New images of Amazon's proposed Seattle towers finally show what the three towers may look like and how they'll change the feel of the city's downtown.

The supposed bomber at the center of a foiled plot to bring down a jetliner was actually a double agent who funneled vital information to U.S. and Arab intelligence agencies, according to officials, marking an apparently successful infiltration of al Qaeda's most dangerous branch.
The revelation came a day after U.S. officials said the Central Intelligence Agency, working with foreign security services and other agencies, had thwarted a bomb plot by al Qaeda's Yemeni branch aimed at bringing down a U.S. jetliner with a more advanced version of an underwear bomb used in a failed 2009 Christmas Day attempt.
The newest plot appears to provide a chilling illustration of al Qaeda's determination to learn from its mistakes: The bomb that was recovered has two detonators, providing a crucial backup in the event one failed, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

Admit it: You've asked your 6-year-old to walk on your back. Or you pop your knuckles after hours at the keyboard. But what are you really doing to your body when you crack your spine, neck, or other joints? We asked Joseph Feinberg, chief of physiatry who specializes in nonsurgical treatments of musculoskeletal and some neurological disorders at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, to crack the code.
What is happening when we crack a joint?
The belief is that there can be some misalignment, called a subluxation, in the joint, and a sudden movement or manipulation can lessen the tension on the ligament, muscle or joint. But the science hasn't been well demonstrated—you don't generally have an X-ray before and after a manipulation. When that has been documented, the clinical assessment hasn't always shown true realignment.

Oh, just a mere, nearly $36,000.00 to attend the party!

(gulp!)

...Something we all enjoy that is not taken at the expense of another.

In more than 20 years I've spent studying the issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that college football has anything do with what is presumably the primary purpose of higher education: academics.
That's because college football has no academic purpose. Which is why it needs to be banned. A radical solution, yes. But necessary in today's times.
Football only provides the thickest layer of distraction in an atmosphere in which colleges and universities these days are all about distraction, nursing an obsession with the social well-being of students as opposed to the obsession that they are there for the vital and single purpose of learning as much as they can to compete in the brutal realities of the global economy.

As a journalist, I am sometimes called upon to deliver bad news, so brace yourself: You no longer live in the center of the Car Universe.
From the 1908 Ford Model T to, oh, about three years ago, Americans enjoyed total automotive hegemony. The U.S. was not only the globe's largest personal-vehicle market—almost 17 million light-vehicle sales a year at its peak in 2005—it was also an unrivaled global tastemaker. From tail fins to SUVs to rims to plug-in hybrid electrics, U.S. auto makers and consumers have led the way. European and Japanese auto makers set up design studios in Southern California to study the habits of the inscrutable Yankee, with his Big Gulp and third-trimester belly. Proud companies sold their souls to seduce American car buyers. A Porsche sport utility (Cayenne#, a Honda pickup #Ridgeline#, a Ferrari with cup holders. Nothing was sacred.
Now China is the dragon in the room. As of 2009, the country is the world's largest light-vehicle market #sales in 2012 are estimated at more than 18 million, compared with about 14.5 million for the U.S.), and the fastest-growing. The prediction blithely bandied about here at the Beijing International Auto Show was an annual car market of 30 million sales by 2020. Meanwhile, the premium-car market is, well, erupting is the only word, with predictions on the order of 15% to 20% annual growth for the next decade. Western car makers, frantic to get their hooks into China's young and affluent, are rushing into joint ventures with Chinese interests as fast as the ink can dry.

What, if any, is the connection between illiteracy and ideology?
George Orwell, our greatest political sociologist, has some ideas. He is the master explainer of governance, power, totalitarianism, education, and the dynamics of class warfare. It's an ugly picture.

Making Sense of the Research....
The main question at hand is whether smarter people have bigger brains. As is the case with many science questions, the answer to this one isn't "yes" or "no" but "kinda," "sometimes," or "not necessarily." As you heard, you can't always tell how big someone's brain is from the size of their head—but the two sizes are somewhat related. The same is true with brain size and intelligence. The most we can say about brain size and intelligence is that by and large, all other things being equal, people who have larger brains tend to have slightly higher I.Q.'s than people with smaller brains. (I.Q. stands for intelligence quotient; it's a standard measure of intellectual ability.) But a lot of things have to be taken into account. For example, when you compare brain size, you really have to compare brain size relative to body mass. It's not reasonable to expect a 5'1", 100-pound woman to have the same size brain as a 6'6", 280-pound man. You have to ask the question: Is this person's brain larger or smaller than you might expect, given his or her body mass? Even then, the relationship between brain size and intelligence is pretty weak, and there are lots of exceptions. Anatole France, a French author, had one of the tiniest "normal" brains on record, but he was certainly no dummy. On the other extreme, Jonathan Swift #the author of Gulliver's Travels# had a big honkin' brain, at the top end of all the brains ever measured #though still only twice the size of Anatole France's#. Does that mean Swift was the smartest man who ever lived? He was certainly a bright guy, but it's hard to get behind any statement so extreme.

