padren

Another funny one:

Simply posting quotations from a left-wing or right-wing source doesn't constitute a media-managed tunnel-vision perspective. Articles or quotes may conveniently tie in multiple news sources and provide an opinion, which the poster wants to discuss or considers well spoken. What I am curious about is where the ones on the left who "feed at the Hollywood, Air America, MSNBC trough and then run around screaming at each other about rendition and religion and Bush Lied Kids Died and the evils of a military and so on." If people here posted articles to Air America and the like, crying bloody murder about events that did not happen I'd agree with you - but I don't think left or right leaners tend to do that here. Like you said, most people here tend to be pretty intelligent and (in correlation to an interest in science) practiced in critical thinking, and attempt to find flaws in their own views before presenting them. Most of the time, when people cite another poster's source as "total BS" a vigorous discussion results in base information agreed on, with differing views on what simplified statements can be made about that claim. Most disagreements are about the effects of policy, tied to left/right ideological views on what "known effects" of such policies are, and generalized synthesis of meta-data - by which I mean "my summary of all data on the TPM leads me to believe they generally are....." type extrapolations often conflict, including views of right/left media. What I am curious about though is how many voters believe Obama raised their taxes, piled on huge deficits, and threw bailout money at corporate America without any concern for recovering it, and how many voters believe equally patently false claims about Republicans. I also have dealt with many conservatives who will literally disregard any fact you mention no matter how many sources (AP, BBC, CNN) you cite for a single point because they were told the opposite was true by a "trusted" news source like Fox. Consider this from '08: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palin-makes-tro.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7662820.stm If those are too left-wing you can verify the actual report here: http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf Your response seems to imply that I said something to the effect that all people who voted for Republicans did so due to misinformation. If that is what you concluded, that is not the case and I am curious how you came to that conclusion. If not - how is the question about Bascule's voting for a Republican relevant, and what about what I said fit that line of thinking? I am not saying it's the single strongest factor. But ask yourself how, without collusion-by-convenience between Fox News reporting Palin's victory against "any ethical violations" in that report and the fact that the report says the exact opposite on page 8 can any group called a "news organization" miss such a major transgression? She bold-faced lied to reporters who then smiled, congratulated her and watched her wander off. No accountability, no need for accuracy, just a convenient narrative unhindered by facts from the Most Trusted Name In News. Btw, I don't think "conservatives need to be controled, manipulated, coerced into doing the right thing" but I do think "conservatives often feel the need to be control, manipulate, coerce voters into doing the their thing" and it extends to such relationships between VP candidates and certain news outlets. Some on the left play that sort of game a bit too, but not with such a degree of news agency collusion. Clinton had to back pedal pretty fast on the "Did not have sex with that women" statement, since he was called on the lie. And that Palin business happens in THIS kind of country, hence the disdain. I'm curious what these facts are. I already hate Hollywood for propagating the lie that Matthew Mcconaughey is more charming than me, but that's another story. What are some "hatred of the right" spun facts that Hollywood has purported? No no no no no no no. Not at all. I fully support the conservative voter that chooses to vote out Democrats because they want to raise revenue instead of cut the budget. I may disagree with them but at least they are working with facts. It's not that the people don't understand that the deficit needs to be lowered, its that they think it has already wildly expanded under Obama, that taxes have gone up, and the bailouts were money thrown away. Luckily the bailout repayments have gained some traction, but facts have an incredibly steep uphill battle to get onto Fox News when they are inconvenient, and the few that manage to break through (such as the $200M/day India blow-back) they are then immediately touted as proof that Fox is Fair and Balanced. It's damned if you do - damned if you don't. It reminds me of the old quote on how to beat claims of institutionalized corruption "If they point out tons of people are going to court on corruption charges - point out that means the system works! And if they complain no one is being caught point that out and declare that the system works!"

Uh, if you are arguing the merits and legal sanctioning of domestic violence, I think we are going to need a thread split. There is a lot to disagree with in each sentence of that paragraph, but I don't want to derail it if I mistook your meaning. If you are speaking in favor of domestic violence and want to discuss it - lets get a thread-split first.

