JayB

Thinking and doing are two different things. No? All I'm trying to say is that it's not what you believe, it's why you believe it. If you have conclusive evidence that the administration somehow manipulated the results in its favor by tampering with voting machines, whisking away cases of ballots from heavily democratic districts, or the like - information that has somehow escaped the notice of the press, the DNC, etc, etc, etc - then your views are reasonable and are not emblematic of the viewpoint described above. Is it really reasonable to conclude that your man Bill could not score a hummer in the Whitehouse and get away with it, and that Nixon could not so much as pull of a theft from an apartment building without the press and the public noticing, but the administration could pull off a fraud of this magnitude and get away with no outcry whatsoever, despite the fact that a private citizen in Seattle had no trouble obtaining proof that such a crime had actually taken place? However, if you are grounding your belief that this occurred on a conglomeration of personal ideology and vague murmurings on the internet, then Hofstadter's description is probably quite apt in this case. This sort of stuff is the Left-wing equivalent of the Z.O.G., the black-hellicopters, creationism, and "the rapture" IMO and it's just sort of disheartening to see a fine fellow like yourself embrace it.

Oh man.. "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant." Richard Hofstadter in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," 1965. Recommended reading for 9/10th of this board.

"Now I'm thinking this may be purely about putting in a stealth candidate w/ no paper trail. If so, we can thank the Dems just as much as Bush for this, since this is where all the litmus-test, badgering, and obstructionism has led us. The president should be nominating very qualified candidates, and they should be evaluated on qualifications, not litmus tests. " That's more or less what I thought. The strategy on both sides seems to have become one in which the primary goal is to disqualify the candidate on ideological grounds during the hearing, before the vote in the Senate even occurs. Perhaps that's as it should be. A sitting administration is going to nominate a candidate who they think will rule in a manner that's consistent with the party's principles, and if the opposition party will attempt to prevent their appointment. The unfortunate outgrowth of this process is that it the emerging strategy for insuring nomination seems to be to nominate someone with little or no judicial record to oppose. IMO, in an ideal world the nomination process would force any nominee to defend their published views on controversial topics, rather than evade them by means of having no published opinions to discuss. Anyhow - it's definitely an interesting situation when you've got the WSJ editorial page saying that "for now, Mr. Bush is asking his supporters to accept his judgement about his personal lawyer as an act of faith, " and William Kristol describing himself as "dissapointed," "depressed," and "demoralized about the pick, and Harry Reid and Charles Schumer making positive comments about her....

It will be interesting to see what happens to a nominee who lacks enthusiastic support from either party. I am just wondering whether or not the senate republicans will try work behind the scenes to get him to retract this nomination or if they'll just just deal. It seemed like while Robert's ideology was something that Congress would take exception to, the grounds for doubting his legal qualifications were considerably less solid. It seems that both this nominee's ideology and qualifications are grounds for objection, so it will be interesting to see where this goes. This nomination ranks right up there with the 1st nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security. Very bad vetting.

Fairweather: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by posting photo's of Rob's accident in this context - maybe you felt like he was making things personal and had to respond in kind? Anyhow - I've met Rob on 2-3 occaisions, and happened to run into him in Lillooet the day after the accident. His face was bruised enough that I hardly recognized him at first, and judging by the accounts of the rest of the guys up there with him the fall was bad enough that things could have been much, much worse. If it had been me, I don't think I would have been tough enough to do anything more than lie in bed and watch cable while everyone else went out and climbed, but he had the mental and physical toughness to continue climbing - which was amazing to me. By all accounts the fall was the result of bad luck and nothing more, and I appreciate the fact that he shared the story of the fall online. I'm not sure if you care what I think about this or not - but I think that abusing Rob's accident and his willingness to talk about it on the site really makes you look bad.

