The Bear's Key

This almost should be placed in the Ethics section

What's socialized is easily categorized into two groups. 1) any product or effort with useful benefits to society as a whole, that people don't shop for -- thus making it unprofitable to business interests -- and so it gets collectively paid for by various members of society. Exploration/pioneering • NASA: no $$ in landing on moon, few returns on investment for businesses to pursue (even now). • Hubble telescope launch: the returns on private investment wouldn't have been met by selling pretty images. • Mars probe: ditto. • Satellite technology: GPS positioning. all business ventures that use it have government to thank for the network of satellites making it possible. • Grants: scientific research; expeditions; universities. The items listed above kickstart plenty of opportunities for businesses later they'd not have otherwise. But there also exists many immediate kickstarts today: i.e. grants for business startups; charters to form a corporation; etc. Business support • Intellectual Property framework: temporary rights are granted -- to decide how your creation is to be used in commerce.* Invaluable to the system of business as we know it. • Commerce infrastructure: roads, flight path systems, commercial property and vehicle zoning, • Small Business Development Center: at least one each state. • Declare bankruptcy and relevant protections. (Timely) emergency alert • Warning systems: mass flood, earthquakes, other potential and realistic catastrophes. • Storms for aircraft to beware, Coast Guard warnings for ships, rescue teams, navigation guidance. 2) any product or service that's often necessary for living a stable existence, yet unaffordable to a number of people. The Basics • Universal staples in advanced cultures: modest food, housing, education, job transit, living conditions. And sometimes, the bulk purchasing by government (also extra option for us) makes it competitive against opportunistic price jacking by industry -- the kind that fills the relevant business pockets yet hurts society overall -- including plenty of unrelated businesses. • Healthcare: public option running alongside (yet separate from) a capitalist health system. • Public broadcasting: good science and news (PBS, BBC). • Communication: mail, availability of internet, etc. *i.e. You have the sole rights to determine how something is used. Temporarily. Afterwards, it belongs to society. For intellectual property, governments might also view their role of protecting inventions and creative works as a sort of agreement/contract: they'll offer the protection (and will foot the costs of enforcement), but will also grant fair usage to others, and if -- within a set time -- you (prenuptially) agree to donate those intellectual properties as a gesture/legacy to further all society.

I revealed your kind of claim to be false in October. Below is much of it... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberal c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823. More roots of the word's origins (from all etymology books at the library)... The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988) liberal adj Probably before 1350, befitting free men, noble, generous; ..... Cognates of Latin liber are found in Greek eleutheros free (originally) belonging to the people, of genuine tribal stock, ..... The sense of free from prejudice, tolerant, is first recorded in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-88), followed by the political sense of favoring constitutional change and legal reforms in 1801. The latter was probably borrowed into English from French libéral, attested in 1750 with the sense of favorable to individual political freedoms. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1986) liberal pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; (of political opinion) XIX. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966) liberal pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; of political opinion XIX (opp. to Conservative, Tory) 1801. Dictionary of Word Origins (Joseph T Shipley) (1945, 2nd Ed.) liberal See liberty. ........ liberty The L. word for free is liber; the noun, libertas (whence Eng. liberty), the adj., liberalis. Thus the liberal arts are those befitting a free man. But Latin liber, libr—, originally the bark of a tree, came to mean book (see Bible); whence L. librarius, whence Fr. libraire, librarie, whence Eng. librarian, library. The diminutive of L. liber, book, is libellus, little book, whence Eng. libel; but since pamphlets, from Elizabethan England on, were full of scurrilous attacks, the name was transferred from the booklet to its contents. Liberty does not permit libel—though from the freed man, L. libertinus, comes Eng. libertine. (The 17th and 18th c. Fr. libertine was unrestrained in politics and religion rather than in morals.) But L. libra also means balance, scales; whence the sign of the Zodiac, Libra. Hence also the use of L. libra as a measure, 12 ounces, one pound, and our abbreviation, 1 lb. The term libration is used in astronomy to mean oscillation, as a balance might tremble. Liberate means to set free; but deliberate is from L. de, down — liberare, to balance, weigh in one's mind. Notice the copyright dates of the books. The older dictionary meanings all have "liberal" as meaning free in the progressive sense, i.e. not free market or absence of government regulation (for industry). Going to work, so I'll not be responding for a couple days likely. But think about discrepancy more. Why's it there?

Ha it's my point exactly http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers/profiles/careers/105721.html How does the government decide how much pollution industry can release into the air and water? What’s the best way for local mayors to convince voters to reelect them? Why do some people vote and not others? How does democracy differ in countries across the globe? Political scientists study political systems from every angle, looking into their birth, growth, and operation. While most strive to discover the trends that shape our identity, their interests and jobs vary greatly. For example, some survey the public about their political opinions; others use math to analyze election results. Wouldn't that person be less inclined to drop by and contribute if the forums section were named merely "Politics"? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedhttp://www.michael-oakeshott-association.org Political Scientists study the allotment and shift of power in decision making. The roles and systems of governing which includes governments and international organizations, political behaviors and public policies are all included in the study by political scientists. They measure the success of this authority and policy by studying many aspects which include stability, justice, material wealth and peace. Many political scientists strive to advance positive aspects by analyzing politics while others strive for more normative aspects such as making specific policy recommendations.

