On Thanksgiving this year, I find myself with very little to be thankful for. But one of the few things this President has done well is the privatization of space exploration, even if it was mostly by getting out of the way.
It seems the Wisconsin appeals court has struck down a ban on switchblades (in the home, it seems) on Second Amendment grounds. This seems to be like a significant step forward with positive implications for gun rights. Granted, it's only one state.
Knife bans have never made much sense to me. Knives are tools as well as weapons, and AS weapons, they aren't very useful offensively. Before you can hurt someone with a knife, you have to *catch* them. And then catch the next person with a substantial head start. And so on, and so on. If used as a weapon at all, they are much more useful defensively ("If you come within reach, I will hurt you"). The same applies to swords, though with less utility as a tool.
This decision is only the beginning, though. For the next steps in Wisconsin, see the truth about knives on the topic.
What color is the sky of the planet these people live on? Practically by definition "climate change", even if it was real and not a made-up apocalypse fantasy to fuel the religious fervor of those who look with contempt upon traditional religions, is gender neutral. It affects the whole planet. It doesn't care what you've got or haven't got between your legs. The temperature of the planet affects everyone equally because we are all on the same fracking planet.
First, while NOAA may have no influence over operations at Science, we have seen (in the ClimateGate emails) significant evidence of influence and attempted influence of scientific journals by prominent climate scientists seeking to block publication of articles they did not like. Successfully. And get people they did not like removed from the editorial board of those journals. Successfully. So asserting that NOAA has no official influence over a scientific journal is misleading at best, and whether the journal was pressured by scientists at NOAA unofficially is one of the questions Lamar Smith is seeking to answer.
Second, it is quite possible to rush a paper to publication without involving the journal at all. The authors could rush their work instead, without any influence exerted on the journal at all.
Third, there's an interesting little tidbit dropped here. The paper took 50% longer to average to publish and went out to more than the usual three reviewers. From reading the ClimateGate emails, I get the impression that sending a paper to more than the usual number of reviewers means that at least one of the first three reviewers recommended against publication, and rather than reject the paper or possibly make recommended edits, someone made the decision to seek new reviewers instead.
Overall, I find Ars Technica's attempt to defend this study to be potentially significant evidence for the prosecution.
Jeb Bush comes out in favor of internet sales taxes
This is so insane that the only thing I can think of to explain it is that he must be trying to chase down a big donor, probably one with interests in the "brick and mortar" companies he's talking about.
Doesn't matter, though. Calling for a tax on the internet is a disqualifier for a Republican candidate.
What often escapes the attention of those without the appropriate technical expertise is that encryption represents nothing more than the ability to hold a private conversation. That's a right implicit in the First and Fourth amendments. It is also something that harms no one.
It's worth noting that the suit appears to be over the "photo" portion of the ID, and he has a non-photo (but legal) identification card. So it's not like he's asking for no ID at all, just ID without a picture.
Wisconsin John Doe investigation targeted national figures
The bulk of the article is behind the Wall Street Journal's paywall, but the core point is here: the operation in Wisconsin was not just targeting local political figures. They were searching for information on national figures as well, and the people leading the investigation in Wisconsin were closely connected to other national names -- such as Lois Lerner, who was working on a similar project at the IRS.
How many other states had similar projects that we haven't learned about?
The use of tax agencies and even law enforcement agencies as political weapons is the mark of a police state.
The problem with accepting refugees is that some of the "refugees" want to kill us, and we have no way of determining which ones. Further, it is insane to drag hundreds of thousands of people literally halfway around the world to "resettle" them in a nation where they will have no cultural connections whatsoever. Is there a better formula for producing alienated, isolated, radicalized potential recruits for terrorist groups -- even assuming that they are not terrorists already?
It makes much more sense to offer humanitarian aid on-site and allow other nations in the region to accept the refugees. That those other nations mostly do not want to accept them says quite a lot.