Or go to http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2014/05/30/hits-the-fan/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please. The private sector surveils average Americans far more than the government does. They know your most intimate personal habits and information - where you live, where you work, your shopping habits, your medical issues, what size clothes you wear, what your vices are, your sexual orientation and habits, the places you go, who your friends and family are, what organizations you are involved in, et cetera et cetera et cetera....

That kind of blows away the whole "privacy" issue.

It's different. Most of their information comes from the use of credit cards or internet. This is a choice that you make, and you can decide who you want to deal with. I don't think any company knows my "most intimate personal habits".

Odds are very, very strong that you'd lose that bet, but it's possible.

The difference is that the companies are trying to sell you products, while the government could be making decisions about your rights, patriotism, eligibility for government jobs, ability to travel, need for surveillance, etc.

There's a grey area when you talk about the credit reporting agencies, but even they are required by the Fair CRedit Reporting Act to disclose information to you if they are using it to make decisions regarding your credit.

The government doesn't have to tell you anything.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-personal-information-does-phone-metadata-reveal/

NSA defenders, including Senator Feinstein, have minimized the NSA's collection of every Americans cell phone meta data. However, as the link reveals, the NSA can discover everything about you from that data.

Everything.

Are you comfortable with a stranger having so much information about you?

How does this intrusion fit with what you believe about our right to privacy in the US?

People discussing government surveillance frequently use Orwellian metaphors, and, at its most basic, government surveillance can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is a common response to things like this.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the only reason anyone would want privacy is because they have "something to hide," and it divides the world into two groups - those who don't want to be watched because they are doing something bad and those who are ok with being monitored because they aren't doing anything "bad" that they want to hide.

The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it only views privacy as a form of secrecy. but the actual problem is deeper than that. An Orwellian metaphor requires a malevolent watcher. On the other hand, as anyone who has attempted to get a credit report corrected can tell you, Franz Kafka's The Trial may be more appropriate.

(If you haven't read it, Kafka's novel centers around a man who is arrested but not informed why. He desperately tries to find out what triggered his arrest and what's in store for him. He finds out that a mysterious court system has a dossier on him and is investigating him, but he's unable to learn much more. The Trial depicts a bureaucracy with inscrutable purposes that uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.)

The problems portrayed by the Kafka are of a different sort than those portrayed by Orwell. The problems relate to information processing—the storage, use, or analysis of data—rather than of information collection. They affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. As Kafka presciently assessed, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system's use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are bureaucratic ones—indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency and accountability. Consider the fact that, according to this article, after 7 years only ONE person has managed to get himself removed from the government's Do Not Fly list. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/after-s...gets-off-the-govt-no-fly-list/)

The government won't disclose who is on the list and won't even disclose how big the list is.

According to an ACLU report, which cites a National Counterterrorism Center Fact Sheet, the "consolidated terrorist watchlist" contained about 875,000 names in December 2011, and the Terrorist Screening Center's watchlist has grown significantly over time, from approximately 158,000 records in June 2004 to over 1.1 million records in May 2009.

The ACLU also cites an AP report from February 2012 documenting that there were approximately 21,000 people on the no-fly list (including about 500 US citizens and permanent residents) and saying that the list had more than doubled in the previous year.

The problems of unfettered government data collection are much deeper than the Orwellian and are much more Kafkaesque.

Although personal information can reveal quite a lot about people's personalities and activities, it often fails to reflect the whole person. It can paint a distorted picture, especially since records are reductive—they often capture information in a standardized format with many details omitted.

For example, suppose government officials learn that a person has bought a number of books on how to manufacture LSD. That information makes them suspect that he's a drug dealer. However, the real truth is that the person is writing a novel about a character who makes LSD. When he bought the books, he didn't consider how suspicious the purchase might appear to government officials, and his records didn't reveal the reason for the purchases. Should he have to worry about government scrutiny of all his purchases and actions? Should he have to be concerned that he'll wind up on a suspicious-persons list? Even if he isn't doing anything wrong, he may want to keep his records away from government officials who might make faulty inferences from them. He might not want to have to worry about how everything he does will be perceived by officials nervously monitoring for criminal activity. He might not want to have a computer flag him as suspicious because he has an unusual pattern of behavior.