I don't think that most group rates have such an exclusion, and I'm sure that smoking, obesity, etc have no bearing whatsoever on the amount that one pays into medicaid. The other thing that's interesting to note is that I recall some study done a while ago that indicated that smokers were a net plus for social security, as they tended to die long before their withdrawals match their contributions. As far as the liability of Tobacco companies is related to their marketing and "research" practices, it is rather dismaying to me that anyone thinks that these should be grounds for a lawsuit. Is there anyone above the age of three who is not - literally - retarded who did not know that smoking was bad for you in the entire country? Has there been for decades? Are we really supposed take anyone seriously when they testify that it was entirely reasonable to dismiss the decades of Surgeon Generals warnings, the warnings on the labels, the massive PR and popular print articles, and the actual experiences of millions of other smokers because the guys selling the stuff swore that it wasn't harmful? If this is going to serve as a valid legal precedent, then we should also allow lawsuits against casinos on the part of people who lose money there despite the adds that show people winning a fortune on the slots, against crack dealers who swear - swear - that their product is both healthy and non-habbit forming, against prostitutes who transmit VD to their clients despite swearing that they are actually virgins, etc, etc, etc. Anyone who claims that they didn't know that smoking is harmful is either a: lying to evade responsibility for the consequences of their choices and lack of resolve or, b: literally retarded and should become a ward of the state as they clearly lack the faculties to conduct their own affairs. As far as "children" are concerned, I think the term needs some clarifying in the context of the lawsuit. I don't seem to recall anyone literally sponsoring cartoons featuring "Wheezy the Clown" literally encouraging elementary school kids to smoke, and the notion that a cartoon character like Joe Camel in magazine adds and billboards was actually intended to promote smoking amongst children, and could override the cumulative effects of anti-smoking education in schools and elsewhere is a bit much. Even if a tobacco company did engage in such practices the proper remedy would be redefining the language of the existing ban to prevent such campaigns in the future, and a large statutory penalty for the offense in question, and to prevent future offenses. If we are talking about teenagers smoking, I don't personally consider people in this age group to be children, nor do they self identify as such. By seventh grade even the dimmest kids are capable of reasoning their way through simple algebra, so the notion that they don't understand that something is harmful or wrong is just not consistent with reality. The problem here is not so much not being aware of the hazards, but being aware of them and electing to engage in them anyway, or intentionally engage in them because they are hazardous as a result of a variety of factors which have little or nothing to do with marketing, and quite a bit to do with their home environment, peer groups, personality -etc. Somehow quite a few of my friends and peers discovered marijuana without having been exposed to "Captain Toketron" action figures, or "Hashman" cartoons pitched at them as part of a targeted marketing campaign.

www.teddybearcrisis.com Click on the link and select your trailer size for video. Gut-wrenching opening seg. but otherwise looks like a nice addition to this year's crop o' ski flicks. Dude in the photo thankfully survived and made a full recovery.

Page full o' this year's ski movie trailers: Here Amazing stuff. Not sure which is the best for big BC lines, but Teddy Bear Crisis looks like a pretty good combo of pipe, park, BC Booter, and big-line footage.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1578037,00.html "n a debate, hosted by former US President Bill Clinton in New York, Blair said he was not hopeful of another major agreement on targets to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. Instead, he talked enthusiastically about focusing on technology-led solutions, the process favoured by America, Japan, China and India, but rejected by environmental campaigners and other leaders, including Britain's own minister responsible for climate change minister. He also back-tracked on his previous insistence that tackling climate change would not damage economic growth, warning 'no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially' - a phrase that echoes anti-Kyoto arguments of President George Bush. 'Some people have signed Kyoto, some people haven't,' the Prime Minister said, adding: 'How do we move forward and ensure that post-Kyoto, we do try and get agreement?' The apparent change in tone by Blair is surprising because he made climate change one of the major themes of his chairmanship of the G8 group of the world's richest nations. It comes as Labour faces the embarrassing prospect of failing to meet Britain's own Kyoto targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of rises in pollution since Labour came to power in 1997."

I've always thought that the crystalization process should fall somewhere on that list, seeing as how it violates their understanding of thermodynamic processes....

The underlying argument is the same - that people are not capable of assesing the risks associated with a given behavior and regulating it accordingly. I'm all for applying these standards to infants, invalids, and retarded people - and anyone who lights cigarettes for them, places them in their mouth, and forces them to smoke until they become addicted is indeed a bad person - but the premises of such lawsuits seem like a dangerous precedent to errect a broad social policy upon. My niece knew that smoking was bad for you by the time she was three - I distinctly recall her telling an adult smoker that at the time. I personally smoke cigarettes intermittently - I think the last time was when someone handed me one at the Smith Ropeup last year, but I've managed to limit it to a pack-a-decade habit thus far, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Smoking rates dropped for 20-30 years after the Surgeon General's warning, etc, etc, etc - so there are people who are capable of regulating their behavior out there, those who aren't, and those who enjoy smoking and think it's worth the tradeoff. I might find it easier to live with lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, McDonalds, etc if the people advocating them would accept some sort of a tradeoff whereby health insurance rates, medicaid taxes, etc were also selectively increased for smokers, the obese, etc but that never seems to be part of the package...

I think that they should make it legal for the cigarette manufacturers to crank out something like the Red-Bull of cigarettes - extra concentrated nicotine, larger diameter etc. Nicotine addicts could get their dosage faster and reduce their inhalation of extraneous combustion products....

"If a company sells something that does nothing else except enslave and then kill people, then fuckin' a they gotta go." Word. What really gets me is the evil cabal of climbing gear manufacturers, magazines, and advertisers that lure hordes of unwitting citizens into participating in an exceptionally dangerous activity that, if left unchecked, can ultimately form a habit powerful enough to destroy the victim's family, livelihood, and eventually his own life. Not to mention the medical and rescue costs that their habit inflicts on the rest of society. The gear manufacturers KNOW the risks, they KNOW that certain individuals are predisposed to seek out the mental and physical sensations associated with high risk behavior, and they prey on them. I think its high time that we recognize the validity of the premises that underly the tobacco lawsuits, and apply them to the heartless profiteers at the center of the climbing industry. Enough is enough.

