magekillr

Completely agree, and that's partly why I support the current Administration's take on higher education. They're going after the "for profit" universities, such as Kaplan University, that have ridiculously low graduation rates, with only 28% of students paying back their student loans (44 percent of students at the largest for-profit, the University of Phoenix, were repaying their loans). Kaplan is what keeps the WaPo in business, as the newspaper loses money. It's just a scam to take kids' money where they'll eventually drop out or stop going, picking up government money from students they know will not graduate. Thusly why I oppose government money supporting for-profit colleges and uni's like they currently do. And let's be honest: Ivy League charge as much as they do because they can. People going there can afford it most of the time. They get so much funding from tax-write offs by the wealthy, who contribute donations and then recruit people to work for them and their businesses. None of this applies to the stuff going on in England, and I approve of what the government has done in this case (can't be said about many other areas, though, with their austerity fever and savage cuts).

Here in America the price of tuition is ridiculously high, and it's rising far faster than wages. I know it costs something like $500,000 to become a doctor in America, which is partly to blame for our ridiculously high health care costs. Education and health care should both be paid for. Assassin, I completely disagree with your assertion that degrees in "History" shouldn't be subsidized. Going to school is not just about learning things for a job. It's somewhere for people to learn maturity, to find out who they are; in some ways, an education outside of school. The populace as a whole needs to be educated, and not everyone has the ability to handle the hard sciences, math and engineering. So even if they just go for English, they are still contributing far more than if they weren't educated at all. With an educated populace, people learn how to handle money better, they can be more responsible, etc; ie, you subsidize their education, they make better life choices, which essentially reduces government spending in the long run. There's a reason why more education increases a country's GDP, regardless of the degree they're getting. Now I don't think the government should subsidize private university, as this leads to inflating tuition costs (they usually just raise the tuition prices without any need, and pocket the government money). If they want to compete with the public universities and colleges, they'll lower their tuition. I also don't think we should subsidize diploma mills or those "ITT Institute" scams. Also, the US should have more options for their higher education (apprenticeships and such). I think there can be diploma inflation, where cashiers have degrees in English or Philosophy etc. However, the rise in tuition prices in England with the student protests are just a bunch of spoiled children throwing temper tantrums. Students pay for university in several ways from government cash in the UK. In this case two are the most important: firstly, loans to pay tuition fee at a subsidised rate of interest. Everyone gets these. Secondly, poorer students also get grants. They don't have to pay them back at all. What the NUS were proposing was to slash the grants and other forms of support for the poorer students so that no one would have to pay fees, greatly benefiting them and their posh mates and [bleep]ing everyone else. "Middle class" means a slightly higher class than it does in the US. It doesn't mean "middle percentile of income" at all.

Ron Paul is a crazy whackadoodle on every issue except for foreign policy and our empire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure

Your adherence to the U.S. Government no matter what they do simply because they're the U.S. Government aside, Wikileaks did not steal private documents, they published them. So, would you be advocating that no one be able to purchase a newspaper if the leaker went to them instead? Wikileaks is not hacking into the Pentagon; they are providing a necessary service that our Mainstream Journalism will not. If Bradley Manning gave the documents to the Times instead, this is the only logical conclusion I can come to. I can only use logic to make this inference, but from this statement it would appear you're defending Visa/Mastercard's decision. Why don't you take that to the next reasonable step: any newspaper that leaks classified documents, such as was done with Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, should be shut down and no subscriptions using plastic can be made. As will_holmes said, the fact that all of these PRIVATE companies are giving into what the U.S. Government says is absolutely terrifying, and regardless of anyone's opinion of Wikileaks, I'd at least expect that much common ground where we can agree. Apparently, I can't. As I stated earlier, it is reasonable to be of the opinion that the recent leaks are not helpful but harmful, but one's view of Wikileaks as a whole in the negative light says one thing: daddy government knows best, and its authority should not be challenged. They're not just damaging the U.S., either. They have documents on corporations and other governments, too. Russia is basically a crime syndicate according to one leak, for example. And they're not just releasing them all at once. We haven't even seen 0.1% of the cables yet, let alone what other goodies they have. However, perhaps the U.S. Government officials should stop lying about their war in Yemen, for example? Oh really, Mr. Crowley: And guess who fed this lie? The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/world/middleeast/25yemen.html?_r=1 That's why Wikileaks is so important.