I only used that link because it had actual footage of the show, ironically the google search for bill o reilly obama india trip returns almost entirely Glenn Beck links including #1. I don't tend to trust internet sources in general but I don't think they faked the date of Bill's show, which I do note you acknowledged. I'd like to know if the interpretation of the ban is 100% redundant, or extends beyond ensuring that US law always takes precedence over Sharia law. Any judge that suggests that any man can beat his wife for any reason (because they are Islamic, Catholic or on anti-depression meds) should be disbarred, IMO. Any violation of an individual's protected constitutional rights is a violation, and no law can create an exception. When people thought they had a God given right to own slaves, we didn't tolerate it despite the cost of the subsequent civil war. No traditions - cultural or religious - have been considered worthy of creating exceptions to desegregation or any other civil rights matter. (Of course there's the gay marriage/DADT debate, but the arguments tend to go deeper) This however is not an issue of Sharia law taking hold - it's a bad judge making a stupid decision, and a questionably overreaching ban targeted against one religion which either is 100% redundant or goes beyond already instituted protections illegally. Just to be clear - not all aspects of Sharia law are illegal under the US Constitution. People are free to practice Sharia law to the extent they are allowed to follow Catholic traditions with regards to birth control or attending mass. When any religious practice of any religion conflicts with a local or federal law, that law can (rightly) be challenged and the law struck down unless that law protects the civil rights of citizens, at which point civil rights trump the right to freedom to practice religion. The argument for allowing women to wear burkas covering their faces when getting a driver's license (ie, a form of photo identification) is one such famous challenge, which if I recall correctly was denied on account of the fact that it is considered necessary for safety for everyone that some privileges carry high responsibilities and thus require photo identification. However, just because such a challenge comes up and gets denied doesn't mean special laws need to be created targeting followers of Islam. And to be clear: Since we are talking about Sharron Angle's comments: * she said "We're talking about a militant terrorist situation" * she said "And I don't know how that happened in the United States." * she said "something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States." Read the exact statement - she isn't taking about judges making rare screw-ups. She is taking about Sharia law taking hold in municipality or government situations and she can't understand how that happened. Past tense. While the background information does add more light to where this whole issue started, it doesn't excuse the complete fabrication (sorry, not fabrication - she did read about it on the internet or something, would "willfully opportunistic miss-characterization" be a better term?) within the scope of her actual comments. Rachael Maddow (whom, admittedly watching this video has probably more than doubled the amount of time I've spent watching her show) was commenting on the baseless nature of her claims. While I don't know much about Maddow, I can say her comments about Angle are consistent and pretty on point to what Angle said. If that reads differently to you I can understand that. Personally, I still can't understand how you could read it that way (they were the most hyperbolic examples possible) but I can respect your opinion. I don't know anyone that cares about celebrity wanna-be pundits, even Michael Moore is considered to be more of an accidental comedian than a commentator - despite his best efforts to be taken seriously. I haven't heard anyone quoting Air America, I don't even know who they are. I've never actually heard the phrase "Bush Lied Kids Died" before - though I have heard fringers going on about 9-11 and alien NWO conspiracies, but that is distant fringe. If I find an article on a news aggrigator that happens to link to MSNBC, or CNN, or FOX, or pretty much any other source I pretty much immediately search for that topic from secondary news sources. Unless the article is about some show being canceled or a local city story, I'll look around. I don't know a single liberal personally that doesn't do this, albeit some have mild enough interest to skip it if it's not viewed as important - but they don't tend to take it as-is then either. The funny thing too is even people that I know who believe in 9-11 conspiracies and chem-trails don't trust MSNBC or any media outlet. They are just as paranoid about their news and still think Alex Jones is a moron. I'm sure there are liberals out there that do get all their news from MSNBC that I encounter - but I don't know because they don't push those stories on me or send me "OMG" email alerts. I honestly don't know where these frantic liberals are. What I am saying is when you say "the left does it too" it comes across as the "everyone does it" defense of equating wrongs, which doesn't excuse those who commit grievous transgressions by taking the "everyone does it" logic to the point of gross abuse. We cannot "clean up" both the right and left to a point where "lies are not spoken" and as such we will always deal with that as a factor. However, the fact it will always exist cannot excuse through equating the excesses of a specific group abusing that fact. I think the main concern on the left from people like me at least, is that every liberal I know does look at multiple news sources, and doesn't consider anything as beyond reproach - but when so many conservatives do lean on Fox News as "their primary news source" us on the left have no way of interjecting into the conservative dialogue and say "check your facts" because they are so well isolated. These people vote based on misinformation. Their votes are often justified by more well informed conservatives (phrases like "It's not that Obama has raised taxes, it's that he intends to establish a higher cost government") seem to excuse the fact that even though those voters were misinformed, they were "still voting because of their own deep-down real concerns" so it's somehow okay. I don't care about the very valid reasons people are susceptible to believing ridiculous lies - I want people to vote based on actual information, and I think the Bachmanns and Becks of the country go to great effort to prevent exactly that. While I agree any liberal doing that should also be held accountable, I do not think the impact of misinformation had equatable intensities on the right and left. I think the right was an order of magnitude worse in that regard, and that it did a great disservice to our democracy. I give points to Limbaugh when he brings up a fair point, even if he is a professional windbag. I agree entirely though that anyone BSing should be condemned, but I would like to see some sign that conservatives are making an effort to reduce and get this problem in check considering how far reaching it has gotten. So far all I see is it growing and working for conservative politicians, so it's even more disconcerting.

I found results of this breaking on Nov 2nd, and I found Bill calling it BS from the 5th, but I am glad to see he did apparently assign a few seconds to it. It would be nice if he took on the rest of the Fox News Machine for promoting that BS, which you have to admit made a very aggressive effort to get their viewers to swallow it. Here's the quotethat set it all off: She said yes - these places are under Constitutional law and not Sharia Law, but clearly states that she doesn't understand how that happened (past tense!) in the United States. Is there another way to interpret that, other than "an event" happened (past tense) despite the fact that legally, those cities are under US law and not Sharia law? This "happened" when, and what is the "this" if not the "allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation?" You realize those were included as a demonstration of why believing and repeating unsourced stories is reaaaally dumb. If you took at is a claim that these stories are repeated and accepted as fact, you missed the point. Can you demonstrate some examples of equal scale? Everyone has body odor, not everyone has such bad hygiene that their body odor can induce physical illness in others thirty feet away in an enclosed space. The degree of difference between right-wing and left-wing media is so vast the consequences of their respective actions have wholly different impacts, and they cannot be considered "equal" even though there is overlap in some degree since "both do a bit of everything." Everyone lies - but that isn't exactly build a defense case for the Abramoff's of the world. I agree entirely with your point here. The claim should be "there is so little debunking of the conservative media that it's effect is negligible." I have a problem with any claim that says anything as generalized as "misinform" could be assigned exclusively to any group - but semantics aside it is a huge problem on the right, and is causing far more damage to conservatives than liberal media does to liberals. Can you at least see that? You have the $200m/day story breaking and being pushed by Fox News, followed by Rep. Michelle Bachmann repeating the ridiculous claims.