Americans must ask themselves whether Eric Holder and black leaders indeed fear the New Black Panther Party, as they all refuse to condemn their rhetoric and tactics in the last few weeks.
The Trayvon Martin Case is the latest in a long list of incidents into which the New Black Panther Party has injected itself, but nothing has measured up to its latest tactics, which include placing a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head with the qualifier "dead or alive."
It would seems to the most independent of observers that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his refusal to condemn this murder of hire scandal, approves the placement of bounties by private citizens on other private citizens. One would not have to wonder, if this had been a group of Americans connected with the Tea Party Movement offering up a bounty on a private citizen, what the reaction of the Justice Department would be.

The panel was comprised of two liberal HuffPo writers and someone from "The Daily Show," all of whom deal with political humor. LaMont assures as he leads to his inevitable conclusion that the discussion was “thoughtful” and-get this-“unbiased.” He followed the assurance with this:
“Yet the moment that spoke volumes during the discussion was a moment when I asked for examples of conservative humor. Only Dennis Miller was mentioned, the rest was an awed silence.”
It should be pointed out that an “awed silence” in Austin (especially at SXSW) is called a “hangover” everywhere else in the country.
But onto the argument, point-by-point, with a quote or two from LaMont’s reasoning to illustrate.

For over one hundred and fifty years there has been a law that says a person cannot challenge a tax law until the tax has actually been assessed and they pay the tax or challenge an IRS collection action. That law is the Anti-Injunction Act. If the law applies to a suit then, almost uniformly, courts have ruled that they cannot even hear the case. It must be thrown out because the court lacks jurisdiction.
Today the Court is hearing arguments on whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the suits challenging the Affordable Care Act.

The reason, they explained, is that Mr Zimmerman said he was acting in self-defence, and Florida has a "stand your ground" law which holds that a person can justifiably kill another person if they "reasonably believe" that they're in danger. Many states have similar laws and they're not entirely unreasonable. When Texas passed its own "castle doctrine" law, some five years ago, I was surprised that it wasn't already on the books. It wouldn't have occurred to me that a person wouldn't have the right to shoot an unauthorised intruder in their own home. (Before the law was passed, there was a "duty to retreat", meaning that you could only justifiably kill someone if a reasonable person wouldn't have tried to get away.) But in the case of a home intrusion, a person could almost always assert a reasonable belief that they were in danger; they have, at least, the data point that the suspicious person in question has already broken into their home. Florida's 2005 law is more aggressive: it lets you "stand your ground" even if you're in public. Emily Bazelon, at Slate, has a fascinating explanation of its history.

Start adding everything up, including Mr. Breitbart's findings he was getting ready to release about President Obama... and, well...it doesn't look good.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio will reveal the findings of his office's investigation into the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate on March 1, he announced Tuesday.

.

I seriously doubt that even if he found proof-positive that the birth certificate released last April wasn't worth the paper it was printed on that it would have any real effect legally.  The implications would be tantamount to a complete unravelling of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.  The Legislative would face an invalidation of every Bill signed into law, the Judicial would see major scrutiny over their findings in legal challenges so far which have upheld its legitimacy, and well the Executive branch would be broken from this point forward on the World Stage as there would never again be a time when a Presidential signature to a international treaty wouldn't be subject to skepticism.

With the results of Maricopa County, AZ sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse," an incredible claim has become an incredible situation: a team of professional investigators, commissioned by a major law-enforcement agency, has determined that the alleged birth certificate produced by the president of the United States is a probable forgery.

Process that for a moment. The regime of the world's most powerful nation -- a republic that prides itself on adherence to the rule of law -- is likely peddling a forged document. What say you, citizen?

With the incredible denial and suppression of this issue by the Congress and the mainstream media at last Sheriff Arpaio, the first law enforcer to conduct an investigation, reveals significant new evidence indicating fraud.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Wednesday requested assistance from the U.S. Selective Service System as part of his ongoing investigation into President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

“While my office will continue pursuing this investigation, I have spoken of the need to enlist the aid of other agencies,” Arpaio said in a press release. “As a first step to that end, I am now requesting the assistance of the U.S. Selective Service System asking them to conduct a concurrent investigation to verify the authenticity of this document.”

Arpaio announced on March 1 that his six-month investigation into Obama’s birth certificate concluded the document was most likely a “forgery.”

The Republican sheriff now claims that Obama’s Selective Service registration form from 1980 was likely a forgery as well.

In the wake of Andrew Breitbart’s sudden and unforeseeable death, new implications are surfacing that further display the shock waves still flowing outward from the aftermath of a tragedy that not only affects his family and friends. In the vial world of politics the repercussions are always a little more disconcerting than the norm. As the leftist media make outright jokes about his passing and even stoop as low as to make fun of his family, the far reaching implications of the demise of an important conservative voice is being felt on many different levels.