MasterCard and Visa reportedly stopped transactions for those wishing to donate money to WikiLeaks, due to a "technicality". But anyone who wants to donate to the Ku Klux Klan can still whip out their plastic or do some Christmas shopping and buy "Klan Novelties" like this lovely little ceramic tchotchke: The "Knight's Party" makes it clear they are the Ku Klux Klan (or at least what's left of it). They aren't hiding it. White Sheet -- $10 Burning cross -- $50 Veneer of respectability -- Priceless There are Some Things Money Can't Buy. For Everything Else, there's HTTP Error 408 Request Timeout

More: Some thoughts on sex by surprise

If killing innocent civilians = terrorism, then the US government is a terrorist organization. What percentage of the American population do you think would advocate for hurting, bombing, torturing, killing, invading, etc Muslims? I'm betting a lot. Pretty logical for lots of Muslims to hate the USA and want them hurt after what the US has done to them No, they hate us for our freedom: Afghans Fume as Petraeus Ramps Up Air War

Someone heard this from Glenn Beck: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012060007

On the rape charges: Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom As has been stated, Sweden apparently has laws against unprotected sex, which is what this all relates to. That said, I have seen a bizarre and disgusting number of rape apologists regarding this specific case when the charges were less than clear (although they're still partially unclear, imo). I've seen many say that because they already consented, then it's a done deal; they can't give up consent if they tell him to "stop" in the middle of it. This is rape apologia beyond the pale. If someone says "stop" while you're having sex and you don't stop, it's rape, period, no questions asked. If your condom breaks and they say "stop" to put on a new one and you don't, it's rape just the same. So if Assange had a condom on with the one woman and it broke, and she asked him to stop and he didn't, then he raped her, period. Anyway, Assange has an op-ed out today: Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths

And hanged. So you would have opposed the release of something like the Pentagon Papers? If we're so afraid of these truths to make hard decisions that people are actively calling for the death of people, then there's something seriously wrong with that society. Among the leaks of "no [cabbage]," we have the Drug War being an abysmal failure. We could eliminate much of the power of these cartels overnight by simply creating a legal system for growing, selling, and consuming marijuana in this country. Alcohol consumption has ungodly costs for our society, but would you trade the status quo for a black market in alcohol that brought associated violence and instability throughout our society and throughout Mexico? WikiLeaks cables reveal U.S. concern over Mexico's ability to fight drug cartels

Because according to the Village, lefties such as myself are not Very Serious People. Jeez, get with the program. Don't you understand the Beltway mindset by now? I'm supposed to be yelling for Assange's head and for him to be imprisoned like Joe Klein of TIME Magazine. This picture is a tell-tale of all: And look at Marc Ambinder, having so much fun with the White House insiders: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/the-biden-beach-party/57765/ They're peas in a pod. It is them, because they want access, and they get access by sucking the government's [rooster]. All of this just helpfully reveals what our nation's leading "journalists" really are: desperate worshipers of political power who are far more eager to be part of it and to serve it than to act as adversarial checks against it. Thankfully, organizations such as Wikileaks act as a true check on such secret and overly concealed hubris while the MSM is caught with their pants down.

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do? Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down. So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote? Yep. I don't need to know (or care) that the US government knows about that voluptuous nurse. Information hiding happens all the time, and its not a bad thing. It doesn't bother me that I don't know the secret ingredient in Coca-Cola, or the next Apple product, or that I don't know how many monkeys with keyboards Google employs. I still drink coke, listen to my ipod, and search Google. If anything, these leaks show just how much "classified" information there is that should not be classified in the first place. Of course there are some reasonable measures which should be kept secret. Many of these leaks should not. Why are conservatives, the ones who hate government, so willing to just trust what they say? I suppose it's the definition of the person in general; liberals question authority, conservatives worship it.

Jay Rosen, prominent media critic, makes the point I made earlier about the failure of the US watchdog (the Media): His key takeaway point: If we can ever get past the Assange distraction, the big Wikileaks story is how it is a response to the failure of mainstream journalism. This explains the loathing the Media has directed towards Assange. He stands as an indictment of them.

