If you cannot back it up, you might consider this from the WP entry on FM: Fannie Mae was the leading participant in the U.S. secondary mortgage market, which serves to provide liquidity to mortgage originators,...

is to keep up the pressure. I think it is certain that a similar bill will pass soon. The intensity of the pressure determines how much it will change from the current one, although the changaes will not be big. But more importantly, the "peoples's rebellion" must have an impact now in order to be felt in the future.

wrote:

This was no victory of the have-nots over the haves but rather a defeat for all Americans who have investments, pensions, small businesses, corporate jobs and retirement incomes watching helplessly...

You are assuming that all is lost because it did not pass the first time? In principle, it can be done much better. In practice, it might improve a bit. So what is the problem with trying to do better?

The party line is attached to a very large ship, and you have just one small tugboat to move this party line from dangerous waters to the sea of good government. Good luck!

He wrote:

I myself am a die-hard evolutionist who loathes creationism in whatever form it takes. But how do I know evolution to be true? I know it because generations of the world's greatest scientists have subjected Darwin's theory to the most rigorous possible scrutiny. But have I reviewed their work? Do I have the time or capacity to do so? No, I accept the scientific community's word for it, and this is in itself a kind of faith. A faith grounded, yes, in verifiable and empirical and replicable studies. A vastly superior faith, I would argue, to knowledge-averse creationism, but a faith nonetheless.

A previous commenter mentioned the razor, but there is more to it than that: the tests of evolution are far broader than Bayard implies. When a theory is first tested, those in the field do so directly, and others look for consistency with broader scientific knowledge. As time goes on, and this an other fields advance, an interlocking framework develops. What do you lose when you trash evolution? Some might say "geology" and then on to "physics". For others, the profound effect on biology is the first effect.

Probabilities count. The probability of literal christianity is essentially zero. If you want it, faith is the only choice. For evolution, it is very close to one. No faith required.

If you insist on saying both are faith, you are missing the point, seriously in error. And those creationist types have scored a victory. So wake up.

Indeed predictions are important. Allow me to add one more to your list:

quantum mechanics ==> laser

This one is important to me because it is a wonderful example of how a theory predicts a new concept, and then leads to a new invention. In this case, a theory designed to explain the spectral lines of atomic physics, the ultraviolet catastrophe, etc., led to a new concept (the coherent summation of states) and then to one of the most important practical inventions ever.

Suggestion:

Spend the time you devote to reading about pseudo-science to reading about real science.

After a year or two, take a serious look at which is a more valuable way to spend your time.

Then I am disappointed by the quality of the pseudo-science you choose to present.

What was that surveillance related thing that nearly brought down the US justice department? We have problems at home that need taking care of, too.

A key phrase: validity of statistical analysis.

The bias of the media becomes clear in retrospect when you see what major stories have been mishandled. Take the Iraq war: OK Judy Miller is the extreme case, but others followed her lead. Which media giant went overboard reporting how bad the evidence for going to war was? None that I know of. Imagine how the right would have screamed if one had.

Everybody claims media bias, but that does not mean that it is hypocritical to do so. Facts do matter.

Media ownership is a verifiable fact. The rightward drift of various new organizations as ownership changed is a fact.

It was just intended to bolster and lock in support for the war. This is great:

Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should “keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized,” according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico’s request.

No poll to actually refer to here, this is just "polling data". I guess you can "assemble" hand-picked data however you want, and even if it does not really say what you need it to, who is to know?

wrote:

So while it might seem unusual for American candidates to express love for this other country, they are actually mirroring the thinking of a pretty big chunk of America...

So maybe it is time to point out forcefully how irrational that love is. With the economy in the cellar, we do not need to be sending money to the mideast, either for the war in Iraq or aid to Israel. We sure spend enough money to purchase oil! Oh, by the way how much oil can we purchase from Israel?

Ah, but taking sides in a conflict is different from irrational love. The people of the US are just expressing "tough love".

Apparently you can't tell the difference between people that want to entertain, from people that want to kill.

On a literal level, it is idiotic; even shooter's reading comprehension cannot be that low. But how well it illustrates the need to hide from himself the sexual enjoyment of even the thought of violence.