Our privacy is not being lost in one fell swoop, but our privacy is being eroded over time, little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how much is gone.

When the government starts monitoring the metadata around the phone numbers people call, many may shrug their shoulders and say, "Ah, it's just numbers, that's all."

Then the government might start monitoring some phone calls. "It's just a few phone calls, nothing more. They're welcome to listen to me talk to Aunt Edna."

The government might install more video cameras in public places. "So what? Some more cameras watching in a few more places. No big deal." The increase in cameras might lead to a more elaborate network of video surveillance. Satellite surveillance might be added to help track people's movements. The government might start analyzing people's bank rec­ords. "It's just my deposits and some of the bills I pay—no problem. I have nothing to hide." The government may then start combing through credit-card records, then expand to Internet-service providers' records, health records, employment records, and more. Each step may seem incremental, but after a while, the government will be watching and knowing everything about us.

"My life's an open book," people might say. "I've got nothing to hide." But now the government has large dossiers of everyone's activities, interests, reading habits, finances, and health. What if the government leaks the information to the public? Should that information be subject to FOIA requests? Should it be subject to subpoena in a divorce case (for example, license plate reader data collected by local police departments could be very handy for that).

What if the government mistakenly determines that based on your pattern of activities, you're likely to engage in a criminal act? What if it denies you the right to fly? What if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd—even if you've done nothing wrong—and freezes your accounts? What if the government doesn't protect your information with adequate security, and an identity thief obtains it and uses it to defraud you? And what if, as in the case of the No Fly List and the other terrorist watch lists, the government will neither confirm nor deny that you are on the list?

Even if you have nothing to hide, the government can cause you a lot of harm.

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It bugs me that they put believing there was a conspiracy about the JFK assassination in with that lineup of nuttery. I am surprised anew every time I realize people don't know there's no way LHO could have acted alone.

We all like to think that we are rational and logical evaluators of evidence. So people are always surprised when someone doesn't come to the same conclusion they did about something.

Communities of conspiracy theorists find each other on the web now, and share their theories, analyses, etc., and reinforce each other's belief about their given conspiracy theory to the point where belief in that theory becomes a part of the person's identity.

Oh, dear. You can just say you don't know much about the subject and leave it at that, rather than pretend to be some cold, hard marshall of the facts.

If that makes you more comfortable with your particular conspiracy theory, ok, I don't know much about why you believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

However, what I said was consistent with the psychological and sociological research on conspiracy theories, in general, and if I (or anyone else) were to try to reason with you based on the facts about the Kennedy assassination, the research says that would more than likely harden your belief and make you adhere to it even more strongly. (You might be the exception, but the research shows that's the general result.)

Anonymous wrote:Control freaks hate gun ownership. That's the point of the 2nd amendment and it's genius. Constitution is to control freaks as holy water is to satan.

Don't you think that control freaks would hate freedom of speech more than they would hate the right to own guns?

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just pair background checks with mandatory voter ID and it will pass.

If one of the two gets overturned in court then the law sunsets.

It's compromise.

When you're talking about Constitutional rights it doesn't work like that. Each has to overcome the court's balancing test on its own merits.

So far, in-person voter ID laws have failed that balancing test.

For the most part, we can't get reasonable gun laws passed because of the disproportionate influence of a vocal minority of voters led by the NRA (not surprisingly, there's a significant overlap between those who are in favor of in-person voter ID laws and those who fear that any regulation of guns is the first step towards confiscation, disarmament and the triumph of the fascist, communist, crypto-Islamists seeking to bring Sharia law to God's country), so those laws aren't even getting reviewed by the courts.

Getting things done require major compromise. Otherwise nothin gonna happen.

It's not a question of compromise, it's simply a function of the way our government works. The courts would evaluate each of those things in isolation to determine whether they are Constitutional.

For the same reason you couldn't trade gun regulation for restricting the freedom of speech or religion in a certain way.

Even if it could work that way, given the proposal that if one was found unconstitutional the other would sunset, and given that courts are already striking down voter ID laws, that's not much of an offer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't put much (any) stock in what "the population" believes.