I agree with Doughboy, that Geology and other relevant forums would be nice under Earth Sciences. Climate is just one part, there are various others. While you're at it, the "Politics" section could be renamed to "Political Science". I really don't view the mechanisms of politics as too subjective to discuss rationally. The name change might actually draw in some people with experience in that field and/or with real knowledge of international politics.

Chemistrawesomy

Forgeting the comaprisons is a good place to start. The main thrust of my question is what to do about equal balance if such a party were ever to arise. +100 i.e. Definitely not going that way in the conversation. A modern version of their party wouldn't ever resemble the nazis. It most likely wouldn't hate the Jewish, or any race, but perhaps the opposite, it'd recruit any color: white, black, etc. You know the lesson, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?...well, that's not just a lesson the good people. The bad ones learn too. Anyway, I'm not equating the U.S. to anywhere near what happened in Germany. That'd be absurd. It's unfortunate that I placed the different thoughts near one another in the OP. I just wanted to draw attention to an instance where one couldn't realistically strive to give equal bias to a major opposition party. You'd have to call a pig just that, if you were an honest reporter in news. I disagree, and believe it's very simple. I think it's naive for anyone to think one person is so highly charismatic that everyone mobilized behind. Such reasoning ignores the beatings, games, executions, propaganda. But mostly such reasoning ignores that a group of key people were involved, and if they had believed it a collossal, impossibly grand task, the plan would've never been nurtured to fruition. A corrupt person likely examines the variables, finds the weaknesses, unexpected loopholes, and needles it daily, sharing with comrades as two heads are better than one. A charismatic leader is solely one vehicle. So I ask what I think is not just one, but two valid questions: 1) what safeguards are in place, not to thwart something resembling anything like the nazis -- for they wouldn't -- but to prevent a group from assuming such power in the future. 2) At what point does it become ok for the Press to show bias in warning us? Those are not comparisons to what happened in Germany. Just so everyone's 100% clear on the matter.

From JohnB's post below, it doesn't seem they did it legally. Hey JohnB, doesn't matter if anecdotal, I love hearing tales (of past ways and life) from the old people -- the smarter/wiser ones at least. It's just another window of perspective that could become lost otherwise. It's amazing today, just how much of history not found in textbooks people don't grasp. Was the nation too much in disarray for reading time? How many people actually knew of the book and/or discussed it? Oh geez, who cares? Function or intention...the whole thing's still fairly insane either way. The second bit's unfair after what you expressed in #1. You missed an important element: government is of, by, and for the people. So a more functional governnmet is a more functional/stronger voice for us if government is actually serving its citizens. What you failed to mention, and it's perhaps because you live in Australia, where religion has little interest to establish power, as religion has a far more powerful nation's government to influence and/or control in the U.S. (no offense to your nation's military capabilities ), is that the Right can be very much Statist in respect to personal morality, and too often have been. If you have doubt that religion flocks to power, simply examine the world's histories of the past 2000 years for major/large empires. Do we really know history? Let's examine Russia's a bit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Russian_revolution The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom of "religious and anti-religious propaganda". This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church. Russia had threatened the power structure of both religion and (free reign of) private industry within Russian lands and elsewhere, a big no-no that might've caused Russia to grow a huge bull's eye target on its continued existence by the West's power brokers. Just saying Either way, Russia's methods (forbidding religion, private business, and individual ownership) are completely unacceptable, as is the powerful and sneaky influence by certain religion and industry players within the U.S. and worldwide. Of course those players in the West are gonna have a keen interest to convince us any potential leash on their activities is "statism". Ok, JohnB, since you live comfortably away from power-grabbing, religious wackos being in Australia, let's give you a bit of an introduction to groups occuring with more frequency in the U.S. Before that, however, let me say the groups in your video have no power, and I'd certainly not stand idly by if they moved to take power. That said, compare the following... How old the teens are in your Obama video, and the number of them. The children's ages in the videos below, and their much larger numbers. Onward... (first two minutes only) . It's not an isolated instance. My cousin's half-sister was approached by these people, who the school allowed to recruit inside. Needless to say, it pissed off my cousin yet she resisted calling them frauds, and instead had cautiously stepped back to allow her sister to think for herself. I was cautious too. A bit of a risk, yes, however it's more productive when someone gets at a conclusion by themselves. And her sister realized the fraud after two meetings. I only partly agree. Nationalistic people too can get fairly extreme and still not worship a leader. As in the Obama video, it's a bunch of incredibly naive clowns, to me. If they act to become a real threat, it's a different story. Great to have the video released for public oversight, as in the spotlight most extreme activities don't grow well. That's false, it's never so easy. The fanatics here in the U.S. rarely disturb me actually, I say practice your craft and be freaky angry if that's what gets you off, just don't bring it near our government. It's when they begin grabbing power and not enough people seem to care that's highly disturbing. Totally untrue. Secret dealings with government, lack of press coverage, oversight denied, those add up to the real danger. JohnB, lots of places have American Indian names. Very many. You're off-base there. I'm sure plenty don't, and maybe for the reasons you claim, but lots of places in the U.S. also do have such names. I tend to dislike how some of the variables used to portray the growth of tyranny are unrealistic on many shows. A lot are interesting, hit the nail on the head in various cases, and get you to think, but none actually expose the root of the problems nearly enough. Don't miss the variables. Religion and threat of war (real or invented) historically began many of the world's real tyrannies. Name any lefty causes such as environment protection that have led to the same? Pangloss recently mentioned a video, one he posted a while ago here, so now's a good time to bring it up. Using that video's "logic", we can apply it to lefties and righties. What's the worst that can happen? On the left, can anything destroy the world? environmental stewardship + human rights + public assistance + making hate crimes extra punishable + tax funding + anti-war + renewable energy vs. On the right, plenty can... nuclear stockpiling + global warming disasters + little oversight on powerful industries tinkering with genetic engineering (maybe haphazardly) + unknown weapons systems (potentially biological). However, I'd like to state that the YouTube video above is utterly flawed. Heck, religion too could say what's the worst that could happen? People accept Jesus, nothing bad. Otherwise, humanity dies (or burns for eternity, doesn't get "saved", other terrible prices great for causing humans to surrender their mind's reasoning abilities to the church). JohnB, let's help you get to the bottom of what crucial piece you're likely missing in the debate. And so, without further ado here's a couple quotes from the past telling the entire story... Your vantage from Down Under maybe obscures your view to our daily reality?

