shirgall

The French may assiduously defend their language from change, but English is partly successful because of how adaptable and broad it has become. In the meantime, French has changed from being the language of diplomacy and travel to English in just a couple of centuries.

Yes, the topic of "conversion" is related, as one of the co-founders obviously didn't drink the anthropogenic climate change kool-aid and convert from science to Marxist like a significant portion of the organization did. I have a theory that all organizations that garner critical mass or mindshare get co-opted to either harness that mass, or to render it harmless, or both, and Greenpeace fits my model.

Note the different pronunciations... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mainstream I find the Cambridge Dictionary US pronunciation of "mainstream" to be offensive...

The think the term "war" implies at least a scale at a tribal level, where the strategic intent is to dominate or obliterate the other tribe in organized sustained conflict. This, however, is probably a aspect of the definition that requires refining. If a one-on-one conflict becomes a war, I think it has to be sustained for a significant period of time, with numerous engagements.

I sometimes get good cultural acceptance brownie points for calling foreign cities out in their native pronunciation when people from those cities are present, especially Shanghai, Budapesht, and Barthelona... make sure you get it right so it's not seen as mockery instead of honor.

Consider this article when identifying red flags... http://www.bustle.com/articles/126915-these-professions-are-most-likely-to-have-sex-at-holiday-work-parties "These Professions are Most Likely to Have Sex at Holiday Work Parties"

Meanwhile... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

At 3:12 you comment that background checks are usually not performed at gun shows. The reality is that background checks are usually performed at gun shows because people are buying the most from licensed dealers. The exception is for person-to-person sales where the parties to the transaction encountered one another at a gun show. The statistic used to claim that 25-50% of vendors at gun shows are not licensed is by including those dealers that are there to sell memorabilia, T-shirts, and so on. If you only include gun vendors, the vast majority of gun sales at gun shows are performed by FFLs, and all FFLs have to perform background checks on all purchases. 18 U.S.Code 923(j)

I'm not going to call it murder in all cases. If some country declares war on yours, mobilizes forces, and sends them to occupy your land, take your stuff, and to rape, kill, or enslave your people, then self-defense in the form of war seems pretty justified to me. Even if you had no state of your own, forceful invasion merits forceful defense.

No, NAP is not applied to countries. I have argued that lethal force doctrine should apply to countries though, as in the universal, "the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent."

1934 National Firearms Act and the subsequent court case US vs. Miller, where the Supreme Court determined Miller cold not have a sawed off shotgun because it had no military purpose, and therefore could be taxed. This was when the slippery slope began, and it was because of Prohibition. One could argue an earlier time was the Dred Scott decision, because they didn't want that slave earning full citizenship, buying a gun, and carrying it around. That was not centered on the gun, though, but personhood.

A driver's license is required to drive your car on public streets. The equivalent for guns is called a carry permit, in states that require it.

I think the strategy of choice would be to completely ignore this buffoon except to openly express our disdain of him if asked. I love how they have flocked to this "no fly" list idea. It's such a blatantly arbitrary tool where you have no idea if your name is on the list, and it's next to impossible to get off of it, that it's trivial to attack. When people say, "we have to do something" then say "do the work to repeal the second amendment if you think you have so much support." Remember that the second amendment itself is no protection. It was a concession given by the Federalists so they could be continue to be allowed to rule. I am not the caller in the show below, but it really resonates with me.

Not unusual. It helps Obama push his gun control agenda as he flagellates looking for a legacy. Clearly this incident ruined his chances at climate agenda notoriety. Did you see how tired he was making his speeches?

Did I ever express anything other than admiration for his marketing? I sure as heck don't share his views in general.

The fascination is with the goring of sacred cows, not his political views. If anything, everyone is jealous of his self-marketing savvy.

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/894 Apollo 16 booster rocket impact site found,

You're headed in the right direction. The scruples argument is missing an element known as "The Doctrine of Competing Harms", which in essence argues that it is appropriate to take an action that endangers another if inaction would be a greater danger to others. If a crazed bomber may escape to kill again and certainly is likely to, it can okay to endanger the hostage in the moment. The typical Doctrine of Competing Harms scenario is the more mundane swerving across the double-yellow line to avoid a pedestrian when driving around a blind corner and there's a possibility of unseen oncoming traffic. Even so, I don't think it can be argued that coldly planning and executing the murder of terrorists' families has either this kind of necessity, immediacy, or even a paucity of alternative approaches.

In Portland where this is done 3% of total revenue for utilities went to the "general fund" of the city, so they were bribed not to complain about it.

She recommends 23andme, and here's a little background on them: http://www.examiner.com/article/fda-approves-revamped-23andme-direct-to-consumer-genetic-testing

This is, of course, a complete failure of the US educational system, which is supposed to produce happy, productive citizens eager to contribute to furthering American values and traditions. Or did I read the wrong pamphlet? Could be too much Fallout 4.

Wikipedia has a pretty good who's who list of the key players in neoconservative circles. I've always thought that the best exemplar was Rumsfeld, but the best spoken would be John Bolton.

My lit class where we talked about Streetcar was 35 years ago, but I remember spending time on the concept of "fallen woman". She had lost her innocence and therefore was no longer smiled upon by the fates. She held her social class to be higher than it really was, etc. etc.

The goal is to provide value for value. Ads would make me less likely to visit, and less likely to subscribe.

I was more interested in why resisting symbols is portrayed as a disability by the media. Of course, the media loves its symbols because they are easy to use. Of course, I also remember that George Carlin said, "symbols are for the symbol-minded." It might have been a bigger influence than I thought.