Evolution is highly debatable, but it doesn't mean both sides have equal merit. Most of the debate on economic oversight to date still revolves around one side stating we can't allow the sort of "hands off" approach that occurred during the Bush years leading to this economic collapse, and the other side saying we have to try the hands-off approach but with less oversight before the "magical corrections" kick in and prevent future depression-caliber busts. There is room for nuance in that debate - nuance that could actually lead to progress - but it is a pipe dream when the debate is still dominated by Ayn Rand disciples that have lived in a bubble for the last 10 years. As for entitlement, the topic does include ideological spending but also most certainly includes strategic spending for the purpose of stability. That would be like saying all tax cuts (even funded ones at times without national debt) are all ideological populist spending gimmicks and not for stability reasons. Both tax cuts and entitlement programs can both be ideological or economically strategic in nature. I don't think there can be any doubt that the long arm of the US military lead to at least one of the best possible conclusions of the Cold War, and continued to provide stability. The question is, if all our major allies and us combined were able to maintain a force the size of our current combined forces, but with more equal distribution among the nations would we suffer for it or benefit from it with regards to security? I think at this point we can actually start sharing some this burden, and we will all benefit more for it in the long run. The question isn't if it works, but if it is the most economical and effective way to achieve that goal. I think y'all are on to something there - I know i use that phrase with some regularity.

Well, the left does spread lies like "Palin was investigated and found to have committed ethical violations as Governor of Alaska" - I saw her set the record straight on Fox News, even though every liberal news source was happy to quote the lie issued by the investigation itself stating she did in fact commit ethical violations under the law. And don't even get me started on those librawl lies about the planet getting warmer, garbage patches in the oceans, or me being a monkey's uncle. They even keep the mice with human brains a secret! Snarkisms aside - the only way to actually believe that the left is as bad as the right in this regard is to actually believe half the BS manufactured for consumption in Real America by the right. "The left is just as bad! My Republican heroes told me so and they read it on the internet!"

The problem is we can't hold on to no money without spending more than it - and this tax cut is new spending of that exact nature. Can we afford to buy the American Taxpayer another bloody tax cut? I don't understand how tax cuts end up in a special column of spending that is somehow considered "not spending" when at this level of debt they are luxury items when they are unfunded cuts, and we still haven't paid off the national debt. What frustrates me the most, is every time we have tax cuts proposed or tax cuts ready to finally expire, the entire financial community starts screaming about how the sky is going to fall and "uncertainty" is just too high, and the only way to fix this horrible (and frankly, self-created) state is to cut taxes to some new, finally reasonable level. Only no matter how many times we do that, whatever the new tax structure is it will always be "too high" and need to be lowered for growth to occur. If Obama had cut taxes 50% across the board his first day in office, I honestly believe we'd still be hearing how that was "a good start" but how vitally important it is for us to enact whatever new tax cuts the Republicans felt were critical to Saving America and Restoring Economic Confidence in the market. There is no discussion, there is no debate, there is no baseline target of what exemplifies a healthy rational tax rate. There is only populist spending - in the form of tax cuts - to give tax payers (voters and campaign contributors) money borrowed from foreign governments on the promise that it will be paid by the next generation. If we need to borrow money to keep our economy moving forward at a rate that can alleviate unemployment in a timely manner - sure, I can support that. I have supported that many times over, and that does extent to conservative strategies as well as liberal ones. But now they are taking about permanent tax cuts? I'm sorry but you cannot judge the size of government without looking at the responsibility to pay money the government has borrowed. Any increase in that debt increases the size of our government's responsibilities. Unfunded tax cuts increase debt, period. Simply "starving the beast" is as irresponsible as a policy of institutional anorexia - it is unhealthy, it leads to intentional underfunding solely to build the case that those funded programs are "ineffective" to justify their scraping later on. Both sides play that game, but we have to get beyond these stupid games if we are going to make any progress on the issue of spending. And Mr Skeptic, I have to ask: If you believe "It seems to me our government is just like that, if there's a big pool of money set aside for some distant purpose, they will loot it for something now." how do you believe we can solve the current problem? Obviously then we can't balance the budget like we did under Clinton - it will just be looted some how. Also, how is borrowing money for new tax cuts any different than borrowing a pool of money that is not ours, to spend on a populist handout? Isn't this tax cut the exact definition of exactly what you say is wrong?