According to who, though? The Press intimidated by nazis? How do we know for certain the nazis didn't just have an equal distribution of support -- rather than a majority? Otherwise, why did nazis have to bother with Press silencing and threats to opposition if they could've gotten voted in legitimately by genuine support from most citizens and the Press? I doubt it was as simple as "vote for me, I'm saying what you'd like to hear". No opposition whatsoever? Jews just happily voted for the lot of jew-haters? The powerful business entities owned by Jews had no voice in the Press and little means of mounting a negative campaign? Or did angry people/citizens demand they shut up, leave the country if they don't like it, also considering one big problem is Jews according to nazi propaganda. And once the nazis were in command, it's unpatriotic for anyone to question our leader. The nation's at war. It's the enemy's fault, we must pre-emptive attack before they can us.

SH3RL0CK, no one's saying they were left or right. It doesn't matter anyway for the purposes of a dissection...in how the nazis' growth snuck past the usual government safeguards, the free Press, and citizens. Who raised objections? How were they responded to by fellow citizens and government officials? Put simply, what measures are in place to ensure this can't happen. Say a Nazi equivalent replaced government with the Patriot Act still going, the military all powerful/secretive, etc. If they filled all branches of government, what's in place to halt quick and dirty/unknown sabotage of the main defenses against them? But more importantly, even before they gained power, is the attitude of equal balance for their new party OK just because they deceived lots of followers? So in other words, how are they stopped. I'd like to know the specific checks and balances in place. When there is all of a single party majority in government, it can happen easier with Democrats, Republicans, or any new party, as there's no longer a healthy separation of powers. Thus, my concern isn't left or right nazis, it's how they managed the steps to power under everyone's noses. The corrupt of the world might be attracted to influence the most powerful government in the world. And that's us.

Exactly! Neither major or minor should be allowed tyranny. A title means nothing. They hated communism, and built quite a healthy base to fight against it. Hardly socialist, wouldn't you agree? Regardless, the title was likely to draw in the common people as well. I have that covered in the OP. ...but still there exists fairly universal mixtures along an optimal range of variables. For coffee drinkers, think equal amounts of coffee and sugar. Not really appealing to most coffee drinkers on Earth. So in other words, don't try a business plan on that second one. However, like you said, for people who do like sugar, there's a handful of forumlas that account for different preferences and will each generate substantial money/demand. The same with law and its overall effect on society. My aim is to dissect the nazis and learn exactly how German citizens allowed their growth. I'm certain that people sounded the alarm. But did most listeners just say, "hey, tell it to another, I'm sick of discussing politics" or maybe "they're not being given a voice in the biased press" -- creating a mood of "the press deserves whatever happens to them". And so it doesn't matter how evil the nazis were, it matters the tricks used to bypass the warnings by society's Press and fellow citizens.

