http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anjelica-huston-ryan-oneal-assault-747779

So apparently domestic violence against her and women need to be called out and the men shamed.

But if that man is liberal icon and he drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl, well that is not really a big deal

@ lujlp

You should have included a trigger alert for them so they would "get it". (I hear a lot of "huh?"s out there.)

Why are men better at reading maps than women? Well, if the University of Utah is to be believed, it's to help them get laid.

I was going to make an obvious aside, but thought I'd leave that to others.

So apparently domestic violence against her and women need to be called out and the men shamed.

But if that man is liberal icon and he drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl, well that is not really a big deal

Posted by: lujlp at November 12, 2014 11:52 PM

Actors. Since the world revolves around them, it's only a big deal if it happens to them personally.

If it happens to someone else and they like (or agree politically with) the accused, then they weren't "there for any untoward behaviors" and "happily" cannot comment.

However, if it the accused does not fall into a politically correct protected group, then no due process is necessary. String 'em up!

Some animals are more equal than others.

Why are men better at reading maps than women? ~ Posted by: Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at November 13, 2014 8:32 AM

According to Roseanne Barr it's because only a man can conceive of an inch equaling a mile.

She tried to be a good, contemporary liberal, but her kids turned into tantrum-throwing brats!

Who could have seen that coming?

@Conan: According to Roseanne Barr it's because only a man can conceive of an inch equaling a mile.

Well, maybe we're better at abstract thought (or lying, maybe) than women, too. :-)

Meanwhile, meet the Fokker.

Well, an exact duplicate, anyway. It cost the guy £180,000 to build.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/slapper-f-train-won-charged-sue-nyc-attorney-article-1.2008463

Self defense for a man = felony assault charges

Felony assault for a woman = misdemeanor charges

Ted Cruz says net neutrality is bad.

No, Ted Cruz says US government involvement in the Internet is bad.

Somebody might want to notice who it is that the president appointed as head of the FCC.

Ted Cruz says net neutrality is bad. ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 13, 2014 3:43 PM

Ultimately, Ted Cruz is right. Although having the ability to go to any site and download any content with no restrictions is attractive ... until you look at the end result.

If the ISP cannot regulate download speeds, we're all going to end up paying for bandwidth hogs.

If sites that provide pipe-clogging downloads have to pay for their customers' usage of bandwidth, their prices will go up. If they don't have to pay, the price at the ISP will go up and we'll all pay.

==============================

"We cannot allow internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas", Mr Obama said in a White House video.

Said the man whose government picked winners and losers in the solar marketplace. Solyndra, anyone?

At least when the Internet service providers pick winners and losers, they bet with their own money and continued business viability.

==============================

President Barack Obama said that the Federal Communications Commission should view access to the internet as a basic right - strongly endorsing a concept called "net neutrality". He proposes defining the internet as a public utility....

Anyone remember when telephones were regarded as a "right" and regulated as a utility?

AT&T was given a monopoly with the mandate to ensure that the entire country would be provided with uniform telephony services (i.e., lines would be strung to rural and remote areas that wouldn't be profitable without the monopoly).

The fundamental principle, formulated by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907, was that the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service. Vail wrote in that year's AT&T Annual Report that government regulation, "provided it is independent, intelligent, considerate, thorough and just," was an appropriate and acceptable substitute for the competitive marketplace.

The government agreed with Vail and, for over a century, you could only call someone through AT&T (GTE provided some local service, but AT&T was the only long distance provider).

Investments in new technology were minimal because they were not profitable due to rate regulations and government restrictions on monopoly profits. As the rest of the world went to digital PBX switches, the US stayed analog. Even with the advent of touch tone phones, the signals still went to analog PBX switches.

For years, your choices in phones were beige, black, or white and they came in one model only. You rented the phone from the phone company and it was hard-wired, no plug-in jacks. Eventually, the phone company added more colors and one new model, the Princess phone.

Tolls were assessed per phone call based on distance called. Eventually local calls were pooled under an umbrella charge, but long distance calls were still charged by distance. People limited their long distance calls to keep their phone bills down.

Watch The President's Analyst to see a fairly accurate parody of how pervasive "the phone company" was back then.

Do we really want the Internet to be handled by the government?

(The same government that thinks one wrench for 450 geographically-dispersed ICBMs is sufficient?)

"Do we really want the Internet to be handled by the government?"

No. I want my internet access restricted, costs to go up, and large corporations to strangle access to the most important human invention since space travel.

No. I want my internet access restricted, costs to go up, and large corporations to strangle access to the most important human invention since space travel. ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 14, 2014 6:17 PM

Government regulation is not, repeat not, the solution to that scenario.

If regulated as a utility, each community will be served by only one ISP, profits will be regulated (so, few investments in reserching newer content delivery technology), and customer service will be non-existent. Sounds like your local electrical utility. If I don't want to get my electricity from PG&E, I can ... live like a Third World peasant.

Remember the early days of cable - when it was government-regulated? You could go with Comcast or watch broadcast television. Prices rose every time the regulators allowed an increase (whether needed or not). The advent of DirectTV and Dish mean Comcast had to start paying attention to its television customers. DSL gave Comcast's Internet customers an alternative.

Your nightmare scenario also assumes that existing ISPs will continue to be the only way to get on the Internet. In a competitive marketplace, new competitors arise every day. Disruptive technology displaces old systems.

Right now, sites can offer high-volume content for free because the ISPs must handle every byte equally. So, you are paying for your ISP to accommodate your neighbor's decision to use Netflix instead of cable and the neighborhood kids' near-constant YouTube downloads.

Content providers have no incentive to compress their content because the ISPs must handle it and cannot charge bandwidth hogs more money.

Nobody wants their Friday night Netflix movie to be stalled so their neighbor can check his e-mail. But there's only so much room in the pipe and high-volume content is squeezing the capacity without paying for the privilege.

Good points abound on both sides of this argument. Nonetheless, government interference in this is not the solution to any of the issues presented.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

"Amazing as it seems, under these regulations federal bureaucrats in the 1970s decided whether AT&T could move beyond standard black telephones to offer Princess phones in pink, blue and white. A Title II Internet would give regulators similar authority to approve, prioritize and set 'just and reasonable' prices for broadband, the lifeblood of the Internet."

You do not want the government regulating the Internet.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovitz-what-a-tangled-web-obama-weaves-1416180120