To say free trade (or Globalized Trade, or whatever we really mean) is "bad" due to negative impacts is like saying the industrial revolution was bad due to the negative impacts. Whenever new practices become widely practical in a short time (whether the invention of factory manufacturing during the beginning of the industrial revolution, or the capacity to coordinate and manufacture products overseas more cost-effectively than local manufacturing) it takes time for laws to appropriately account for the new shift in checks and balances. Turning a blind eye to local companies dumping toxic sludge next to their third world factories is no different than turning a blind eye to fresh one-armed street urchins hitting the streets of Liverpool and London on a consistent basis. Then people see the problems, complain, some "robber barons" whine while others adjust and everything smooths out in due time. It does require that people actually push to see those problems addressed, and we may morally wish that people pushed their representatives faster (don't we always?) but I don't think free trade is bad, nor that the inequities are inherent or unaddressable.

Swearing on the Christian Bible may carry more percieved weight by Christian judges and jurors, but honestly the only real weight comes from either ( A ) a personal sense of right and wrong (which does not correlate to religious beliefs) or ( B ) fear of exposing oneself to criminal charges such as perjury and the very earthly consequences that come with that. Most people who would choose to lie under oath already have a reason to lie, are already aware of the impact that will have on those seeking the truth, and already have their reasons for believing they are justified in doing so.

I thought we were going to finally let them all expire and stop pretending we can always more borrow money to pay our utilities - and since it requires new actions to stop them from expiring, I'd say if Obama really was far to the left then that would have been his natural starting position. However, appearing to be more of a pragmatist he's actually (that crazy lefty) proposed that at this time an extension would be in our best economic interests. A compromise IMHO, would be if the Republicans want them to be permanent, they should find a way to fund them that doesn't involve saddling the next generation with yet even more debt. I'm sure the initial proposed spending cuts would appear outright offensive to Democrats, but that would be a great place to compromise across the board and trim everyone's belt. And while I appreciate the old sausage analogy, citizens are supposed to oversee this factory, and are supposed to bring it up when something on the line just simply stinks. Ninety percent of the discussions here are just that - critiques of a sausage factory. It doesn't change to "Stop whine'n that's just how they are made" when Republicans manage to eek out a majority in one of the three branches.

Great post John. I just wanted to throw in there, I think the historical position of America carrying a lot on broad shoulders goes further than an "Atlas's Burden" type scenario, but is a calculated expense worked into our foreign policy strategy that includes rapid overwhelming unilateral response to any emergent threat, without the need for allied support. We've gotten caught up by the fall of the Cold War, where "We have it, we should put it to use" turned into "We are using it, so now we can't get rid of it" and even "We are over-committed, now we need more to maintain flexible response capacity" over the years. There's a sense that if anything happened, our allies would look to the US for help immediately and there is a bit of a sense of being burdened by that expectation, but the alternative is a hard sell here to this day - the alternative being we have to consider our security as interdependently linked to our allies. Any "more equal distribution of costs and responsibilities with regards to global security" across nations means less direct US control. I do think we should move more towards that goal, and if we have to build up again due to changes in the future geopolitical landscape, it would probably cost us less than maintaining cutting-edge "WWIII capacity in under 3 minutes" up until that change.

To a degree as well, the devil is in the details of how the statements are qualified, and what the "implied intention" of the language is: Many scientist say stress can cause gray hair or thin,bold hair Many scientist say smoking pot can lead to lung cancer or kill brain cells and lead to short term memory proccessing problem. Many scientist say brain cells ,heart cells and the spine do not devide or grow and injury is for life. Many scientist say too much cell phone can lead to cancer. Many scientist say stress or anger can cause ulcers and hernia. Many scientist say kidney stones is caused by stress,anger or junk food. With reference to these "can cause/can lead" statements, if there is any way for A to cause B then technically it is correct, but how much stress does it take to cause even one gray hair, and how much of the population responds in this way to stress? One out of a billion? If you found one of the six people on Earth where stress causes gray hair - you can say the statement is correct. It appears to be true (based solely on anecdotal evidence from my father during my teen years) for more than one out of a billion, but it's really easy to end up lost in the ambiguities of the statement. Is the statement about pot smoking qualified against the risks of lung cancer just by the virtue of habitually lighting stuff on fire to inhale it? For all I know, the statement is "true" but also true for people who take ashes out of their fireplace, put them in a paper bag and "huff" them. There isn't enough information in the statement to qualify the claim. Too much cell phone use doesn't qualify what kind of cellphones, what "too much" is, what the resulting suspected rise in cancer risk is - again, the statement could be true but you have to go beyond the sparse qualifiers in the statement. Kidney stones (with the statement "is caused by") implies that while they are caused by those, they are not exclusively caused by those factors. We also don't qualify what kinds of "junk food" are discussed. With regards to heart cells, brain cells, and the spine (specifically the spinal cord if I read your intentions right) it may be fair to say they do not heal in the manner that other cells do. It doesn't however qualify if they are so unlikely to divide that even though they do, they cannot do so in a manner to repair damage. It doesn't qualify if they can be triggered to divide with therapies. To agree with what others already said about medical science, there is a difference in my mind (at least) between medical science and medical research - you can research the affect of a drug on rats, based on known similarities with human biology, but you are still working pretty far removed from a pure theory understanding of the drug in question. By this I mean, you may see that a compound has similar properties and makeup to a known fever reducer, but does that mean the exact reason why that known fever reducer is effective? We have figured it out to a point, but if we understood biology completely, it would be called chemistry, and if we understood that completely it would be called physics. Take other aspects of science today though: micro-computing, fiber-optics, medical diagnostics (MRI/etc) and rocket science - planes keep flying, computers keep working (well enough) and all kinds of things work because science is stronger than it has ever been. When it comes to reporting on science though, whenever claims like the ones you posted are made in the media there will be contention, because the claim is so vague that it is ambiguous, and people will disagree over what the implied meanings are. If these same people were to scientifically debate the topic, they would (probably) end up agreeing that "X shows a correlation to a [N-M] rise in Y" and then disagree on the implications...or disagree about the veracity of the study that showed the correlation. Again, these sorts of debates are usually heard by the media as a whoosh when it sails over their heads, before they try to find a way to work it into a public-friendly anecdotal fact on par with their dad's stress/hair color research.