I hate the establishment as much as the next guy, but I can't recall the US shutting down any media outlets. Why would they? The U.S. media might as well be state-run media. They never report, they just repeat what the government says, uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. When the NY Times is the best major newspaper, it says something awful about the state of print journalism in the U.S. Let's not even bother with cable news with people like Wolf Blitzer. Also, lol:

That's quite a rigorous moral standard you have there. So let me ask you this: 1.) Do you support the death penalty? Innocents have been killed, particularly in countries where there's little to no due process. However, just recently in Texas there's strong evidence to suggest that an innocent man was executed just in 2000. 2.) The Iraq War was a war based on lies, has killed over 100,000 innocents, displaced millions more, and destroyed the country of over 26 million. Are those who supported that war guilty of anything, should they be put in jail/be killed (as I assume if there's something wrong with what Assange is doing that he should be punished somehow)? Justify that. 3.) How about the multiple journalists and other human beings whom the U.S. Government imprisoned (and continues to imprison) for years without charges, including many whom the Government knew were completely innocent? Are you going to apply the standard to the U.S. Government here? 4.) How about the Afghan War, where civilians are being slaughtered by predator drone strikes in the name of terrorism? Justify that. I await an answer, or at least some wriggling, while you realize what a ridiculous statement you've made.

They're all assumptions? Normally right now I'd ask which ones were assumptions, but you said "all," implying that every stated number is indeed an assumption. Normally I'd ask why these are assumptions, but seeing as I made the claims, the onus is on me for the proof. Now, I mean, one would think with the revelations of Wikileaks' leak would be enough...but if you need your hand held, fine: 1. Claim: Arab states want war with Iran, or rather, Iran to be stopped at all costs due to a loss of power held in the Gulf. Evidence: * Bahrain king says Iranian nuclear programme must be stopped * Saudi king urged US to attack Iran * Qatar allowed US to attack Iran from its territory Why is this so obvious before the leak? The Sunni monarchs don't want a "low-class Shiite" like Ahmadi wielding a nuclear weapon when they don't have one. Not just because nuclear weapons are like having a Wal Mart in your town; you're not a real and powerful country until you have them. It's also because they would lose a substantial amount of control over the entire Gulf Region... 2. Claim: Putting Iraq into chaos has made such a war with Iran even more likely because the balance of power has shifted. Evidence: * Egyptian President In WikiLeaks Docs: Iran Terror Sponsorship Is 'Well-Known But I Cannot Say It Publicly' This should be known without having acknowledgments from an Egyptian President. 3. Claim: Everyone is scared [cabbage]less of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. Evidence: * Pakistan confirms Wikileaks claim of US nuclear appeals Again, obvious, as this is why we're in Afghanistan. Anyone thinking we're there for al Qaeda is smoking some good reefer. 4. Claim: Iran funded Hezbollah through back-door alleys Evidence: * US memos: Iran armed Hezbollah through ambulances This one might not be as obvious as the others, or at least not the specific methods. It's long been suspected that Iran gave weapons to Hezbollah, and is continuing to funnel them millions of dollars per year. 5. Claim: Netanyahu and the Israeli government do not want peace, nor do they want Palestine to be an actual state/country/government; they want control over Greater Israel. Evidence: * Top 10 Wikileaks Palestine Nuggets Not that we needed Wikileaks for this, given there's plenty of other stuff on the record from this vile Likud government and its PM, but some nice quotes: So basically not a 'state' then in any meaningful sense of the term, and they want control over everything meaningful that represents an independent nation-state. 6. Claim: Mass corruption in Afghanistan Evidence: * Afghan president pardoned drug dealers Really, do I need to go find more articles detailing the corruption in Afghanistan? Number 7 was already corrected.

May I ask what war crimes these are?.. That just strikes me as hypocritical, the US has done many things that strike me as criminal too. Oh, I'm not absolving my country of any guilt. I'm still awaiting a leak in the future, which Wikileaks has promised, of video footage with American soldiers massacring civilians. In any case, I misspoke; that was a previous leak. Their conduct in Afghanistan was criticized by the US military for failure to provide security in an Afghan town in this leak. My mistake. I'll edit my old post.