The way I see it continually unfolding... They were good articles, interesting, but they didn't really support your conclusion that Dems were ramming stuff down the public's throats. First, more Republicans are quitting than Democrats. Second, do you expect members of Congress stay in for life? No one ever quits? Third, in the articles, only Evan mentioned being sick of the partisan divide, that's it. Also he didn't elaborate, meaning it could be sick of Dems and Republicans bickering to the point the middle's in effect a lame duck, but he didn't say Dems were trampling over the middle and expecting the world. None of the quitters made any comments that support your hypothesis. From the Washington Post link... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974.html But it was as much Bayh's stated reasons for leaving as the consequences that stirred controversy. "If in fact he believed that the Senate was broken and dysfunctional, then he had a responsibility to stand and man the pumps rather than run for the lifeboat," said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. During a round of early morning interviews Tuesday, Bayh responded to criticism that he had left his party in the lurch and defended his decision to retire rather than stay and try to fix the system. "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months," he said on CBS's "Early Show." He also sought to squelch talk that he is disenchanted with Obama's agenda or has presidential aspirations, saying Obama is making "a sincere effort" to work with Republicans. Still, Baker said Bayh's depiction of Congress overstates the case that lawmakers are dealing with something unprecedented in American politics. While acknowledging that there is "an extreme level of partisanship" right now, Baker said there have been other periods of partisanship and venomous politics in the Senate. "I won't say it's cyclical, but from time to time . . . even the Senate goes berserk," he said. He cited the red-baiting era of the early 1950s, saying, "The McCarthy period was a terrible time, in which reputations were ruined, senators attacked each other and questioned each other's motives." ad_icon But there is no question that the Senate of Evan Bayh is a far different body than was the Senate of his father, Birch Bayh, who served there in the 1960s and 1970s. In those days, both parties were ideologically diverse, with liberals, moderates and conservatives in both caucuses. "No matter where you stood on the spectrum, you had an ally in the other party," said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University. "Today, only if you are in the center do you have people who are like you [in the other party]." I tend to agree with the sentiments in the first paragraph's. It had disheartned me sometimes when loads of good people quit the Bush Administration in disgust, rather than stay as a vigilant guard to expose and deter abuses. I could understand that quitting in protest might invite the spotlight onto the Administration, but I thought it a less effective solution than keeping an eye directly and preventing someone worse filling in that position. Now, about Evan, it seems he's upset with both parties not just Dems. And surely you were a bit disheartened over his quitting. But perhaps you should focus on the party with no middle votes, rather than the Dems who helped Bush pass many laws that Democrats would naturally vote against. Onto the last two paragraphs. Notice the last time Congress was bitterly divided, it had to do with "conservatives" making a big scare. History's likely repeating itself. Thus I'll ask: what steps have you taken to ensure it's not the Republican leadership's hijackers that are poisoning the whole Congress? It's not for you to answer here, but to reflect on. And yes I put quotations because they're not real conservatives. I'd actually prefer if our Congress were run by true money-saving people who didn't use that excuse to chop away solely at Democratic laws, for the purpose of strengthening their very own agenda/ideology. Onto the MSNBC link... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714651/ns/politics-capitol_hill That said, the GOP has troubles of its own, with even more Republicans than Democrats leaving Congress and governors mansions instead of running again. In the House, 14 Republicans and 10 Democrats are retiring or seeking other offices. In the Senate, six Republicans, including several in swing states requiring expensive campaigns, and four Democrats, including Dodd and Dorgan, aren't running. ........ Prominent Democrats had been privately urging Dodd to step aside to make way for a stronger candidate. His retirement in Democratic-leaning Connecticut cleared the way for Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, one of the state's most popular politicians, to run, thereby bolstering the prospects the seat will remain in Democratic hands. Saying the past year has been tough, Dodd announced his retirement Wednesday in Connecticut. "I lost a beloved sister in July and, in August, Ted Kennedy. I battled cancer over the summer, and in the midst of all of this, found myself in the toughest political shape of my career," he said. If Dodd's decision saved a Democratic seat, Dorgan's retirement put one in serious jeopardy. "I have other interests, and I have other things I would like to pursue outside of public life," said Dorgan, 67, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. The above speaks for itself, but Dodd obviously wasn't quitting in protest. At least not openly. It could be different behind the scenes. Who knows? Maybe. Yet I wouldn't be so quick to assign motives without stronger circumstantial evidence. To be real men/women and stand up for the values they're losing. The Dems already compromised far more than Republicans did when in power. How can you expect more? I could see how you got that assumption, but I didn't mean the group's equal to or more conservative than Republicans, just mainly unbudging on their particular issues and more conservative than the Democratic Party's core values. It wouldn't be an issue had the Dems not already compromised too much. You don't believe in having too much compromise? It's the Dems party in a nutshell. Our conversation is not the same as what I've been saying either

So Europeans with comparable wages, more unions, regulation, government competition, and with a fair share of taxes, keep healthcare costs down and health quality up. Fix the contradiction. Here's a tip: it's #1 in efficiency generally for the wealthy. Check the poor's quality of healthcare visits against the poor in other nations. As does government. Or, by your same incomplete reasoning it was not private industry, but them working in concert with designers/planner/engineers and Government Aeronautics. How many to tango? Preventative care is more to help keep them from becoming victims, not something to be given only after the fact. Most any nation, or all of them? Doesn't matter. The reason for it seems clearly the result of the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act. For the 5% uninsured, help might be available with their government's HHCS organization. How so? If true, why? I was just using the stats you provided to reveal how a right-to-work area can end up paying high wages. My friend, those reasonings are utterly out of context, flawed, and twisted. Government provides a system of copyrights, trademarks, and patents, for the improvement of society -- more than for any business itself. Had the government failed to supply those, and corporations weren't daily granted permission to exist, you likely wouldn't see the exlosion of goods and services of the level available in modern times. Business is entirely dependent on YOU -- and US -- for its entire existence/revenue. They are nothing without us....neither is government. We can exist fine without both of them, never the other way around. Individuals/groups from the private sector also strive to take power over you, society, and our money -- twisting law to do so. Private business/enterprise is often involved behind the corrupt things government does. Income's merely energy in paper and/or digital form. We trade work hours essentially, usually for the work hours others put into tradeable stuff, and/or for desired possessions/goods. Business has existed long before the U.S. and conservatives, it won't ever go away. Neither will government. However, if they did, we'll still continue our existence. But if we disappeared, they'd vanish as well.

