JayB

"CODEPINK members were crying outside Pelosi’s office. When asked why, Rae Abileah, 24, said she was crying out of “outrage that this is all we can get from the Democrats,” referring to the Iraq supplemental funding bill, scheduled for a vote Friday. “We’re just heartbroken that Nancy Pelosi has decided to keep funding George Bush’s war, and now the war belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans,” said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin. “We thought we were going to get a change when they came into power.” Such innocence.

There's a challenge to riding your heel side edge in a straight line down the entire run? Sadly enough, that's normally how it gets done, and is almost certainly the manner in which the "snowboarding is too easy so I have to tele for a challenge" crew would descend any such line. Now that I can ski again, and haven't been on my board more than once or twice a season for the past four years or so, that's probably what I'd have to resort to at this point as well.

Have to agree with Ken here. It'd be interesting to watch anyone who dismisses snowboarding as easy hit a steep bumpline on a board.

As one more familiar with the craft, perhaps you could explain the twin-tip tele phenomenon to the rest of us. I have seen dozens of dudes with the TTT thing going on out here in the east, and have yet to see any of them ski, much less land, switch, and of course if you're doing 99% of your skiing on icy-ass East Coast terrain, nothing performs like an undampened park-ski. Anxiously awaiting the magical bro-bra/sensitive-alterno-hipster synergy that the free-heel snowboard binding will bring to the slopes.

Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program. Which we only determined after they had been defeated. When the survival of the free world was literally at stake, it would have made much more sense to cross our fingers and trust Hitler, who surely would have disclosed both the specific location of their research facilities and the progress that they'd made along these lines to his enemies in the middle of a war to destroy them. Is there a single sane historian who contends that anything other than fear of Germany acquiring the weapons first that impelled the Allies to undertake the Manhattan project? Nothing stated so far successfully refutes my original statement. Neener. This statement is meaningless outside of the context in which the decision to proceed with the Manhattan project was made - reminder, they did not have perfect knowledge of what Nazi intentions/capabilities/etc were with regard to nuclear weapons - so why you think this is a meaningful insight is beyond me. If Roosevelt et al had been able to magically see the future, exclaim "Hey - It looks like Adolf and Co didn't have an operational nuke and actually weren't even close to developing one. Gosh" And then went ahead with the Manhattan project anyway, then your point would be salient. It would be more salient if you bothered to read the thread. If you can't refute the argument, pretend it doesn't exist. Excellent.

For the folks sticking to the ChimpyMcHileroBurtonatGloboCabalOsamaisamythand911wasaninsidejob ItsAboutOilforChenyetetcetcetc crew: Was the world reeling from an oil embargo/shortage before the war? We seemed to be getting all of the oil that we needed just fine before the war began, via the miracle of the world oil market, in which the oil - once inside the tankers - invariably goes to the buyer willing to pay the highest price for it. Did the OPEC embargo in the 1970s trigger any invasions of oil rich countries with weak defenses? Why not? If our only goal was to get our hands on Iraqi oil, and we had no concerns about what ends the proceeds from the sale would be turned to, wouldn't it have been much more logical to make a deal with Saddam and pass the strategic about-face off as pragmatism? If our only end in Iraq was to secure with force what we could already easily obtain on the open market - why did we leave the oil fields in Saddam's hands after '91? Why not occupy Kuwait under some pretext related to the '91 war and secure geographic control over their resources as well? Did oil suddenly become a strategic consideration between '91 and 02/03? Is there any factual evidence that the war was the result of a conspiracy undertaken to enrich oil companies? Were Tony Blair, Aznar, Major, etc, etc, etc, etc, in on the conspiracy or were they unwilling dupes? How is it that masterminds behind such a conspiracy weren't able to pull off lesser conspiracy to plant WMD in Iraq, or that the same masterminds failed to comprehend the political damage that the failure to find any would cast on the entire enterprise? How do the oil reserves in Afghanistan account for our continued presence there? And finally: Is uncritical rejection of every claim put forth by a given government logically superior to uncritical acceptance of the same?

Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program. Which we only determined after they had been defeated. When the survival of the free world was literally at stake, it would have made much more sense to cross our fingers and trust Hitler, who surely would have disclosed both the specific location of their research facilities and the progress that they'd made along these lines to his enemies in the middle of a war to destroy them. Is there a single sane historian who contends that anything other than fear of Germany acquiring the weapons first that impelled the Allies to undertake the Manhattan project? Nothing stated so far successfully refutes my original statement. Neener. This statement is meaningless outside of the context in which the decision to proceed with the Manhattan project was made - reminder, they did not have perfect knowledge of what Nazi intentions/capabilities/etc were with regard to nuclear weapons - so why you think this is a meaningful insight is beyond me. If Roosevelt et al had been able to magically see the future, exclaim "Hey - It looks like Adolf and Co didn't have an operational nuke and actually weren't even close to developing one. Gosh" And then went ahead with the Manhattan project anyway, then your point would be salient.

Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program. Which we only determined after they had been defeated. When the survival of the free world was literally at stake, it would have made much more sense to cross our fingers and trust Hitler, who surely would have disclosed both the specific location of their research facilities and the progress that they'd made along these lines to his enemies in the middle of a war to destroy them. Is there a single sane historian who contends that anything other than fear of Germany acquiring the weapons first that impelled the Allies to undertake the Manhattan project?

Bone - these were questions that you can answer as an individual. Whether the US or any other other country could ever be perceived by everyone in the world as the ideal arbiter of the decisions concerning who should have nukes is another matter. But back to your statements. Why is it that Islamic groups who want nuclear weapons should not have them? If you can come up with criteria that apply to various Islamic groups, is it not conceivable that the arguments that you bring forward against the Islamic groups might also be applicable to certain nations as well?

'Bone, have you put as much thought into this particular issue as you have into...refusing to vaccinate your child? Let's explore the sentiments that you've put forward here a bit. Is this an argument against any restrictions on the production or distribution of nuclear weapons? Are you proposing that it should be restricted to nation states, or should group with the means and the will to acquire them be able to, no matter what their intentions? If you'd restrict membership to nation states, what criteria would you use to limit access? The ability to safeguard them? The political stability of the said nation state, and the likelihood that the whomever is currently in control will be overthrown by actors whose ideology and behavior cannot be predicted with any certainty? The probability that they will transfer the weapons to those who would use them against others? Even if you are convinced that the principle of "fairness" supercedes rationality and that any group that wants nukes should have them, regardless of their character or intent, do you think that this is an ethically sound position? As an example, assume that country B wants nuclear weapons so that they can anihiliate country A, and tens of millions of people in country A will be killed if country A makes good on its threats. Is it ethical for the rest of the world to support country B's nuclear aspirations because it's not fair to deny country B access to the technology that other countries already have access to. If you resided in country A, would this change your thinking at all?

Ironic, but true. Altruism is more a fantasy than a reality. I don't agree here. Pride in delivering excellence to others and care for one's community is a proven formula for making the most successful butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. Sure, rapacious businesses can and do thrive, particularly if they are so large that they can manipulate governments, but there are far more businesses who are not rapacious, do not willfully abuse their employees, and produce excellence products, which are thriving. Altruism, and the cooperative spirit it requires, is a fundamental component of self actualization; a need which evolution has implanted in humans just as surely as the need for food, sex, and a warm place to take a dump. This is the fundamental principle that trumps the pro business/anti government simpletons who continuously try to force fit their robotic formulas to explain and predict human behavior. In the end, humans are always better and more creative than the sea monkeys they've base their models on. If altruism were not a fundamental component of the human psyche, why would we have the groundswell of local, municipal, and statewide actions to reduce carbon emissions in the face of complete inaction at the federal level? Why are businesses and households 'going green' and becoming carbon neutral? The jury is still way out on whether or not this makes financial sense from an individual's standpoint, yet the tide is defininitely flowing in the green direction. In nature, as resources become more scarce, cooperation (always present in any biosphere) becomes more important than competition. So called 'socialist' policies, or those that require society wide cooperation, will increasingly become more important to human survival as a warming earth reduces what humans have evolved to consume if violent competition is to be avoided. Self-interest and selfishness are two different things, and there are many times in which its in a given individual's self-interest to behave in a non-selfish manner. As far as altruism is concerned, the debate isn't about whether it exists or not, but whether it is reliable enough to serve as the sole basis for ordering social interactions - be they legal, economic, or what have you. To throw in another quote from Smith's era, (Madison) "If all men were Angels, there would be no need of government." Even if naked, unadulterated altruism could be relied upon to govern 99.9% of all behavior in 99.9% of the population, society would still have to develop mechanisms to deal with the sub-fraction of all persons or behaviors that was motivated by any of the baser motivations that actuate human behavior from time to time. The point of the rules in a market economy isn't to force people to like each other, or to compel them to make sacrifices on behalf of people that they may or may not like, or may or may not ever know - but to permit them to engage in those voluntary interactions which they wish to engage in because each side perceives the said interaction to be in his or her own-interest. One of the strengths of a market economy based on voluntary exchange is that unlike altruism - it permits socially beneficial cooperation amongst people who not only have no affinity for one another, but actively despise one another, or have no idea that the other even exists. I may hate the guy who offers the best deal on whatever it is that I want to buy, but if I buy whatever it is he has to sell and saved money in the process, we've engaged in a mutually beneficial interaction despite the absence of any warm-feelings between us. The same goes for the guy working half-way around the globe who works at Bayer AG that's developing a drug that may save my life. The guy doesn't even know I exist, could care less about my health, and he may not even like his job, but by dragging himself to work in the morning to put food on his own table, he's engaged in efforts that are profoundly beneficial to me. The scientist who developed the drug he's working for may be a selfish misanthrope who's sole motivation to develop the drug is to generate a fortune for himself, but what matters to me is not his motivation but the concrete benefits of whatever it is that he has created have for me or anyone else that may need it. What happens to any scheme for organizing society that requires universal altruism be exercised on behalf of not only those that you know and care for, but those that you know and dislike, let alone those that you'll never have any personal interaction with whatsoever? Of the manifold faults within socialist philosophy, this point is a minor one, but it alone is enough to render the entire enterprise untenable. When altruism fails, what mechanism does the society organized around the principle of universal altruism have to motivate people? Take a look at any state that tried to impose real, as opposed to adjectival, socialism and you'll find your answer. With regards to your last point - I would have to disagree with the assertion that resource scarcity can be counted on to inspire greater social harmony and solidarity, especially if you are talking about a scenario in which multiple ethnocultural groups find themselves dependent upon the same pool of diminishing resources.

