j_b

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAndHealth.html

A good thing too since studies show that moderate drinkers have greater longevity than abstainers.

Right, 'wit' like "lick sack" and "j_bot is in his mom's basement" and hundreds of equivalent unsolicited moronic comments for years on end. I can tell that you are a connoisseur

Bullshit. Answering to your stream of moronic posts aimed at me isn't equivalent to your thug tactics.

pot, kettle what? so you want me to take the simpleton's abuse without answering it? If you expect me to be continuously smeared by thugs without my pointing it out you are clearly mistaken (as should be obvious after all these years). Also note they behave as they do because you (and others) appear to think it is perfectly alright. In other words, the way I see it, you are part of the problem.

As dire as it sounds, "wholesaling slaughter to the cheapest bidder" would be a slight improvement to the no-bid cost-plus contract issued to Blackwater, Halliburton, etc ..: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-bid_contract

Indeed, by now, KKK's goon tactics are entirely predictable.

right, more incisive highschool level repartee from cc.com's dimwitted brigade

here comes troll #2

go away, stupid troll

It's always been official Associating "unhappiness" with criticism of the society we live in is the standard MO of right wing neanderthals: as if everything was hunky dory if we were just willing to let ourselves be "happy" (retard!)

I am officially depressed now.

Is the police in Washington schools?

Finally, I got mine in the mail yesterday and it is even better than what I recalled. Lots of awesome pics to drool over (makes me reconsider my retirement from mixed climbing). Nice pic of Austin too!

Oh, really. You don't see what routine over the top police enforcement of school discipline (in the context of crumbling institutions, massive privatization of the public space and slashing of the social safety net) has to do with a police state?

The US schools with their own police The charge on the police docket was "disrupting class". But that's not how 12-year-old Sarah Bustamantes saw her arrest for spraying two bursts of perfume on her neck in class because other children were bullying her with taunts of "you smell". "I'm weird. Other kids don't like me," said Sarah, who has been diagnosed with attention-deficit and bipolar disorders and who is conscious of being overweight. "They were saying a lot of rude things to me. Just picking on me. So I sprayed myself with perfume. Then they said: 'Put that away, that's the most terrible smell I've ever smelled.' Then the teacher called the police." The policeman didn't have far to come. He patrols the corridors of Sarah's school, Fulmore Middle in Austin, Texas. Like hundreds of schools in the state, and across large parts of the rest of the US, Fulmore Middle has its own police force with officers in uniform who carry guns to keep order in the canteens, playgrounds and lessons. Sarah was taken from class, charged with a criminal misdemeanour and ordered to appear in court. Each day, hundreds of schoolchildren appear before courts in Texas charged with offences such as swearing, misbehaving on the school bus or getting in to a punch-up in the playground. Children have been arrested for possessing cigarettes, wearing "inappropriate" clothes and being late for school. In 2010, the police gave close to 300,000 "Class C misdemeanour" tickets to children as young as six in Texas for offences in and out of school, which result in fines, community service and even prison time. What was once handled with a telling-off by the teacher or a call to parents can now result in arrest and a record that may cost a young person a place in college or a job years later. "We've taken childhood behaviour and made it criminal," said Kady Simpkins, a lawyer who represented Sarah Bustamantes. "They're kids. Disruption of class? Every time I look at this law I think: good lord, I never would have made it in school in the US. I grew up in Australia and it's just rowdy there. I don't know how these kids do it, how they go to school every day without breaking these laws." [..] more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools

It's not the end goal. It's a necessary condition to achieve the goals you listed.

in other words, you think that regulating business in order to have control over what we eat or to prevent them from shitting in our bed is unnecessary as if history had provided any evidence that it were the case. Fortunately for us, ~80% of the American public disagrees with you.

Not only do you ignore that corporations opposed regulations for decades before they realized it was in their interest but you were the one grossly oversimplifying the dynamics behind regulation during the Progressive era, and now you are grossly misstating the relationship of businesses to regulations as shown by a simple assessment of the forces behind deregulation over the last 40 years (business interests), or the forces opposing re-regulation of the financial sector today (big players of the financial sector). Nobody said that politicians should oblige their cronies by creating regulations that have nothing to do with public welfare, such as appears to be the case in your example (could you have picked a more arcane example?). Big players capturing the political process doesn't invalidate the need to regulate business, it points to electing ethical politicians, which in turn points to getting big money out of politics (step that you likely oppose).

Occupy Wall Street's Livestream Operators Arrested

Isn't the authors's point that organized financial interests, far from fighting Federal regulation, actually sought it out in order to secure commercial advantages for themselves? That's a pretty vague statement (of course corporations act toward their commercial interests!). Corporations eventually joined the chorus for federal regulations because a) federal regulations gave uniform guidelines for operation instead of a state by state (city by city) patchwork of often incompatible rules and b) because it enhanced the credibility of their products by getting rid of the rotten apples in the barrel (every brand is hurt when the public distrust industry following scandals). The context of the period being that of a wave of popular support for safety and fairness in the workplace as well as for reining in dishonest business interests who misrepresented their products. For example, Sinclair's The Jungle that described conditions in the meat packing industry was published in 1906 and although Sinclair was making a case against the horrible plight of workers, the public response was horror at the unsanitary conditions prevalent in meat packing. Business interests having a major say in the shape of regulations isn't disputed but painting it as a desire to create monopolies rather than address public perception of their products as well as fitting within a broader context of reining abuses and creating a predictable business environment is rather simplistic (and self serving for the free marketeering crowd).

A rather simplistic view of the societal forces that led to industry regulation during the Progressive era. I find the following much more compelling: "Ending its 27-year stranglehold on proposals for federal pure food and drug legislation, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and its companion bill, the Meat Inspection Act, on June 30, 1906. An unprecedented convergence of consumer, scientific, and industrial support in 1906 prompted such action; most industries even planned for it, hoping regulation would restore the competitiveness of their products on weak foreign and domestic markets." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646146/pdf/amjph00277-0020.pdf

don't you two forget to wipe the drool off your chins before you go to bed.

Let's compare her academic resume to, say, yours... Typical dodge. The issue isn't my resume (although it compares more than favorably) but hers next to that of the nearly 100% of scientists studying evolution, climate change, etc .. Let's face it she isn't smart enough to realize the limits of her competence (although leave it to the 2 cc.com stooges to pretend otherwise)

Yeah right, pointing out that anti-science dimwits aren't very smart is so insecure.