Well, many citizens decide to get their info from news. And if a station is mislabeling itself as news.... +1. An insightful explanation. Indeed, but MSNBC flaunts itself as being for politics -- which by definition isn't news. I'll agree that its politics section is now mostly the opposition to FOX News, but that's only misleading by labeling it "The Place For Politics", when in reality it's usually a single politics, i.e. not all. At least MSNBC doesn't call their political segment news, and their website is just msnbc.com alone (compare that with the foxnews.com address). On the same page you linked to... We complain about Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, but they engage in opinion journalism, so we expect to get wild arguments and leg tingles. What they don’t do is deliberately distort source material in a manner this blatantly dishonest in order to artificially inflame racial tensions. Opinion journalism is legitimate; this is nothing but propaganda. A person at MSNBC lied, and it's entirely wrong/asinine the manner her team did it. But obviously the entire station isn't like the one worker. So why does news focus on a handful of people, repeatedly for days on end? Qualify. You've seen this? (and often?) Main source: The Freedom Forum? A "nonpartisan" joke. Ironic also that a supposedly "liberal" paper wrote the article. This from your article... only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right. On what planet? The land of Middle East? I seriously doubt the entirety of their accuracy. Heck, let's just take data from other sources as well. But, unlike yours, these seem quite well documented and explains the methodoly beyond what's usual... Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim 6/1/98 ........ • On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public. • Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation. • The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues. • Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst. But even if your premise were true, bias means nothing in thought and everything in action. What specifically have the majority of reporters done that's biased? What are most of the reports on? Corruption from high society? Tons of reports on blacks involved with crime? I've seen newspaper "accounts" of people I know who did small crimes, and the news version was too often distorted in a much anti-liberal way. i.e. guilty before proven innocent. More for the purpose of giving liars and tricksters a voice. Fox provided a haven and niche for people with illegitimate methods and honed lying skills. False conservatives, not real ones. Not really. I feel the same as Mr Skeptic does with news in general. If you can only learn about the world by news, especially in the information age, that might create a problem for understanding reality. Now, here's something for you and whoever desires to examine. Instead of just saying who's more biased, let's do a critical examination of reality. That's our strength. It's the reason false "conservatives" likely hate Wikipedia, stats, records, anything that can a bright shine light on their invented reality. Onward. Below are links to Google searches of certain political words on the major news websites, for us to examine the search results and compare how each news website promotes their supposed ideological bias. Also, for quickness you can read just the brief snipets of each website for a quick preview, without clicking on it, but if something looks incriminating, then do open the link to make sure it's not from the reader comments section. How do each of the networks report on supposedly "favorite" political ideologies? For liberals, you'd expect them to defend, promote, and be in favor of strikes, public assistance, regulations, keynesian thought, peace, intervention, and of course -- the word liberal. And more importantly, how do each of the major networks treat the political keywords of their supposed "opposition"? Does the news report on the events? Or do they consistently promote favorites and bash the opposition? welfare FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news public assistance FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news milton friedman FOX news MSNBC news strike FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news mises FOX news MSNBC news regulations FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news regulation FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news peace ABC news MSNBC news CNN news keynes ABC news MSNBC news CNN news keynesian ABC news MSNBC news CNN news intervention FOX news ABC news church state FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news liberal FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news conservative FOX news ABC news CNN news CNN news You can do your own searches and comparisons. Type a keyword followed by.... site:http:// and the appropriate website. For example.... keyword site:http://scienceforums.net And that simple. I wanna return to this, just to make a funny... only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward Probably includes the 14% below...

