ParanoiA

Curious, how do the other markets in the country secure their R&D while competing internationally? And what, then, makes this market the exception? I'm not a big fan of legislating markets for corporations. R&D is a part of many a business model for numerous markets in the US that must compete with imports, and I just find it hard to believe that Pharma can't do, successfully, what they do. Note I said, hard to believe though, not unbelievable. I'm ignorant as to what makes this particular arrangement unworkable without using laws to keep us from buying outside the country.

Haha..yeah, but of course none of that was "ugly" except for maybe the MJ Fox bit. And certainly no more incendiary and ugly than your posts on religion and intolerance for it. But, I have a soft spot for you too.

If they want to lower costs, why not start by stopping the monopoly american pharmaceuticals enjoy over the american people? I haven't forgotten that piece of legislation - one of the most disgusting corporate-hugging back stabbing laws I've seen from our government. It goes straight to health and affordability - they are literally starving people of medications by keeping them from buying in other markets, providing no competition here in the states. I think the most productive feature they could provide at the health reform summit would be a sniper.

It's really all of that iNow. Rewarding irresponsibility is a slap in the face to the responsible. This is just nuts. Bankruptcy costs the consumer when prices go up to offset losses, including interest rates on loans. So writing down principle certainly isn't good for the rest of us. But that's just a small piece of the whole disgusting picture. When you frame the entire situation...mortgage relief for the irresponsible, no relief for the responsible, bailouts for bad investments paid for by good investments and responsible people. What kind of system is that? That is antithetical to the entire nature of our economic design. We depend on fear of failure to motivate good decision and good investment - that's the bargain with self empowerment. We're violating the most basic forces that make all of this work. And we're paying for this by diluting the money supply even further. Here's an observation: As a government, we're doing the EXACT thing the irresponsible have done - Credit beyond the capacity to maintain. Only we get to circumvent the rules a little, and pass our debt on to the next generation to pay. Currently, I can't do that with my mortgage or credit cards. Otherwise, I could easily saturate my children's entire lives paying my debts - after all, it's not like they will have any exigencies to deal with in their time. It's only today that such money is needed for the Union. Posterity won't have any problems to deal with, like every other generation in human history, so they'll have no need for such funds, and will able to balance their budget with surpluses, year after year, plenty of downtime to pay off our debt... There's just too much to bitch about. I'm trying to keep it short.

Well I have no reason not to believe him when he says he likes him. I have no reason not to believe him when he says he admires Madison. All of us are hypocrites upon audit of our belief systems reconciled with the philosophies we claim built them, so I really can't use that criteria to judge Rush's sincerity when he says he likes Paul. But you're probably right. And of course, you're definitely right about co-opting associations with rhetoric. Again though, nothing limited to Rush, but to humanity. And I do give him more credit than most. I'll always have a soft spot for Rush, just as I have for my history teacher - neither of which carry an ideology I can mostly agree with. It's the nature of affinity for those that catalyze a significant change in yourself. In my case, the birth of thinking for myself and the idea that the popular voice might still be wrong. That was a big deal for my small mind.

I guess this has been going around so I'll bet most of you have already seen this. This is a humorously written complain letter about the food on a flight from Mumbai to Heathrow. If you haven't read this, be sure to view the images to do the text justice. Apparently Sir Richard Branson, target for the letter, has taken this like a good sport. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4344890/Virgin-the-worlds-best-passenger-complaint-letter.html

On paper, I like him. I would suffer an interesting inner spiritual battle if he were to shape the republican party into a more libertarian directed group. But I don't see how that can truly happen with the religious right firmly entrenched in that party. I know one doesn't necessarily exclude the other in practice, but they really do in principle. And just to at least pretend to nod to the OP...Rush has actually expressed admiration for Ron Paul. I was shocked. He really likes him - his passion for freedom and individual pursuit. Of course, he doesn't think Paul is presidential in the least, and I'm sure he'd roast him if he had miraculously won the primaries. But that makes me wonder how he'd react to Gary Johnson if he were to steal the show. Looks to me like Jindal's going to get that role.

Yeah, you're right, but I still liked it. From a story angle only though. I really enjoyed not having to listen to cheesy one liners while man's existence is being threatened (although the whinny brat took that slot). I liked not seeing some 10 minute climatic battle between "the good guy" and "the bad guy" that defies all sense of physics with the equally cheesy chuckle at the end of the film. You know...where the shrapnel isn't even done hitting the ground but the characters are already fully recovered from the traumatic event and are enjoying a closing chuckle? I guess I liked the movie for what wasn't in it, moreso than I disliked what was in it. That make sense? Probably not... I say watch the movie, but only after getting loaded.