People also believe President Obama is a Muslim and that vaccines cause autism and that climate change is a hoax. Not putting my eggs in those baskets.

Man made climate change is a hoax. Even al gore doesn't believe it or he would downsize his homes and auto fleet to be a good example. The most hilarious hoax ever. I don't see anybody selling beach front homes in anticipation of being underwater . People who put time and energy into global warming, climate change, climate disturbance are cultists.

You mean cultists like the US military? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/climate-change-real-pentagon-sure-thinks-so-n101701

Anonymous wrote:Just pair background checks with mandatory voter ID and it will pass.

If one of the two gets overturned in court then the law sunsets.

It's compromise.

When you're talking about Constitutional rights it doesn't work like that. Each has to overcome the court's balancing test on its own merits.

So far, in-person voter ID laws have failed that balancing test.

For the most part, we can't get reasonable gun laws passed because of the disproportionate influence of a vocal minority of voters led by the NRA (not surprisingly, there's a significant overlap between those who are in favor of in-person voter ID laws and those who fear that any regulation of guns is the first step towards confiscation, disarmament and the triumph of the fascist, communist, crypto-Islamists seeking to bring Sharia law to God's country), so those laws aren't even getting reviewed by the courts.

Anonymous wrote:It bugs me that they put believing there was a conspiracy about the JFK assassination in with that lineup of nuttery. I am surprised anew every time I realize people don't know there's no way LHO could have acted alone.

We all like to think that we are rational and logical evaluators of evidence. So people are always surprised when someone doesn't come to the same conclusion they did about something.

Communities of conspiracy theorists find each other on the web now, and share their theories, analyses, etc., and reinforce each other's belief about their given conspiracy theory to the point where belief in that theory becomes a part of the person's identity.

Anonymous wrote:OMG that's so bizarre. Some very strange people out there if that is true. Might be interesting to study what other odd issues the 20% have.

Scientific American had an article on that about a year ago (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories/).

Among other things, the article notes:

For example, a national poll released just this month reports that 37 percent of Americans believe that global warming is a hoax, 21 percent think that the US government is covering up evidence of alien existence and 28 percent believe a secret elite power with a globalist agenda is conspiring to rule the world. Only hours after the recent Boston marathon bombing, numerous conspiracy theories were floated ranging from a possible ‘inside job’ to YouTube videos claiming that the entire event was a hoax.

The poll they reference (available at http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html) found:

- 37% of voters believe global warming is a hoax, 51% do not. Republicans say global warming is a hoax by a 58-25 margin, Democrats disagree 11-77, and Independents are more split at 41-51. 61% of Romney voters believe global warming is a hoax

- 6% of voters believe Osama bin Laden is still alive

- 21% of voters say a UFO crashed in Roswell, NM in 1947 and the US government covered it up. More Romney voters (27%) than Obama voters (16%) believe in a UFO coverup

- 28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order. A plurality of Romney voters (38%) believe in the New World Order compared to 35% who don’t

- 28% of voters believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. 36% of Romney voters believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, 41% do not

- 20% of voters believe there is a link between childhood vaccines and autism, 51% do not

- 7% of voters think the moon landing was faked

- 13% of voters think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, including 22% of Romney voters

- Voters are split 44%-45% on whether Bush intentionally misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 72% of Democrats think Bush lied about WMDs, Independents agree 48-45, just 13% of Republicans think so

- 29% of voters believe aliens exist

- 14% of voters say the CIA was instrumental in creating the crack cocaine epidemic in America’s inner cities in the 1980’s

- 9% of voters think the government adds fluoride to our water supply for sinister reasons (not just dental health)

- 4% of voters say they believe “lizard people” control our societies by gaining political power

- 51% of voters say a larger conspiracy was at work in the JFK assassination, just 25% say Oswald acted alone

- 14% of voters believe in Bigfoot

- 15% of voters say the government or the media adds mind-controlling technology to TV broadcast signals (the so-called Tinfoil Hat crowd)

- 5% believe exhaust seen in the sky behind airplanes is actually chemicals sprayed by the government for sinister reasons

- 15% of voters think the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry “invent” new diseases to make money

- Just 5% of voters believe that Paul McCartney actually died in 1966

- 11% of voters believe the US government allowed 9/11 to happen, 78% do not agree.