The potential rewards for becoming the predominant provider of wind power technology is huge, but far more long term than any American firm can likely ride out to critical mass. China is probably taking an initial loss and will for some time simply to gain the best possible position down the road. America could actually invest like this if we wanted to, and considering the jobs market and the erosion of our leading-edge technology exports it could be a good idea: shovel-ready and large future benefits. Unfortunately, it would cost a lot of money and no politician could survive pushing such a plan that would take more than 2-4 years to see returns. The one thing it lacks is instant-gratification, which is pretty much a requirement in our current political climate. It is still possible that America could jump into a leading role by making a technological leap - and there are some very interesting wind power generation systems that promise to be far more efficient, low profile, low impact, and lower maintenance than the traditional turbine structure. However, the factors that have enabled the US to make such leaps ahead of countries like China are definitely in decline, while China has more Universities apparently now than the US has university students. I think it mostly depends on how long it takes us to get out of our current economic/political mess, so we can get back to how we grow within the world stage.

I'm pretty sure there were two errant adventures into Iraq, but we can stick to economic shenanigans if you like.

Well I have my ideas on how things are and should be, what I think works, what I think doesn't, what I think is easy and what I think is hard, so I think he should have done things more the way I would have liked them, and less the way he wanted to do things. Then I'd be happier because things would be better, more like the way I want them to be, and he'd have validated my views. It's disappointing, because he really squandered an opportunity there.

The Republicans still haven't proposed a new idea in recent memory (maybe Reaganomics) and their old ideas are no less flawed now than any of the other times Democrats had to rebuild after their economic shenanigans and wars. I do think though, if Obama had perfect pre-retrospect he could have done better, so we could blame him. It's probably easier to blame a combination of Alzheimer's and that facts no longer need to be based on reality to be newsworthy.

She's made some pretty shrewd business moves, in terms of how much money she's come out with, considering that politically she doesn't exactly have a list of accomplishment. She could play the angle just hard enough to squeeze some things she wants out of the GOP and try to bring the "crazies endorsement" behind whomever Republicans do kick into the fray. The more she plays the radically-traditional card (or whatever you would call it) the more she could bring her followers into the fold for "such an important election" as 2012, with the Communist-Kenyan power-play all riding on it to forever erase this country from history itself. If she tries to run, she'll find herself destroyed by the GOP. If she thinks the "mean liberal media" was hard on her, she hasn't seen anything yet. I think she knows this, and is playing the staring contest for leverage.

Honestly, I think the biggest challenge to "highbrow" news is competing with "lowbrow" news, not NPR. The "lowbrow model" is based on an exceptionally efficient and profitable set of parameters, from choosing a target demographic, finding out what they believe, and then telling them how everything in the world works to fit exactly with their beliefs, reinforcing their comfort zones and playing on their convictions and fears. Back in the days of Cronkite and Murrow, the news was not something people tuned into everyday, it wasn't always interesting enough to compete with exciting shows. The "highbrow" model is based on the idea of putting trust and integrity over consistent popularity, and when big events do happen everyone quickly tunes into whomever in their mind wins the trust game to get the most reliable coverage. I don't even know if highbrow can fit into the 24hr cycle and chase balloon boys with the rest of the pack offering real-time analysis (word salad) and retrospective insights every 5 minutes (popcorn word salad) but NPR isn't the obstacle. Personally, if I want to know more about something going on in the US I'll usually check the BBC's website as my first "highbrow" source. They may have a British twist, but it's not celebrity-chasing warped.