Well, it's obvious why this is happening, and therefore how it's happening and finally where it's coming from. Why, is because the republican party leadership is not in step with their constituents. There's a divide in the republican party between those who bought the idea that the people want "moderates" and bipartisanship and those who are sticking to their conservative principles at the expense of bipartisanship. I think the american people who don't align themselves with republicans are the ones who are clamoring for moderation and bipartisanship and etc. But I think the base does not. Rush is a kind of anecdotal evidence of this. He represents those who do not agree with the notion of competing with democrats in spending and socialistic programs - big government. Rush is the leader of the conservative voices that do not agree with complicitly "flushing the country down the drain" with ideas 180 degrees opposite from their own. The republican leadership is lost, trying to figure out what in the hell they stand for. So, How, is because they're lost, and Rush is found and supported with a huge constituency that is fed up with their leadership - he is naturally the leader of republicanism, if for no other reason than due to the firm grip of identity and principle. Where, is just the exercise of exploiting that rift in the party. So, much of the association has come from democrats and that's to be expected. They're going to take advantage of the party's weakness while they can and since they believe Rush hurts them more than he helps them, it's therefore in their interest to promote it. Just like Rush promoting Hillary against Barack during the primaries - same thing. Once the republican leadership figures out what it wants to be in the future, they'll reclaim identity and the figurehead.

He always has. One of things I still enjoy about Rush is his demonstration of attitude and how it effects others. That's about all I can admire about him anymore, other than his comfort in standing against popular opinion. He absolutely loves saying things that he knows people will misunderstand - by their own fault due to their biases. Like, "Talent on loan from god". People think that's an ego statement. He enjoys how that line sets people off. Rather than clarify, they assume he's ascending himself to the level of god-like talent and procede to bash him for arrogance, delusion...blah blah blah. But, he's explained that line several times over the course of what, 22 years now? Since he's a christian, he believes our talents and gifts are from god and since our time on this earth is temporary, it is therefore a loan. It's talent on load from god. Not "god talent" like most assume when they hear it. That's an example of purposely charging a statement so those with a heavily biased dispostion will fall in the trap. I enjoy this psychological exercise, and pretty much all of the controversial statements he's made over the years. It's fascinating how he can be logically wrong about so many things, yet be offered so much low hanging fruit.

Well, it's not the same though since the BoE exists in a socialist economy and culture. Central management almost goes without saying. I don't imagine much affinity for market forces by socialists since it's arguably an inherent conflict of ends. Socialism seeks to equalize by applying some subjective method of "fairness". Capitalism removes the subjectivity and allows the objective nature of the system to determine who gets what. If the US were to move toward some new definition of "fairness" that relies on humans to judge each other to allocate who gets what, then the federal reserve is a more natural fit. Central management over other heavily managed subsets - since that's the result of restricting market forces (which is necessary if you're going to redistribute wealth). Part of the problem with the federal reserve is central management over an otherwise essentially self regulated systematic design. That's why it's prone to error to manage a system you can't entirely control or predict, particularly when it's largely unnecessary to do so to begin with.

This is not sufficient logic. This is good when we're talking about performace. Again, I can give you practically zero crime if you'll abandon the principles of civil liberty. I fully understand what the "goal" is. I challenge the ethics of doing it with tax payer money - responsible tax payer's money. We can validate taking 100% of the people's money if we're going to examine every market that effects americans negatively to ease the dynamics of the correction. But that's not conducive for the capitalist, empowered free individual type economic and philosophical design of our republic. I prefer we feel this correction or we will learn nothing from it. We need to stop acting like we can live asymmetrical to economic reality. We are credit pigs. We know no limits and will charge ourselves into thousands of years of debt as long as we insist on ignoring how absolutely irresponsible it is and keep enabling each other as we invent new reasons and exigencies to maintain more and more borrowing. Again, more delusional thinking that would NEVER be acceptable in your personal financial life. It would never be acceptable to borrow and charge and consume more than you can produce in your lifetime. I don't know anyone that's received a loan with terms that extend and impart responsiblity onto their children and grand children. Shameful. Absolutely shameful. And I can talk, as I have to sell my house in the next few months. I have a subprime mortgage. I'll be lucky if I can clear any semblence of a profit. And that's my problem, not yours. It doesn't make it ok to justify using your money to help me on selling my house. I was well aware of market forces and the reality of how other's decisions can adversely effect me and I still made the decision to borrow money and buy a chunk of capital that would take 2 years of my salary to afford outright. Since that's the only credit I utilize, I'm not in too bad of shape. I can manage this market correction. I wonder if there's some statistics on how many of these irresponsible mortgage holders in danger of foreclosure also carry maxxed out credit cards. I'll bet it's in the 90% range.

