zableed wrote: "You can't have a consensus in science. It has to be 100%."
Since when? That's so not true. Perhaps I should have said "all reputable scientists." About 3% are on the dole with grants from self-serving reality-deniers like the coal and oil industry, the Koch Brothers, and right-wing, faux-Christian charlatans.
But, you're right about one thing, a 6-month hiatus from bad practices will not cure the problem, which has been in the making for more than 60 years.
zableed, I don't know why you think the cartoon is "disgusting" for depicting a compounded tragedy.
Moreover, in reply to your rant about global warming:
97% of scientists who have studied it agree that global climate change is real, and largely man-made. It's (obviously) creating cascading disasters. Why don't you do a little research yourself, instead of just swallowing self-serving, wing-nut talking points that deny reality?
Oklahoma's Senators -- Inhofe & Coburn -- repeatedly voted against federal disaster assistance for other parts of the country. Will they decline federal assistance for tornado wreckage in Moore & Oklahoma City? I doubt it; like most Republicans currently in Congress, they seem to have a large sense of entitlement, layered with mean-spirited hypocrisy.
Blue states already contribute more to the federal budget than red states, yet red states get more benefits, and still complain. Go figure.
Excellent point, Keith.
While I abhor targeting specific associations for extra scrutiny by the IRS for solely political reasons, the fact remains that many of these groups were claiming tax-exempt status when their qualifications for that listing was/is questionable.
It seems to me that it's entirely proper to investigate whether any organization is entitled to non-profit, tax-free status when they are obviously engaged in partisan politics, a disqualifier under the law. Of course, the IRS should look at the whole spectrum of self-proclaimed "social welfare" groups, left and right.
Ms. Skrivan knows less about chickens than she thinks. Roosters are the noisy birds. Hens are not, and they don't need a rooster to lay eggs. While it makes sense to limit the number of birds one can keep in city neighborhoods, there is no reason to ban them. The eggs collected are better than those produced by commercial hatcheries, and the birds are likely to be healthier and more humanely treated.
Alprova, sounds like you are a wise and caring Dad. The world needs more like you, instead of narrow-minded control-freaks.
Ikeithlu, especially excellent post at 8:50. Thanks.
Sandy Harris wants enforced pregnancies, even when they endanger the lives and sanity of woman, and the stability of families already struggling. I'm happy to let Ms. Harris make decisions about what happens within her own body. But, she is not entitled to make health and reproductive choices for other women . . . not here, and not even in Cambodia.
Ignorance cannot be blamed on "the government."
Public education and free libraries are available to all. It's not difficult to expand one's knowledge, yet too many people choose to sit for hours -- uncritically and nearly catatonic -- in front of dumb television shows that spiral mindless nonsense around commercial indoctrination. It's a kind of mind pollution, but few seem to question or care.