Good article discussing US Euro differences here: http://www.isop.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=16974

"...smokescreen for the rightwing agenda of cutting social spending while significantly rewarding corporations and those of the upper income brackets. " Actually, other than Japan (42%), the US has the highest corporate tax rate of any country in the OECD at 40%. Germany is at 38.29, France is at 34.33, etc, etc, etc and the trend rate in Europe has decreased from 38% in 1997 to 31% in '04. http://www.us.kpmg.com/microsite/global_tax/ctr_survey/

A more apt saying with respect to the US-Canada economic relationship would be "When the ship sinks the barnacle goes with it..."

You guys might want to take a look at the overall tax yield as well, and compare GDP growth in the referenced countries versus the US. Which structure produces the greatest real increase in government revenue?

Might also have an effect on certain raw material exports, eh...

Why is that at all interesting or surprising, except to right wing ideologues, and why does it fucking matter? The rich get a majority of the benefits from our system (as evidenced by their being rich!) why shouldn't they pay proportionately more? Should the poor pay more to protect the property of the wealthy? I have no problem with the figures or the distribution of the Federal tax burden at present, but it is interesting to see that a decline in the top marginal rates resulted in the wealthiest 1% paying proportionately more taxes, because these facts seem to contradict populist rhetoric about the rich not paying their fair share of the taxes, etc.

Are those income inequality figures comparing pre or post-tax income? It's interesting to note that the percent of all Federal taxes paid by the top 1% has gone from 19 to 33% in the period from 1980 to 02, despite decreases in the top marginal rate, and on capital gains. Google "Laffer Curve." http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Blah fucking blah blah. China now finances the United States government. Comparing pre-and post reform GDP-per capita and GDP growth in China actually proves my point. A market economy in a state run by a party which calls itself communist is still a market economy. China has become steadily more market oriented, not less so. Venezuala is going in the opposite direction. On the other issue, then Chinese and most other export driven economies have buying buying dollars - which is to keep their exports competitive in dollar terms. One could just as easily argue that the US consumer finances the Chineese economy. If the dollar depriciates, so do does the value of most of their reserves, so and the exports which drive their economy instantly become less competitive in the US market, so the barrel of the currency gun that they hold is pointing in both directions.

I really liked your post. You totally hit the nail on the head and I couldn't have said it better. What it comes down to is A) it doesn't matter what the cause of the income disparity is. B) it doesn't matter if the poor are not worse off than they were. All that matters is the disparity itself and the PERCEIVED injustice. Hey - I couldn't disagree more. I think it matters tremendously what the cause of the changes are actually due to, as the only possible way in which to remedy the problem, if there is one, is to understand the true causes of the phenomena. To me it matters very little whether or not they constitute a perceived injustice on anyone's part, unless the "anyone" in question is in a position to influence economic policy, and their efforts to solve a perceived problem result in real economic damage to the economy, which will in turn result in real hardships sustained by those who the policies were intended to benefit.

Does it really matter how much money is made per worker in a family, or whether they're full-time or not? I don't think so. A family is the smallest unit for which measuring income makes sense. Measuring in real dollars makes sense, of course, but once you start "normalizing" for social changes (health care as compensation), it gets complicated. You'd have to adjust for the changing numbers of children per household, for instance, and soon your data are normalized to irrelevance. I mean, the number of children a family has also depends on income... and so on. Whether huge income disparity is a problem doesn't seem very debatable to me. Jealousy is a powerful human emotion, with far-reaching effects not easily quantified. It doesn't much matter to people whether they make more money every year if everyone else is making even more still. For example, people living in the US, with a TV in every room, two cars, a house, and food on the table every day still manage to complain that they are poor, yet their material means are hugely greater than most people in the world. The only comparisons people take seriously are those they can make based on what they see with their own eyes. Well, you can venture all you want, but where's your data? The NY Times ran a feature a while back on this very issue, income mobility. In general, people in the lower 3/5 were more likely than not to stay where they were or move down. People in the upper 2/5 were only barely more likely than not to stay put or move up. It was hardest to move up from middle class to upper-middle class (only 37.5% did so after 10 years). http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html You'll have to show me which graph that you are referring too at the NYT. I do think that having a graph that attempts to compare something like income per family, yet does not attempt to define what exactly constitutes a family - warrants extra scrutiny at the very least, as broad demographic changes do have a very real impact on things like average income per family. Another demographic reality beyond the advent of the single-parent household that surely has an impact on things like income mobility is the average age of the population. The normal workers income trajectory normally involves an increase throughout the 20's and 30's, a plateu at midlife, and a decline in retirement. The fact that the population has been aging throughout the period under consideration surely has a real impact on income mobility. As a matter of fact, one could reasonably expect to see a greater portion of the population drop a quintile or two in the income classifications in the next decade or two, as boomers retire en-masse. My parents have just retired, and their cash-income has dropped precipitously, but since they've accumulated other assets and payed off their house, their standard or living really hasn't changed, and their quality of life has vastly improved.

If my real, inflation adjusted income stays fixed or increases at a slow rate, and yours increases rapidly - how does that harm me economically or otherwise?