The very short answer (IMHO) is: Since even a public firm directly competes for dollars with private firms, by taking those dollars out of the private system it amounts to a very unevenly distributed tax. If it was a natural gas company, at worst it would hurt competition, and at best mean that Florida pays nothing and the coldest nastiest states pay for everything. No matter how it's done, it's ultimately an adhoc and uneven tax collection mechanism. Another problem is that markets change over time, and it's natural for all the players to play the "adapt or die" game, and those that happen to do so slowly end up out of business. The process tends to start with a young company ready to take advantage of new markets, continue to innovate, then eventually loose their market share while desperately lobbying the government to protect their business model. I forget which group, but one is lobbying right now to force all cell phone manufacturers to include a radio in their devices by law. This is purported to be a safety feature, but it is the same organization that represents music labels and they have special royalty arrangements that apparently vary based on access to radio - so they stand to make money whether cell phone users ever tune into a radio station simply by the option being there. (I'm sorry I haven't looked it up, it's really late and I need to sleep shortly) These psychological shifts are almost impossible to see when you are "inside the bubble" and people who amassed amazing fortunes by applying ingenious insight to new tends become almost idiotic when viewed by those outside the bubble. If the government was to have to go inside that bubble, it would not only lead to huge conflict of interest with lobbyists but is a huge threat to objectivity. Secondarily, Walmart makes buying decisions that make and break thousands of jobs all the time. What politician can tell their constituents that "most of you will be fired soon" whether they are federal cashiers or just private product manufacturers? Another interesting thing - Alaska has no sales tax and no income tax, and funds state expenditures through petroleum revenues, and instead Alaskan citizens get payments each year from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. I believe this is all generated by tax revenue on oil production levied against private oil companies, but it is not an income tax or sales tax. It's an interesting piece of irony, considering Palin's views and that it is probably the largest wealth redistribution framework of any of these United States. In the long run though, it's all just smoke and mirrors because the burdens have to be carried and the bills have to be paid, letting the invisible hand assign the tax bracket system only makes this harder to see and harder to manage, but it still weighs out the same in the end.

I like that system Captain, though I don't know if it could work that well in the US at this time. I am also a bit curious about your experiences as a Dutch friend of mine once told me about some of Holland's immigration issues, specifically about an influx of labor (I think mostly from Morocco if I recall, perhaps also Turkey) during the 70s when it was very difficult to meet the growth demands domestically, and when that boom died down, it created a lot of tension between foreign workers who had made lives there and the traditional Dutch populations. The overall impression I got was that both groups had mutually exclusive implied expectations and both could not be realized, causing some long term issues that still persist. Is that a fair characterization? I ask because I've only ever heard any details from one friend of mine, and it sounds like Holland has had to work through some complex immigration issues, and I'm always interested in hearing more from those who've "already been through it" when sorting out how to think about those issues here, even if they don't fit exactly to a tee.

I think it's symptomatic of a problem in how "citizens" are identified: we make special allowances for visitors, and means by which visitors can become permanent members of this society. Illegal immigration is tolerated (in my opinion) in a gray area due to imperfections in how we manage seasonal or temporary labor, but it becomes a real problem is when those people become in all but name become part of the citizenry. I don't understand why, if someone has already passed all the qualifications to be a legal permanent resident, that they can't continue to go through the regular legal process to become citizens - it's mostly a matter of time and a clean record at that point. Any problem with permanent residents who do follow the rules but can't become citizens for some reason is an issue for that process, but they already have a means to access the right to vote. In my mind, there is no need to extend that extra benefit to permanent residents, and it would only serve to blur the distinction. As for illegal immigrants, the issue gets so much more complex due to the fact we as a society apply market pressures to keep them coming, while punishing them for it, but that doesn't make them entirely without fault and also doesn't warrant giving them the right to vote. Expedience perhaps in solving the bloody problem, so they can either enter a process to become permanent residents or be genuinely deported without the mixed signals (seriously, can we please find a politician without illegal nannies and gardeners, etc?) muddying everything up. The "pro" article talks a lot about the lack of representation among immigrants, but I find it false because frankly many citizens who do vote are immigrants - they just became citizens legally. If a lot of immigrants are caught in some sort of gridlock holding pattern, giving them additional rights while they wait only placates the issue somewhat, and doesn't solve the real problem, legal immigration gridlock. I think it's symptomatic of a problem in how "citizens" are identified: we make special allowances for visitors, and means by which visitors can become permanent members of this society. Illegal immigration is tolerated (in my opinion) in a gray area due to imperfections in how we manage seasonal or temporary labor, but it becomes a real problem is when those people become in all but name become part of the citizenry. I don't understand why, if someone has already passed all the qualifications to be a legal permanent resident, that they can't continue to go through the regular legal process to become citizens - it's mostly a matter of time and a clean record at that point. Any problem with permanent residents who do follow the rules but can't become citizens for some reason is an issue for that process, but they already have a means to access the right to vote. In my mind, there is no need to extend that extra benefit to permanent residents, and it would only serve to blur the distinction. As for illegal immigrants, the issue gets so much more complex due to the fact we as a society apply market pressures to keep them coming, while punishing them for it, but that doesn't make them entirely without fault and also doesn't warrant giving them the right to vote. Expedience perhaps in solving the bloody problem, so they can either enter a process to become permanent residents or be genuinely deported without the mixed signals (seriously, can we please find a politician without illegal nannies and gardeners, etc?) muddying everything up. The "pro" article talks a lot about the lack of representation among immigrants, but I find it false because frankly many citizens who do vote are immigrants - they just became citizens legally. If a lot of immigrants are caught in some sort of gridlock holding pattern, giving them additional rights while they wait only placates the issue somewhat, and doesn't solve the real problem, legal immigration gridlock.

