I married my wife in Indiana when she was 18 and I was 21, thus effectively keeping myself from seeing any bands or going to any bars for 3 years. I found it utterly absurd, not to mention extremely frustrating, that she was not allowed to so much as enter a bar and yet she was sanctioned by the state to breed kiddies.

Most other nations don't have the binge drinking problems the US does with teenages. Here is it taboo, so it must be good- just like sex. In Canada, etc, alcohol is just alcohol.

When I lived in the Dominican Republic they'd sell or serve anyone who was old enough to ask for and pay for a drink- no child binge drinkers there, though I did sometimes see a kid having a beer with dinner with their parents or a kid buying beer with some groceries at the market as part of the family's daily shopping.

Eat chocolate?
Guess what, you also support child labor in Africa. Of course the chocolate beans are coated in toxic pesticides which cripple the kiddies fingers too, so its even MORE EVIL than gold.

Red Dawn!

Actually, given McCain wanting to "take on" Russia, Bush putting missiles right next to them, and our military "advisers" in Georgia right now, maybe its just a little prescient.

If you read NOTHING ELSE, then please, everyone know and CONSIDER this.

The two men who chaired our nation's investigation into 9/11 are documented to have met the "9/11 Money Man" on the morning of that horrific day. Our nation's official report offers no explanation for this meeting. One of these men, Goss, later went on to head the CIA.

It truly saddens me that Neatorama has stooped to poking fun at "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists" when there are so very many unanswered questions about the Neoconservative's theory of the events of that day. I expected better of this website- virtually everyone I know questions our government's story to some extent.

Its overpriced for what it is, a small sensored cheap digital point and shoot. IF they actually made a real TLR with manual controls, a good lens, and a good sensor, I would seriously consider buying it.

Too bad the UK is a society of victims, waiting patiently for armed criminals to ask for their stuff. I would guess that even using one's fists to try to protect their "pod" would result in criminal charges against the true victim.

It seems to me there are two less thieves in the world, and it seems to me that he gave them the chance to give it up. There were steeling property he had been asked to watch out for. It might seem harsh in these days of coddling real criminals, but I don't find Mr. Horn to have done anything worthy of imprisonment.

I don't know all the laws of Texas, but here in New Mexico one can do what is necessary to defend one's property or to apprehend a criminal who has committed a felony in one's presence. I suppose what is necessary depends on the circumstances, but pointing a gun at a burglar and telling them to freeze.... well, that criminal needs to freeze or they might get shot.

Searching and randomly seizing property are two different things. I disagree with the searching to begin with, in so much as the Right to be free from unreasonable search is clearly a Natural Right and not something bestowed by the US Government. But to SEIZE someones property and hold if for weeks! That is an outrage!

Of course, we will be told its for our "security", while at the same time putting foreign corporations in charge of our airport and sea port security.

I wonder if customs will claim the power to SEIZE and hold our internet packets as they try to cross the border?

People like to mention restrictions upon the 1st Amendment when they speak about the second. However, in no jurisdiction must one be licensed before they can speak, in no place is one forbidden to publish lest they libel, in almost no case may one be restrained prior to their actual speech. And yet, in many places within these United States a law abiding private individual simply may not keep and bear a handgun. That amounts to a prior restraint of 2nd Amendment rights and the court justly struck such a prohibition down.

I also see people mentioning a constitutional amendment to do away with the NATURAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment DID NOT create this right, it was pre-existing and no amendment by any government can make this otherwise, though a tyrannical government might surely try to deny the right... which is sort of the whole point of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Molon Labe - From my cold dead hands.

A zero dollar bill is ironic, because Federal Reserve Notes are created from nothing. I am not talking about the physical paper dollars printed by the Dept. of the Treasury.

I am talking about the private corporation (it is NOT a part of our government) which creates money for its member banks to loan, entirely out of nothing. The only thing which backs the US Dollar is the debt which created it; and there can never be enough dollars to pay back that debt since they are only created when they are loaned out with interest.

A lot of times people will open carry because their state "requires" a special permit to carry concealed. Only Alaska and Vermont recognize the right of a person to carry concealed without a special license. A good number of us gun owners believe permit requirements to be a government denial of our right to keep and bear arms, as well as a form of registration of gun owners. Historically gun registration laws have often later been used during confiscation to disarm the people.

IMHO, if the thieves choose an alternative punishment its their choice. Perhaps a good thrashing in front of the other customers then? Or would that be assualt?
Sigh... our "Justice" system so isn't.

We had similar crazy ants when I lived in the Dominican Republic. Locals added about a teaspoon of kerosene to their mop water, mopped their all tile floors, and went out while airing their homes for a couple of hours. It stinks and I am not so sure about the safety or environmental consequences of this- but it worked pretty well at keeping the crazy ants out.

I think it should be mentioned that eugenics was practiced as late as the late 1970's by the United States government which sterilized Native American women with neither their knowledge or consent.

I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, I am sure that other tyrannical governments have enforced such oaths on their subjects, right?