Have you so quickly forgotten... Severian, you haven't qualified your opinions with facts. JohnB took great lengths to supply examples, and others have linked to data to support opinions. Then you mosey in, perhaps after readers have forgotten, and make easy claims totally without being specific. In essence -- and I'm not saying you're doing it purposefully -- the same tactics by climate instability wanna-be "debunkers". As a strategy fan, I recognize what implication that effect has for legitimate opinions. And I'm going to put the effect/result in slightly mathematical terms. If you make inaccurate statements, the energy into research is much lower than the energy people have to put into research for debunking what you said. Thus the reason why oil companies' spending (i.e. energy input) for their propaganda against climate instability is far less than organizations dedicated to maintaining facts and databasing them. So easy propaganda, followed by more work to combat it, followed by the same propaganda, ad infinitum, etc, will result in the propaganda eventually having a cheaper budget. In that case, you might support any ideology, healthcare paid in bulk for cheapness to all, spending temporarily increased to fortify system and infrastructure, tons of money to upgrade public schools, no death penalty, for sometimes tough decisions need to be made in order to improve society. Cool And the death penalty supporters wash their hands of the responsibility they bear for potentially corrupting our system of government. Correction....the fiction is, what you just said above. Check out Kyrisch's link in the OP. Within 30 years (recent) of executions... Northeast: 4 death penalties. Murder rate: 4.2 (per 100,000 people) Midwest: 134 death penalties. Murder rate: 4.9 (per 100,000 people) West: 67 death penalties. Murder rate: 5.5 (per 100,000 people) South: 970 death penalties. Murder rate: 6.7 (per 100,000 people) Explain yourself. From the many data contradicting the supposedly "obvious", it's fairly easy to see why the right-winged politicians hate "big" government also: the neatly ordered statistics put their invented reality under the spotlight's focus. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso of interest, look at Japan's capital punishment activities, which have been effecively suspended a few months ago in 2009. The following is a description from 2003-2004. http://www.japansociety.org/content.cfm?page=a_secret_theater The gallows are used about twice a year in Japan ..... Japan and the U.S. are the only two industrial democracies that regularly carry out the death penalty. ........ when a Japanese prison guard is told to carry out an execution, he may not refuse, even if he has a conscientious objection to the death penalty. ..... Prosecutors, too, are required to serve as witnesses if assigned to do so. Upon returning from this close encounter with death, however, a prosecutor may find the floor of his office strewn with salt, a co-worker's thoughtful act of ritual purification. ..... Probably the biggest difference between the death penalty in Japan and the death penalty in the U.S. is that the entire process in Japan is shrouded in secrecy. ..... visits limited to a bare minimum of family members and defense counsel. No press is allowed, ever. Indeed, it took a group of anti-death penalty members of the Diet five years to negotiate a visit to the Tokyo Detention Center gallows--not to see an actual execution, but just to see the place ..... The lawmakers were not permitted to take photographs. ........ executions themselves are closed to the press and public. Until 1998, they were not even officially announced after the fact ........ According to the government, a blanket of isolation and quiet must cover death row to assist those who are to be executed in coming to terms with their inevitable fate. Any other policy, I was told, would result in psychological damage. Additionally, publicity about individuals on death row would invade the privacy of their families on the outside, who might feel shamed or ostracized by their communities. ........ Japanese defendants in capital murder cases have far fewer procedural rights than do their U.S. counterparts. ... No Japanese suspect, even in an ordinary criminal case, has a right to the assistance of an attorney during police questioning, for example. Nor are there jury trials; the judges who sit on trials are employees of the same Ministry of Justice for which the prosecutors, products of the same law-school social network, also work. Nor must prosecutors disclose all information in their files to the defense. The conviction rate in Japanese criminal trials is 99 percent. ........ supporters are loath to expose any aspect of the death penalty to public scrutiny, and opponents do not wish to legitimize the punishment by arguing over how it should be carried out. ..... Japanese prosecutors are far from indiscriminate in recommending the death penalty. They are, in fact, guided by a 1983 Supreme Court opinion which urged that capital punishment be reserved for certain particularly heinous offenders, such as those who commit multiple murders at once. ........ Japan appears to be increasing its use of capital punishment, whereas the U.S. trend is moving the other way. In 1992, Japan sentenced just one person to death; 10 years later, as I mentioned, 18 people were condemned. ........ crime in general is rising in Japan, while it is falling in the United States. ... While Japan is still much safer than America--so safe that I felt no qualms about letting my seven-year-old child run freely through the subway tunnels at all hours--it is, by all indications, far less safe than it used to be. ..... Pay extra close attention to the bolded for thinking about. Secrecy is apparently one main key for why the public allows so-called "tougher" measures by government, i.e. to premeditate death. The rise in capital punishments by Japan is matched by increase in crime. And Japan has both a lower rate of crime and fewer death sentences than the U.S.

• A tiny bit of iron in one's diet essential for living, yet half is deadly. • Anger is good occasionally, but half your life full of anger is often worse than being fully content half your life. • Moderate exercise is good, continually half the day isn't. A (fictional) government that's half each of democracy and tryranny isn't balanced, neither is one where religion controls half its officials, nor where corporations dictate half of government. Like in chemistry, the balance exists in universal variables and how functional/stable the resulting lab mixture is. Yet a social culture, of intelligent beings, isn't nearly as predictable as a scientist's knowledge of chemical reactions. Humans throw an element of chance into the mix, but still there exists fairly universal mixtures along an optimal range of variables. For coffee drinkers, think equal amounts of coffee and sugar. Not really appealing to most coffee drinkers on Earth. I've heard people equate balance with half, and it's wrong (a kind of thinking destined for abuse by many of the politically dishonest). Someone I know had phrased the issue of "balance" in journalism nicely a couple years back, when talking about a supposed media liberal bias... I think that's the crux of the problem with the media today. Some things are objectively true, and some are not. If you sit a brilliant geologist next to a flat earther and give each of them equal time in the interest of "balance", you are doing your audience a profound disservice. He Said/She Said journalism is really not good for public discourse in this country. I often wonder about the political air back in Nazi Germany, if during the Nazi's rise to power, citizens were saying things like, "no politics", or maybe "hey, the Press is biased, they do speak against Nazis", or perhaps "if you don't like Germany get the fick out" and their hypothetical/own versions of "USA! USA!" which by design naturally makes protestors out to be anti-nation -- a perception that the Nazis likely used in strategy vs opponents/protestors. Maybe the Nazis accused the opposition party of being soft on issues best handled with a decisive and iron hand, like fighting against communism, pre-emptive war on enemies, tough against illegal foreigners, etc. But most importantly, did people feel the need for giving equal weight to the major parties, for balance -- regardless of ideological stance that's dressed in patriotic clothing? It's a sentiment anyone with bad motives can put to use. Anyway, the idea that half proportions are ideal in government and politics is flawed. There are many examples, I picked one anyone worldwide is most likely to be familiar with. But there are many other examples and instances. What do you have to add to this concept? Or what do you think?