I think we are beyond being able to blame nature for the suffering people endure and often die from that is born from scarcity. People in the most advanced societies of the world still die in earthquakes and blizzards of course, but the tools people have to help mitigate these natural causes are a direct result of human nature and there can be no clear distinction between human caused and naturally caused suffering. No one is suggesting that anyone alive should not be fed, due to fear of over-population or otherwise. Modern day famines, disease from dirty water sources, and other forms of suffering/death that arise from localized resource scarcity are important humanitarian issues that we have the power to help alleviate and eventually eradicate. I think personally that we have a moral imperative, not so much as a species but as intelligent, sentient beings to mitigate that suffering. The point I am making is that as we solve those issues, we will also have to deal with the fact that overpopulation will eventually negate any improvements we make in their access to resources, so while "starvation is starvation" we do have to address the first cause (resources) but also the secondary cause (overpopulation) because without addressing it starvation will still occur. They are equivocal with regards to those suffering it, but they are the result of different causes and need to both be addressed distinctly. If we can relieve the starvation that results from immediate localized resource shortages, the only way to ensure later starvation does not occur is through either genocide, forced sterilization, or voluntary birth control. Personally, I only have the stomach for voluntary birth control, which I believe is rather effective in most places as educated stable populations tend to shift from a "have as many kids as possible in hopes a few survive to care for you in your old age" strategy to one of strategic resource allocation to smaller families. This does not kill anyone, it does not force anyone against their will, and it is a shift we have observed occurring naturally in many emerging and first world societies. However, it does require more time to become effective, and when overpopulation hits critical mass as it has in China it becomes harder and harder for that strategy to be effective. It is the most "win win" solution I am aware of (and happy to discuss that topic as well, I am open minded) but is also places the highest strain on the resources for those populations trying to help them avoid famine. I haven't read Bataille, but I am not quite understanding how evolutionary pressures in nature apply to the human situation - nature is a horrible, violent and cruel process and every form of efficiency or balance it has provided is paid for somewhere in very large quantities of blood and suffering. As for "economically wasteful" societies, it's also worth noting that without these wasteful societies, there would not exist the technology to help those in harsher areas of the world avoid famine and suffering. That does not justify leaving those peoples to starve, but it cannot be ignored that our solutions to inequity only exist in part because of the problem of inequity. When an issue contains such a paradoxical fact, it deserves further scrutiny because the solutions may not be as simple as one would expect. Lastly, I am curious what you think about situations of "special need" and human nature. For example, Michael J. Fox campaigns regularly to raise money for Parkinson's research and it is a near statistical certainty that some of those donors are persuaded by his actions to spend their "charity allotments" towards the search for a cure instead of feeding people who are currently starving in the poorest parts of the world. Therefore, it is a near statistical certainty that there are people who have died due to starvation that would not have if he had not persuaded those donors. Do you think that is wasteful, or unethical considering that Parkinson's affects a lot less people than starvation, and food-funding can concretely save lives now whereas a cure for Parkinson's is theoretical future? If the final cost for a cure is measured against the lives it saves, and is compared to how many people could be fed by that funding, would it be wasteful? Sorry to double-reply, but I thought this point warranted a specific response after the fact: Yet, mathematics is reliable enough to get us to the moon and back, send probes beyond the solar system, and generate huge amounts of energy by splitting the atom. It's not just "on paper" but drives nearly all contemporary technological progress. To dismiss it as "merely on paper" is to dismiss the single most powerful tool we've ever managed to discover in helping us understand, predict, and solve our very much real-world problems. If you want to suggest the numbers are incorrect, then point to where they are incorrect, if you suggest they are correct but fail to adequately model enough variables to support the scope of the claims made, then point out where that is so. However, to dismiss mathematics as "only existing on paper" is ultimately futile because, I assure you, any solutions to reduce modern waste will require putting numbers on paper long before you see a reduction in waste in dumpsters.

I don't think anyone would argue that you are incorrect about the short-term - in fact, part of the mathematical breakdown that I provided does demonstrate incontrovertibly that you are entirely correct: out of two equal populations, the one that consumes more puts a higher stress on resources than the one that reproduces faster in the short-term. The values for the consumption multipliers (10x in group A, 1x-0.005x in group B ), starting populations (both 1 million to start) and growth rates (1.2 and 2.1) in my examples create a specific "turning point" for when the more efficient group consumes more than the smaller group, but for any values (with equal starting populations) it is a mathematical certainty that the group with the higher rate of consumption will use more resources for a period of time. The only point of contention is that you can only delay, not solve that "turning point" in the timeline where unrestrained population growth results in eventual higher consumption, and will result in a forced population limit. That said, if you do agree with the above statement, it is no longer a point of disagreement and there are other interesting issues within the sociological/geographical makeup of such groups and the issues of both over-population concerns and resource-scarcity concerns, and how they interrelate. I find all the sub-facets of the topic quite interesting, but it's hard to go into them unless we can agree on some of the principle foundations that frame the issue, which is why I suspect the discussion has revolved around these aspects for so long. Edit: forums always always have a way of making a secondary group, like (group B ) think they are sooo cool thanks to sunglasses smiley guy B) if they don't get that extra space