Interestingly, the article notes that:

While it has been known for some time that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are also likely to believe in other conspiracy theories, we would expect contradictory conspiracy theories to be negatively correlated. Yet, this is not what psychologists Micheal Wood, Karen Douglas and Robbie Suton found in a recent study. Instead, the research team, based at the University of Kent in England, found that many participants believed in contradictory conspiracy theories. For example, the conspiracy-belief that Osama Bin Laden is still alive was positively correlated with the conspiracy-belief that he was already dead before the military raid took place. This makes little sense, logically: Bin Laden cannot be both dead and alive at the same time. An important conclusion that the authors draw from their analysis is that people don't tend to believe in a conspiracy theory because of the specifics, but rather because of higher-order beliefs that support conspiracy-like thinking more generally. A popular example of such higher-order beliefs is a severe “distrust of authority.”
(emphasis added)

Anonymous wrote:I thought he stabbed and hatcheted 3 people and ran over others in his car.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the last 20 years.
What's the push to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens? It's good for smart, tough and healthy citizens to be armed in case the government ever decides to go too far .

You think if the government "decides to go too far" and has the support of the military that you're gonna go all "Wolverines" on them, hide in the mountains and commit acts of sabotage until the civilian population comes to its senses and rallies to your side?

Right now you and all your "patriot" buddies are outgunned by the military and the police. The military and the police have weapons that are inaccessible to civilians, air power and armored vehicles, not to mention training and practice. The idea that "armed patriots" are a check on government excess in the modern era is a macho masturbatory fantasy to pump up your own self-importance.

Where you're correct is stating that gun violence has dropped substantially, which significantly decreases the value of the other argument that gun rights supporters use, which is that you need the gun for "home protection."

Even with the decrease in gun violence in this country, we're still #28 in the world for gun homicides according to the UN's annual survey, and the top 27 (as well as a bunch of the ones below us) are not places we usually compare ourselves to.

The essence of your point is the same as Joe the Plumber's - "I'm sorry for your dead kid, but my right to have a gun is more important."

Feel free to put that bumper sticker on your car.

Do you know whether your mother was the executor of your grandmother's estate, or if your grandmother had dealt with a lawyer regarding her will?

Anonymous wrote:It's not funny. It's also wrong. Mass killings occur all over the world.

(a) The Onion wasn't really trying to be ha-ha funny. Satire is supposed to point out things about the world, not necessarily make you laugh. And the bit about Joe the Plumber wasn't part of the Onion article. That was real.

(b) Which other developed nation has mass killings at the rate we do?

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. ...

For the rest see http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

Because, of course, in the "real" world, "Joe the Plumber" published this "OPEN LETTER: To the parents of the victims murdered by Elliot Rodger" where he compassionately says, "I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/05/27/open-letter-parents-victims-murdered-elliot-rodger/

Anonymous wrote:EVERYONE with little kids feels like this at some point, OP. You have my total sympathy.

Suggestions:

1) Stop arguing. Just shut up already.

2) Stop trying to run the show. Recognize that some of this is YOUR CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR and let it go. Everything doesn't have to be done your way, and your way is not always the perfect way.

No, in the long run, it would not be easier without your DH around. Separating would create a whole new set of problems you haven't even thought of yet.

You really do have my sympathy. The little kid years are hard, hard, hard. I promise it gets easier.

I agree with the PP. It's important to recognize the difference between an acceptable way to do things and the way you would do things.

If DH is taking them off your hands or doing things to help, let him do it his way as long as that's not endangering the kids or creating a different problem.

If DH is doing things the way the two of you have always done them, but now that kids are in the picture it causes a problem, he needs to understand why the behavior has to change.

You're carrying a lot of stress because you can't yell at the kids - no matter how frustrated you get. When DW is yelling at me I try to listen for whether it's something I did or something she's venting energy about because she can't yell at the kids. When you're asking DH to do things differently per my previous points, try to listen for that frustration/energy/anger in your voice.

Finally, if you're anything like us, you're losing (or have lost) the time that you and DH connect. Make at least some time in bed (if nowhere else) after the kids go to sleep to talk to each other as husband and wife, not as parents.