Edit: Pangloss, the issue with conservative Dems is hardly new. Blue Dog Coalition: 1995 to present. Conservative Coalition: a potent force until mid-80s, they included Southern Democrats. Boll weevils: conservative southern Democrats from 1940s until 80s. New Democrats: from late 80s to present, side with conservatives on expanding the supposedly "free" market. Show us the Republican/conservative equivalents who today struggle for progressive ideals, and tell us why Democrats must compromise even further until they become a new Republican Party while the other moves further rightward and labels the converted Dems as "left wing, Big Government progressives". Are you really missing the patterns here? Here's why making unsupported statements is a problem. Besides the fact that your statement (in bold) is pure assumption with no specifics, how do you know that a lot of the people who voted Obama in by a landslide weren't people who usually stay at home on election day, and maybe they just voted Democrat across the board in places where conservative Democrats happened to be the only candidates for that party? I can show why it's entirely feasible. You're aware, people who tend to not show up on election day more often would've voted Democrat? Thanks for reminding me . Perhaps Democratic voters aren't as drawn to choir preaching as Fox News viewers. i.e. their "high" ratings. Works out to the Republican leadership hijacker's advantage, as they need to drown out and combat reality on a 24-hour basis. I put "high" in quotations as Fox News plays all day in many banks, doctors offices, and whatever tricks Fox News might use* to artificially boost numbers. No, I mean the incredible number of them by Republicans. And not including the mere threat of filibusters shuts down the process. Wrong, for they actually did make a whole lot of compromises. So essentially you're blaming them for not giving away the whole pie. Exactly. After a lot of compromises by Democrats, which in essence means voting for a bill with many parts they don't believe in, how can you blame them for not caving in 100%? Or could be a more real proof is the overwhelming filibuster uses/threats even after the Dems' many compromises. *rollcall.com's article doesn't show to non-members, however I had read something like it in a real newspaper a few years back, I'll try finding it. The newpaper was a request that Fox's parent company made to the Supreme Court about Nielsen Ratings changes (to benefit Fox News).

However, a flaw does exist in the paygo system. Doesn't account for inflation in the future. (but a *slowly* raised debt celing will) Just as industry needs oversight, the government needs it even more so.....especially whenever the two are to meet in private talks -- especially dealing with $$, proposed laws, and/or regulations. I can back up my opinion just fine, and do so often. By that I mean: specific, factual cases. Also, jryan hinted at a portion of those (emphasis mine in bold)... Originally Posted by jryan It could easily be argued that the landslide was on a platform of moderation and "anything but Bush"... but the ensuing leadership was a practical continuation of Bush policy and anything but moderate. Do you know what's he referring to, or do you actually need specifics? I mean perhaps you're unaware. If so, I'd gladly supply all you could possibly need. But I had asked you to qualify your statements for a reason, to give specifics on anything Obama did to lend weight/support/credibility to your opinion that 1) he spent 2009 caving to Democratic Congressional leadership, and 2) they were convinced of having a progressive mandate (from election results, instead of actual polling statistics reflecting a desire for healthcare change). But give me data, like where I countered your opinion (that Democrats, supposedly, vote for PayGo only when threatened by election losses) with a history of Democrat lawmakers voting for it, Republicans against. Substance please, no mere opinion. I won't hold as much value for someone's opinion if they didn't bother to double-check its accuracy, no offense.* Because it's a rather lacking way to solve important problems. (and yes I can back that up ) *Preference opinions, like "hey, is this shirt cool?" or "which party's ideological roots best fits your values?" is a different story, yet the answer to those generally doesn't need qualifications right? Several issues here. The tale is told by what the situation actually was (60 vote majority; no need for Republican votes) Democrats have two opponents, the conservatives and Republicans. One party has natural allies in both of the parties, the other doesn't. So the Democratic party is naturally more bipartisan as a whole (there you have a self-contained qualification for my opinion ). Even so, the reason Dems couldn't pass laws isn't because of they didn't make compromises, it's because of the incredibly numerous uses of the filibuster. The Dems had enough votes (51) to pass what they needed. You can't overlook that, or such other variables. you can't bring them on board without concessions that you are unwilling to make. Did the concessions they made not outnumber the concessions they didn't make? Or you can blame it on moderate Democrats who wanted stuff you didn't want to give them either. Are you confusing two different kinds of people here? For instance, are your "moderate" Dems in reality the conservative Blue Dogs kinds? Those weren't even close to being on the dinner plate.

The original PayGo... The act has since been extended several times, most recently with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It expired in 2002, but Democrats made it a top priority in the 110th Congress where they were the majority. Also, the original PayGo was voted in by the Congress of 1990 with Democrats as the majority in both houses. Yet they were expelled from Congress by the lie "Tax and Spend" made up by hijackers of the Republican leadership. Ironically, history seems might be repeated with the new (old) lies/propagandas and twists. Right, chap. Yet inaction's a thing also. It expired in 2002. It was Republicans that let it expire and remain dead. When both houses of Congress and the Presidency were Republican majorities... The PAYGO statute expired at the end of 2002. After this Congress enacted President George W. Bush's proposed 2003 tax cuts (enacted as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[5] The White House acknowledged that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements You kidding? 233 Democrats voted for it. How many Republicans? Zero. I guess they were voting (against) with the values of their constituents I'd be more careful and rephrase it as "tax but spend". So it's not misinterpreted as.....It's a lot better than don't "tax and spend" I'm going to ask that you qualify the bolded. For I'm surely not the only person here who thinks Obama caved to the Republican leadership repeatedly, backpedaling here, giving in there... Also, what's an election landslide if not a mandate?