After the internal reorganization of Andrew Breitbart’s company due to his recent death, new Editor, Ben Shapiro has announced that Breitbart.com will no longer pursue the Obama eligibility controversy. He claims that after looking at the evidence on both sides of the argument that he is not convinced that Obama was not actually born in the US, and even if he was not that it would  serve little if any productive purpose. This sudden change in policy after Andrew’s death flies in the face of Breitbart’s commitment to not only vetting Obama, but starting a citizen journalist’s revolution. That revolution meant going directly to the people with his findings instead of relying on the leftist oriented US mainstream media establishment to deflect the truth. Breitbart’s vision was to connect journalists committed to the truth and bypassing the bought off, compromised, US media. In the wake of his untimely death, it seems at least one member of Breitbart’s organization, has capitulated.

Editor, Ben Shapiro, now is blanching on the company’s basic directive in its original position on Obama’s eligibility. Could it be that the untimely, and now suspicious death of Andrew Breitbart has been effective in discouraging Shapiro like the veiled threat that the tragedy was intended to be? Will this be the legacy of Breitbart’s death? Will this be the intended fruition of those who may have been responsible for Andrew’s mysterious demise? Will this tragedy serve as a menacing reminder to all journalists who oppose President Obama in his campaign to transform America? If indeed evidence does come to light that Breitbart was assassinated, no doubt that warning will be only the more chilling for reporters to consider, but it may require them to approach their craft with even more courage and commitment than ever before.

It would be hard for anyone to ignore the fact that nations of the world at this time seem to be on a tear to restrict personal freedoms, develop bigger military arsenals, and dictate to the journalistic community what kind of news they want reported. The truth is not only becoming an elusive commodity but it seems also to be a deadly prospect for those who seek to report it.

The news community in the wake of Andrew Breitbart’s passing is confronted by two options. Either to proceed as usual and carry on as before, perhaps even allowing Breitbart’s fate to either mildly or boldly intimidate them. Or, they can exercise another option, the right one. To become even more determined to see that news coverage and editorialism become even more committed to see that they are the bridge that connects people with the facts, the real portrayal of events; the truth regardless of the intimidation and perceived threats that have always stood in the way of the pursuit of honest reporting. We must insure that we as Americans are not deprived of our First Amendment rights to the Constitution, and not allow any demagogue or self styled dictator to impose their will upon us by making us fear the mention of truth!

Psychotherapists often talk about the difference between “wanting to be right” and “getting what we want.” Many of us, myself included, often prefer to be right — or what we believe to be right — even if it interferes with our larger goals.
This is the kind of behavior that destroys marriages. It can also have a detrimental impact on politics and the world at large.
At this moment, we can observe it in some people’s reactions to Mitt Romney. They are sure they are right that something is wrong with Romney and everything he says … or doesn’t… or supposedly doesn’t… is construed as evidence of this.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Curiosity can be very good or very bad. It depends what you do with it and for what reason. You cannot live without curiosity, without anticipation, without interrogation. On the other hand, if you use curiosity just for silly things – it can happen – then why go on? ----Elie Wiesel

I Love this question because it seems so blatantly obvious, doesn't it? Of course, we're curious and know what it is! Yet, if we really take a closer look... really think about it... Doesn't much in our lives become 'habit,' ..extremely rote--"repetition without understanding; mechanical routine?"  So, how often do we truly use that inherent skill? Not too often, right?!  Is that really how we want to live our lives?  Having someone else do our thinking for us, and we just accept that is all there is??

I find it very interesting that if you ask different people what curiosity is, you will get just as many different answers as there are people. And just as the author above suggests--curiosity can be bad just as much as good, yet how many of us think of the 'bad' when we entertain thoughts of curiosity?

This subject is indirectly part of my ongoing quest to understand the nature of political thought in man, the differences and why they occur, and most significantly how 'nature' is impacted by the environment..if it is, and if it is a temporary effect that can be altered by a different or progressive environment. 

I'm also investigating if 'curiosity' was involved in moving away from tribal mentality, an increased desire for independent thinking, critical thinking, a "reason" for doing things beyond basic instincts and intuitions; in other words...curiosity *might* be the basis of original political thought, moving man in different directions from nature... to science.  That is probably pretty much a 'given' in many circles, but my contention is more with which group---liberal or conservative---is best 'served'--pragmatically--by their group's natural curiosity and desire for man's human rights.

But, back to curiosity for now, and what it 'is' for these individuals, as well as for yourself, is what I would like to examine.

Do you relate to any of their answers?

This study poses several interesting questions

Is there a gene that makes one person a liberal or a gene that makes another conservative?
What is the relationship between genetic makeup and environmental influence in determining our political views?
How much free choice do we have in determining our political ideology?
What comes first -- our values or our biological makeup?

I have a new hero, a totally fresh discovery for me. His name is Kevin Jackson, author of The Big Black Lie, a critique of liberal America, and host of The Black Sphere website. He was interviewed recently by Melissa Kite in the Spectator, giving his views on Barack Obama and David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, and, oh my, what refreshing and perspicacious views they are!
He said something that I have long suspected though, for me, it was a truth that dare not speak its name – voting for Obama was racist! Let me qualify that by saying I believe that there were a great many people who voted for him more because of the colour of his skin than his merits as a candidate. Jackson is more direct –“They wanted a black president. Racists that they are.."

Video.