It looks like we've strayed from the original "big established businesses versus innovation theme" a bit here. Is the claim that businesses will resist regulations that diminish their profits, or that they can/will always squelch any technological innovation that may occur in their field that has the potential to undermine their profits, at least in the near term? C02 emissions are one thing, the price of oil is another. It would seem to me that the existence of a monopoly that artificially inflated the price of oil would actually decrease oil consumption below the level that would prevail in a competitive marketplace where oil companies had an incentive to compete on price - and that depending on the scope and strength of the monopoly - the reduction of C02 emissions generated by burning hydrocarbosn might be faster and of a greater magnitude than government regulations that mandate higher efficiency or decreased emissions. Minor digression with regards to altruism: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -Adam Smith, 1776

"Simple- profits have never been better for the oil and energy industries, and to implement more efficient technology, someone would have to spend some money." How does one explain the existence of technological progress in any field in light of the assertion that those who profit from existing technology are always able to thwart the development of superior alternatives? This theory, at the very least, has to overcome the minor hurdle of accounting for the discrepancy between a world in which technological progress has come to a screeching halt, and the world that we actually inhabit. This theory that the profit motive is antithetical to technological progress also seems to assume that the same corporations corporations that are programmed to exploit the profit potential derived from old technology A in a given sector are quite uninterested in the potential profits generated in new technology B. Did IBM try to squelch the word-processor/PC and force the world to use the Selectric II? A further assumption is that the said corporations are not only interested in the potential profits generated from technology B, but able to prevent the adoption of B by any competitor operating anywhere in the globe. Then you also have to assume that either they can prevent those who would benefit from technology B from having any knowledge of its existence, and lacking that, insuring that they aren't able to channel the demand for B into demand thats capable of overcoming whatever restrictions that those who profit from A are able to put into place to prevent B from getting into their hands. Is this logical analysis, or a lazy paranoia that caters to one's ideological predispositions at work here? Sounds quite a bit like those who claim that the foremost obstacle to curing a given type of cancer is the existence of a profitable treatment.

I seem to recall climate data showing that global temperatures declined from roughly ~1940-1970, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the snowpack in the interval from ~1970 to the present was less substantial on average than that found in the 1950's. From what I recall, most glaciers in the Cascades retreated from the end of the Little Ice Age to roughly 1950, advanced from ~1950-1980, and began retreating again in the early 80's. Scientists on Cascade Glaciers and Global Warming: http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/globalwarming.html

Hey Porter: It could be worse, you could be stuck on the East Coast! Seriously though - stay strong, keep your spirits up, and don't be afraid to ask questions, seek second opinions, and generally do whatever it takes to insure that you get the care you need to get yourself out of the hospital and back on your feet.