Interesting. And I guess I missed your last post on this from 12/30/08. I liked that article you posted and love those last two paragraphs. Good find.

Internal threats are always a waste of money in that they're senseless, but they're worse than external threats. Shouldn't more money be spent on maintaining strong, ethical group cooperation than external threats to the group? I'm just wondering if perhaps breakdown in group cooperation, the breakdown of society, is a larger threat than "external" ones, like disease, accidents, and so forth. Murderous crime between people would seem to undermine the most fundamental element of advantage by pack behavior. So perhaps that's why we interpret crime and terrorism as much worse than other threats that actually kill more total people. Maybe the threat to societal order is a greater one than the other death causing elements of life, and so that justifies greater spending to prevent "murder" than to prevent something like car accidents or AIDS.

Perhaps we put more focus on dangers presented by other humans since it represents the breakdown of the implied contract for group cooperation. So, maybe that's more insulting and ultimatley more destructive for the group as a whole so we naturally are more dramatic about it. With accidents and illness, the event is not chosen by anyone involved. So, one could say we simply lacked the information or skill necessary to prevent this event. With terrorism and crime, the event is chosen by other humans. There was no need for this event - it was entirely unnecessary had these humans followed the rules of the group, so to speak. So, it's understandable if we can't cure AIDS. It's highly disturbing that we can't keep from beating each other to death. I think it may really be that simple. We spend more money fighting terrorism and other violent crime because those are the most senseless sources of death.

I'm sure that will be the series cliffhanger.

Now you're moving the goal posts too. Sheesh. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to re-post that same quote to put it in context... it's an interesting theory, but if I've learned one think from political science and economics, its that one theory or model isn't going to be able to explain everything. And, of course, even if a central bank was necessary to create credit (which I'm not sure is true - see de Soto's hypothesis about property rights and real estate leveraging) doesn't mean that it doesn't come without costs as well. You and Pangloss both keep forgetting ALL of the qualifiers in your statement when you take issue with this response to that statement. ecoli is clearly taking issue with the CENTRAL BANK qualifier. NOT CREDIT.

Oh, that's right... I can't believe I forgot about Caprica 6 and when she projected Baltar. I might have missed a lot of detail there too, because I remember not liking the way the show was going about the time we found ourselves on a Cylon ship, getting into their personal drama. I watched the clock and prayed they would move on, and well, they didn't, and now I'm a little more into it.

For a non-resident of the US, you sure have a good handle on our politics. Absolutely spot on. The appeal to emotion is extremely effective here. Just try opposing something they've associated with "the children", or education, or any previously disparaged minority group, and you'll get responses just like you entertained above.

....original post deleted to preserve the thread...

Ok, after last night's episode I have a new, stupid theory. I think Kara is definitely Daniel, post genetic corruption. But, I also think Baltar is Daniel, pre-genetic corruption. I'm basing this off of cylon "projection" which, as far as I know, hasn't been introduced into the story until now. Kara seemed to project her father in the piano player that turned out not to exist, which is the same thing Baltar's been doing, involuntarily so to speak, with Caprica 6.

Yes I do.

Education is one of those subjects like "the children", where we'll do all kinds of stupid things, malinvestments and never stop, never question because it's too sacred for that. The government needs to get out of for-profit business ventures. Yes, I realize that we only lose money when we gaurantee loans without enjoying the interest and payback, but that's the government's place. The private sector should sweat about profiteering, while the government serves the public good. Mixing profit sounds tempting, and hard to argue against short term gains, but when you turn the government into a profiteering business machine, that creates a natural conflict of interest between the public good and demand for profits - the EXACT problem and argument AGAINST the private sector in the first place. I don't agree with government even gauranteeing these loans, but at least that doesn't monopolize a market with unfair competition - like the government, armed with law. Want to rob my money and use it for the public good? Well I don't like it, but I like it better than robbing my money to use for government profiteering. It would be more credible for the government to make the loans, interest-free, if the excuse is to help folks get a loan that couldn't otherwise be secured in the interest driven private sector. Otherwise, you're just putting the government in business. Now, who's putting the public good over profits after that happens? One of these days, just for fun, I'm going to draft a new pseudo establishment clause that advocates the separation of business and state. Whereas 'business' is defined with "profit" as a key dynamic.

Sounds to me like Obama's trying to balance the drive to get the troops out of there and the strategic reality that creates within the insurgency. I'm sure he'd like to get them out sooner, which is why I'm glad he's listening to the subject matter experts.

That's all well and good but the bigger point I would think is that it isn't right to deny the press the right to take pictures of whatever the hell they want. I can understand restricting access to certain areas, but I gather here the media couldn't even take pictures if it were possible to capture the images from a thousand miles away.