Excellent idea. By all means, keep on throwing ideas. Edit: In your list of countries by average wage, Luxembourg is just ahead of the U.S. and Ireland next in line, yet the U.S. citizen spends more: 5,711. Compare that to Luxembourg's 4,611 (over a grand less) and Ireland's 2,455 (nearly half of U.S spending). Texas is one also. But its Houston medical practitioners earn up to $30 average (62,400/year). Plus, the implied connection to unions is flawed. Europe -- and in particular Austria -- is full of unions and still well below our healthcare costs. It's what easy assumptions -- fed by propagandas -- do: too often fills many of us with problem(-nurturing) rhetoric, distorts/scatters any clear sense of the picture. Form a habit to look beyond the supposedly obvious. Variables are the key. It might be those "cheaper" states have more rural areas than in the northeast. But what's that mean for the bottom line anyway? Many rural places are experiencing a healthcare crisis of sorts... Will health care reform reach rural America? The ambulance raced him from his home in remote coal country to a rural hospital about 50 miles away. There, they rushed to give him blood thinners but knew that their facility wasn't capable of doing much more. A helicopter swooped Carl to Charleston, where he had multiple bypass surgery. ........ Carl shrugs at the suggestion that more frequent visits to the doctor might have detected his heart troubles sooner or helped him avoid major trauma through changes in his diet, drugs or even angioplasty or other procedures that, though expensive, are dwarfed by the cost of the helicopter ride and emergency surgery. Far From Care (In Texas) The nearest neurologist who can treat Mo’s brain disorder is 200 miles from this West Texas town. Specialists who monitor his failing eyes and atrophied muscles are four hours away. And the best children’s hospital for his condition is 500 miles across the state. Even the “local” pharmacy, the only place to get Mo’s anti-seizure medicine, is 90 miles away. Mo’s situation, while severe, is hardly uncommon. Giant swaths of West Texas and the Panhandle have little or no medical care to speak of — not just because their residents are under-insured, but because it simply doesn’t exist. ........ In the last two decades, as rural Texas has increasingly lost skilled jobs and industry to the cities, 80 small community hospitals have shut their doors, and many pharmacists have followed suit. ..... And then there’s the recruitment problem. It takes a special kind of doctor, nurse or pharmacist to leave the comforts of practice in a big city — routine hours, higher pay, few surprises — for frontier clinics some lovingly refer to as “war zones.” Rural doctors make smaller salaries and work longer hours than their urban peers. ..... Even where there are clinics and hospitals, rural Texans struggle to access them. Many can’t afford gas money to get to the clinic or pharmacy one town away; the chances of them seeing a specialist 200 miles away are slim. Even for those lucky enough to have insurance, co-pays and prescriptions are often out of the question. When Luis Quinones started to get sick 10 years ago, he recognized the symptoms of diabetes ..... But without insurance, and with little gas money to travel to the nearest in-state clinic, Quinones put off care, occasionally crossing over the border into Mexico for insulin. His condition deteriorated so much he had to have all of his teeth pulled, and he lost sensation in his feet. Rural health care: Heal thyself? Why doctors locate where they do is multifaceted. Some prefer working as generalists in rural areas where they have the opportunity to get to know patients well, and where lifestyle, values, background, love of the outdoors and other reasons pull many to small town practice. But the advantages of city practice seem to have growing attraction. In urban areas doctors are on call less and have more professional support and better facilities, in addition to more opportunities to expand their medical knowledge. They also have amenities such as more shopping and entertainment choices that their rural colleagues don't. City doctors' salaries are also higher. Family practice specialists' compensation in 2000 averaged $150,000 in communities of less than 50,000 and nearly $176,000 in metropolitan areas of more than 1 million, according to a survey by Medical Group Management Association. With an average debt of $93,000, according to American Medical Association data, new doctors are unlikely to want to take lower-paying generalist jobs, which also carry less status in the eyes of other physicians. Like the thousands rest of private businesses falling victim to the recession? Go ahead, connect dots, just try not missing ok? I call ba-loney That part of the debate's been settled, no? Who's more privatized than the U.S. for medical? And lacking examples of any real free market in the world (although I do believe they exist in the most dirt poor of nations), we can't exactly do a scientific analysis. Therefore it's the pink unicorn in a manner. Given everyone's reaction to the half-assed legislation put forth, I think we're all of the same mindset. Ability to dismantle quickly is something I've considered a good feature, so long as 1) ideologically opposed politicians don't attempt sabotage (i.e. by neglect or counteracting laws) in order to gain approval for dismantling it, thus claiming/cheerleading the experiment "failed", and 2) the assurance of "easy" dismantling can't result in a stampede of law experiments.

Are you forgetting the time before it gets applied is essentially a prison term? But once the death starts, you're not getting a revoke unless a last-minute call barely in the nick of time saves you.

Wrong. Each is only fully served upon its completion. Any revoking of prison time is essentially a partially fulfilled sentence. Care to try a partial death fulfillment?

That's just obsene. Open a thread. I'll gladly accept the challenge -- except it won't be one. Here's the conclusion in advance: examples where government's outperformed business in various goals and projects, examples where business has outperformed government as well in many other goals and projects, and examples where often there simply exists no competition whatsoever in many of history's existing goals and projects -- but often too, cooperation. The end result? In any high tech, industrial, and/or widespread economy, government and business needs one another's cooperation/efficiency to function at max productivity -- and neither could exist without the foundation of citizens at their base and core, obviously. So it'd be a good idea to at least maintain some very basic essentials, for a more healthy system. And if you doubt it, just look at the quote of Mr Skeptic's reply above. That's a real example of government + business healthcare vs. the U.S. system of care. To make it easier to visualize why, do a simple average. Each citizen in a universal health nation gets a ranking from 1-10 for quality of healthcare. Same for the U.S. except the average will drop immensely from 45 million zeroes without healthcare. It's simple math.