Same Pascal. His output wasn't confined to mathematics. Pensées: "The Pensées (literally, "thoughts") represented a defense of the Christian religion by Blaise Pascal, the renowned 17th century philosopher and mathematician. Pascal's own religious conversion had led him into a life of asceticism, and the Pensées were in many ways his life's work." Pascal's Wager, found in the Pensées: The Wager is described by Pascal in the Pensées this way[2]: Let us now speak according to natural lights...Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. In his Wager, Pascal provides an analytical process for a person to evaluate options in regarding belief in God. As Pascal sets it out, the options are two: believe or not believe. There is no third possibility. Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities: * You believe in God. o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. * You do not believe in God. o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite. o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible. With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal hoped to have demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to believe in God. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions)." From Wikipedia.

First the general: I have never argued against the notion that law, in the form of regulations, are unnecessary for a market economy. It's clear that just as laws governing and restraining the conduct of individuals in order to prevent them from depriving their fellow citizens of their rights and liberties, regulations are necessary for the maintenance of a functioning marketplace. This is clearly not the point of contention here, although one would never know this from the number of rebuttals that have thus far been offered up to this point of non-dispute. Now to the specifics: With respect to "big box" retailing here or anywhere else, we are not talking about someone trying to generate excess profits by selling goods which are illegal, adulterated, or engaging in any attempt to deceive or harm them. We are talking about a merchant who is able to sell items which are similar or identical to those already on the market at a lower price. The critics of these retailers have claimed that the availability of the said items at a lower price will generate harmful consequences that outweigh the benefits of generated by the lower prices. I have simply stated that those claims are either false, disingenuous, or the harm in question is so nebulous and subjective that it is best evaluated - both on economic and ethical grounds - by the local consumers themselves instead of those who presume to speak on their behalf. You make not like or agree with the choices that they make when they decide where to shop, just as you may not like what they say, or how they vote, but not liking these actions is one thing, and imagining that you have the right to restrict or deny them the right to do any of these things is quite another. This is where we may differ.

[gvideo]-7024327732354892916[/gvideo]

The Great ARM Reset of '07. Coming to an Alt-A tranche near you.... NYT - "Crisis Looms in Mortgages." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/11mortgage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Next One [gvideo]-984478101091966341[/gvideo]

"I also said that, if JAYB's consumer cared only about price the way he asserted they did, they might not look at externalities even if they were about to bite them in the face." My assertion wasn't that consumers, however poor they may be, care only about price - it was that they should not be subject to regulations that force them to pay artificially high prices for the things they need (and are most likely already buying elsewhere) by imposing regulatory barriers that prevent competition, and that doing so cannot be justified either on economic or ethical grounds. With regards to "externalities," I think the same liberties that pertain to any other action in a free society should pertain here. That is, we should be free to do anything that doesn't directly injure someone else or infringe on their rights, and the same should apply to whatever we are talking about under the banner of "externalities." Should the law prevent me from stealing from a merchant, and could he claim that the injury that he sustains as a result of my theft is direct enough that it should be illegal? Yes. Should he be able to claim that my choosing to buy whatever it is that he sells from another person who is...willing to give me a better deal on the same legal product that this other guy has on his shelves, I happen to like more, is closer to my home, has nicer help, is painted my favorite color, makes donations to political causes I support etc, etc, etc amounts to an injury/externality that the law should prevent on his behalf? No. This is where I think that you and I differ.

Also worth considering the role of insurance companies in studying and promoting technologies associate with vehicle safety, in addition to that of the government. The insurance companies, acting through motives that were unquestionably and entirely motivated by their own self interest - investigated, quantified, and lobbied extensively for the adoption of just about every safety technology that we credit for reducing mortality and saving lives - all so that they would have to pay fewer claims and consequently, make more money. It would be silly to dispute the government's role in promoting vehicle safety, but it would be just as incorrect to conclude that the government was the sole inspiration and force behind these measures.

"From the add, it looks as if that would be worth sitting down with some popcorn. Freemarketman is going to save the world!" It's really just an economic history of the 20th century, and provides an overview of the principal figures/philosophies that actuated policy, and the social contexts within which they derived their popular support and appeal, brought to you by the same public television station that produces Frontline and NOVA. Consequently, your response is unwarranted, but interesting all the same.

Hey Matt: Did you ever catch "The Commanding Heights" series on PBS? The entire thing is available online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

[gvideo]-1653494182278055624&q=terrain+park+skiing&hl=en[/gvideo]