Is it pessimism to assert a design for a perpetual motion machine is flawed? Some things are mathematically flawed. Resource efficiency as a means to achieve perpetual unlimited exponential population growth is just as fatally flawed as any perpetual motion machine design. No matter how efficient you make a machine, it can never generate enough power to run itself. Likewise, talking about all sorts of potential efficiency improvements that frankly, make a technological singularity look like Kitty Hawk only demonstrates a lack of understanding about the hard mathematical limits within the problem. Just do the math: Population A: 1 million people, using 10 resources each, increasing at a rate of 1.2 per generation Population B: 1 million people, using 1 resources each, increasing at a rate of 2.1 per generation The generational breakdown of population A looks like: Generation 1: 1m x 10 = 10m resources consumed in generation 1 Generation 2: 1.2m x 10 = 12m resources consumed in generation 2 Generation 3: 1.44m x 10 = 14.4m resources consumed in generation 3 Generation 4: 1.728m x 10 = 17.3m resources consumed in generation 4 Generation 5: 2.0736m x 10 = 20.7m resources consumed in generation 5 Generation 6: 2.48832m x 10 = 24.9m resources consumed in generation 6 Generation 7: 2.985984m x 10 = 29.9m resources consumed in generation 7 Generation 8: 3.5831808m x 10 = 35.83m resources consumed in generation 8 Generation 9: 4.29981696m x 10 = 43.0m resources consumed in generation 9 Generation 10: 5.159780352m x 10 = 51.6m resources consumed in generation 10 The generational breakdown of population B looks like: Generation 1: 1m x 1 = 1m resources consumed in generation 1 Generation 2: 2.1m x 1 = 21m resources consumed in generation 2 Generation 3: 4.41m x 1 = 4.4m resources consumed in generation 3 Generation 4: 9.261m x 1 = 9.3m resources consumed in generation 4 Generation 5: 19.4481m x 1 = 19.4m resources consumed in generation 5 Generation 6: 40.84101m x 1 =40.8m resources consumed in generation 6 Generation 7: 85.766121m x 1 = 85.7m resources consumed in generation 7 Generation 8: 180.1088541m x 1 = 180.1m resources consumed in generation 8 Generation 9: 378.22859361m x 1 = 378.2m resources consumed in generation 9 Generation 10: 794.280046581m x 1 = 794.3m resources consumed in generation 10 As you can see, by 10 generations, group B is consuming about 15 times as much as group B, despite the fact that group A uses 10 times as much per person So, lets say that by 10 generations of advancement, group B is managed to some how, thanks to unknown technology get by with only 1/100th the resources per person as group A. Then they'd only be consuming one and a half times group A. Lets say they are even better, and manage to use 1/200th (say half a penny, for every dollar to use currency as a resource metric) and group B manages to, by 10 generations, still be more efficient than group A. That would make generation 10 of group B look like: Generation 10: 794.280046581m x 0.005 = 3.9714m resources consumed in generation 10 That would be an amazing accomplishment, and perhaps their necessity would drive that sort of extreme innovation. Well, if the first 10 generations had it rough, generation 11+ is in for a challenge that makes that all look easy: Group A - Generation 11: 6.1917364224m x 10 = 62m resources consumed in generation 11 Group A - Generation 12: 7.43008370688m x 10 = 74.3m resources consumed in generation 12 Group A - Generation 13: 8.916100448256m x 10 = 89.1m resources consumed in generation 13 Group A - Generation 14: 10.6993205379072m x 10 = 107m resources consumed in generation 14 Group A - Generation 15: 12.83918464548864m x 10 = 128.4m resources consumed in generation 15 Group B - Generation 11: 1667.9880978201m x 0.005 = 8.34m resources consumed in generation 11 Group B - Generation 12: 3502.77500542221m x 0.005 = 17.5m resources consumed in generation 12 Group B - Generation 13: 7355.827511386641m x 0.005 = 36.8m resources consumed in generation 13 Group B - Generation 14: 15447.23777391195m x 0.005 = 77.2m resources consumed in generation 14 Group B - Generation 15: 32439.19932521509m x 0.005 = 162m resources consumed in generation 15 Once again, all Group B did was put off the inevitable, and now they have to find a way to cut up that 1/200th resource per person and cut it up even smaller, because for all the saving they did by generation 15 they are still less efficient than Group A This is a mathematical fact. They can try to take their slice of cake, cut it up into 200 pieces, then learn - somehow - to get by with one slice cut up into 40,000 pieces 10 generations later, then one slice cut up into 8,000,000 pieces 10 after that, and 1,600,000,000 10 after that... but do you really think that can be sustained? Do you think that is a better strategy to allow and fund innovation with spare resources when compared to Group A, which after just as many generations is still able to give 10 pieces of cake to every person? The whole reason we are talking about humans being made out of single atoms is because this mathematical formula scales up to the levels where 1 atom per person would be required for the population to grow - not because it's viewed as viable. It's a demonstration of the impossibility of unlimited population growth. There is pessimism, and then there's mathematics. As a secondary note: admitting the realities of exponential mathematics is not a moral justification for direct interference with high-growth populations. It is politically and ethically neutral to admit that 1+2 = 2 or that 1 x 2.1 = 2.1 - the only thing it is, is honest. If people take those numbers and decide to commit genocide, or forced sterilization that is an ethical fault in the people taking that action. For any ethical and reasonable solution to be possible, a proper and honest understanding of the situation is essential. You cannot ignore realities because you fear they could lead to the justification of unethical actions without creating a flawed model of reality, which will eventually create a severe enough break with reality to generate blowback, and that will be far more likely to result in those specific unethical policies you wanted to avoid to begin with. Each fact has to be dealt with, and if one piece of information is absolutely clear in a mathematical manner, it can't be negated simply by the feared implications. It has to be taken into account, and any solution has to deal with the reality of it.