The story released by Bush is pure [cabbage]. The administration opposed the creation of both the congressional and the independent investigations of the 9/11 attacks, and they were tremendously uncooperative. Bush and Cheney even insisted on testifying together to assure that their stories didn't conflict with each other. The Commission may have gotten the big picture right in terms of identifying who the hijackers were, where they were trained, who paid their way, and how they entered the country and ultimately boarded the doomed airplanes. Maybe that part of the report is fairly accurate. But the rest of the report is a complete whitewash that tells us almost nothing we want to know. The key data involved is what did the US know, when did it know it, and why did obvious clues get missed. And also, why the the Bush administration did not take the briefing by the Clinton administration during the transition seriously, choosing instead to focus on Russia and Iraq. That is, the key data the public needs to know are related to government and personal accountability. However, the 911 truth movement IS wacko, goes against all sense of logical forethought, and ignores scientific evidence. Not really. I'd like to see an explanation as to how undermining diplomatic efforts can ever be seen as helping said country's agenda. If anything, these leaks just show what any reasonable person already knows: 1.) The Arab world wants war with Iran because they do not want their power over the Gulf undermined. 2.) Putting Iraq into chaos has made such a war with Iran even more likely because the balance of power has shifted. It destabilized the region, just like liberals said it would. 3.) Everyone is scared [cabbage]less of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. 4.) Iran funding Hezbollah through back-door alleys. 5.) Netanyahu and the Israeli government do not want peace, nor do they want Palestine to be an actual state/country/government; they want control over Greater Israel. 6.) Mass corruption in Afghanistan 7.) Britain's conduct in Afghanistan has been abominable, particularly with securing the town of Sangin. I mean, the main hunk of meat everyone who pays attention to the world should already know, unless they're massively deluded (particularly the Zionists, who still claim Netanyahu and Israel are interested in peace). What I also find hilarious are the neocons using the rhetoric of brutal dictators of the most horrible governments on Earth -- Saudi Arabia and Egypt especially -- to rationalize their bloodthirsty desires to bomb Iran into oblivion, or nuke North Korea. What happened to democracy, neocons? Or what about the sanctity of life? What's also hilarious are claims that releasing the documents will harm US national security. I suspect they'll do nothing, really. These recent leaks aren't of much interest to me...it's a bunch of privy annoyances, mostly with the UN diplomats. The spying conducted through US embassies isn't surprising in the least, either. Now, unlike the last leak, I see opposition to this particular leak as somewhat reasonable; most particularly that impeding diplomacy makes war more likely, and I don't think anyone wants more war besides the neocons. WikiLeaks has made mistakes in the past, most particularly in redacting names. Although the Pentagon refused to help them make redactions, so any canard coming from the government over "blood on their hands" is hypocritical. That said, our government and political culture is so far toward the end of excessive, improper secrecy that said secrecy is clearly the far more significant threat than any short-term damages to diplomatic relations. I seriously question the judgment of anyone who decides that the real threat is WikiLeaks for subverting that ability. The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. To that I say here here, Wikileaks, and continue doing what you do best; for a democracy cannot operate with an uneducated citizenry: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/ edit: Also, the claims of "blood on Assange's hands" are greatly overstated, and even the Pentagon admits it: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz16mxzrCyu

The thing about being a bisexual or a heterosexual or a homosexual or anything is that sexuality is a continuum. Our sexual orientation and preference is probably not one discrete and rigid reality. Kinsey Scale This is likely more accurate. I lol'd when I saw "Easy A" in theaters where Olive refers to the gay guy as "Kinsey 6 gay."

^^Truth. America needs to end its farmer subsidies and start pumping those subsidies into solar and wind energy. People are opposed to ending farmer subsidies because they imagine mom and pop Joe/Jane farmer on their little tractor just trying to make a living. Wrong idea. The food industry is just as rampant and massive as Big Pharma, and should not be getting subsidies. At least Pharma produces some life saving drugs every once in a while. Food Inc. just gives us cheap high fructose corn syrup.

Of course you support making it hard to get here. The economy improves with immigration reform in the US, but, you know, ignore it: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/07/local/la-me-immig7-2010jan07 Keep your protectionism up! Wait, don't you support free trade? Why are you protecting inflated wages, especially for professionals like doctors and lawyers? There's a reason why the conservative magazine Reason supports the same immigration policies that I do.

Lol, so are you against birth control, too? How's that working out for America: The European approach to teens, sex, and love, in pictures

Not sure where you're going to find a better source than the National Cancer Institute, but be my guest. The miscarriage link is inconclusive, just as the breast cancer link used to be inconclusive. However, it's only inconclusive with a surgical abortion. For your average medical abortion, there is no increased risk.

Yes, that sounds very conclusive. And without any links to an actual study or scientist with that opinion. It's not true, although it is a common talking point amongst Randall Terry types: Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk Pro-lifers lying? Who'dathunk?