both. The closest I get on steaks, by the way, is Sous Vide at 134F, plop them on a 425 degree baking steel at the top of the oven, and fire off the broiler for about a minute. Close second is a baked cast iron skillet and a butane torch.

I don't think so. They may be jackasses, but their kind of jackassery very rarely leads to bringing up a psychopath that kills people. Their poor behavior could have just has easily lead to another movie-maker that produces another American Psycho. It is reasonable to assume that a child growing in those conditions will have some dysfunction. It is not reasonable to assume the child make a serious attempt at mass murder. Culpability has to have predictability.