ivan

so....china's evil b/c its expanded it defintion of who's poor by 100%? you woulda been a big herbert hoover supporter back in the day, no?

i'm sure the irony of a chinese national teaching the virtues of democracy would be lost on your children

Sounds like the basic premise behind the concept of "redistribution of wealth" to me... From actor Michael Caine's autobiography, "What's It All About?" (1992): [P]olitics entered into my life [in my late teens] in an unusual and exciting way. Coming out of the club one evening [in the early 1950s] I was surprised to find myself surrounded by a bevy of very attractive . . . older women, about twenty or twenty-two years old. They were offering leaflets. I took one and one of the girls said mysteriously: "Read it and let us know if you're interested. We'll be back tomorrow night." What exciting proposition could this be, I thought as I walked home reading the leaflet. From what I could make out I was being asked to join something called Young Communists. I knew it was a political party, I also knew that they were very keen on it in Russia and that it had been invented by someone called Marx. I knew the Marx Brothers from the movies so at least, I thought, it might be amusing. The leaflet went on to something really interesting: there was going to be a redistribution of wealth. I could not believe my luck! If they were going to do that, my family and I would have to come out ahead. The clincher for me, was that Communists believed in free love. I couldn't credit that I'd found a political party that offered wealth and love: my two absorbing passions. I couldn't wait to get out of the club the next evening to meet the group of girls. I had a good look at them and picked the one that I wanted to have free love with the most. "I want to join," I said. "Wonderful," she replied and dragged me off to a small dingy office a couple of streets away. "He wants to join," she announced and then she disappeared. I was left standing in a room with four men, all doing smile impersonations. I was instantly suspicious. Remembering what my father had told me about spotting untrustworthy men, I had hit the jackpot here. Two of them had beards, one was wearing sandals and another one had a bow tie. The only thing missing were the two-toned shoes. The object of my free love had disappeared and here I was with a group of guys who obviously so far had not done very well in the redistribution of wealth by the look of them. One of them put a form on the desk in front of me and told me to sign it and pay over my subscription of five shillings. I saw at once what a mistake I had made: the distribution of wealth was to be mine to them, not the other way around. I fledand a lingering suspicion of Communism has remained planted in my mind forever. didn't that guy star as THE example of all that's wrong w/ capitalism?

did he applaud it, or just list it as an example of scotus' willingness to support a use of the commerce clause consistent w/ kk's demand for concrete proposals to deal w/ income inequality?

The guy behind the "Climategate" released a statement to accompany the second tranche of e-mail disclosures... /// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context /// "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day." "Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes." "One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true. "Poverty is a death sentence." "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get.... http://foia2011.org/ Not sure where whoever this is ranks the various ills that can beset humanity, but there are quite a few folks including myself that accept the scientific consensus that the globe is warming and CO2 emissions are driving the change who nonetheless think that diverting trillions of dollars into limiting emissions will be a massive waste of money because it won't actually do much to prevent warming, will cripple or at least substantially hinder economic growth, and waste precious resources that could be put to much better use if the goal is to prevent human suffering and ecosystem damage. Given the yawning chasm between the rich world's economic output and its present future commitments to its old people - anything that makes it tougher to pay for them by hindering growth and output is toast. Might as well accept that, quit the international kabuki dance, and allow smart folks to benefit by giving people the tools to make more stuff with fewer resources and learn to live in a world with a higher CO2 concentration for the next few centuries. i'm confused on the connection between what i said and you said obviously, the bottom line is human happiness, be the matter at hand the environoment, taxes, pitbulls in city-parks, whatever specifics are easiest to comprehend - the al gore types want to see less use of fossil fuels - isn't oil going to run out rather soon, in the grand sense of time, and if it is in fact tied up in damaging the envirnoment, isn't it wise to push alternatives as soon as possible? Not necessarily. Depends on the cost, benefits, and feasibility. Mankind could have burned a lot of time, wealth, and energy trying to send a man to the moon using existing technology back in the 17th, 18th, or 19th century without achieving much beyond squandering the said time, energy, and resources. The point is there's lots of stuff that'll give humanity vastly more bang for the buck if the goal is to alleviate human suffering and minimize ecological damage. (list below). When and if there's an energy source that generates more energy at a lower cost with the same or better reliability than the stuff we use now that'll spur a massive investment binge since it'll pay for itself and then some. Might as well go down that path since adding a few dozen trillion dollars worth of friction to an economic machine that's shuddering under the load of existing obligations represents a road that the civilized world is never going to walk down, no matter how much wailing and teeth-gnashing the assorted scourges, scolds, and scrutineers amongst the conference-going class unleash at their bi-annual seances that try to bring it back from the dead. It's over. 1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) Malnutrition 2 The Doha development agenda Trade 3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) Malnutrition 4 Expanded immunization coverage for children Diseases 5 Biofortification Malnutrition 6 Deworming and other nutrition programs at school Malnutrition & Education 7 Lowering the price of schooling Education 8 Increase andimprove girls’ schooling Women 9 Community-based nutrition promotion Malnutrition 10 Provide support for women’s reproductive role Women 11 Heart attack acute management Diseases 12 Malaria prevention and treatment Diseases 13 Tuberculosis case finding and treatment Diseases 14 R&D in low-carbon energy technologies Global Warming 15 Bio-sand filters for household water treatment Water 16 Rural water supply Water 17 Conditional cash transfers Education 18 Peace-keepingin post‐conflict situations Conflicts 19 HIV combination prevention Diseases 20 Total sanitation campaign Water 21 Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level Diseases 22 Microfinance Women 23 Improved stove intervention Air Pollution 24 Large, multipurpose dam in Africa Water 25 Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles Air Pollution 26 Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles Air Pollution 27 Diesel vehicle particulate control technology Air Pollution 28 Tobacco tax Diseases 29 R&D and mitigation Global Warming 30 Mitigation only Global Warming sounds just like kicking the can down the road, which i suppose is fine, so long as there's road left to kick it down - the footprint of 7 billion meat-puppets though, be it on fresh-water, fossil fuels, co2 emmisions, whatever, already seems damn near bigger than the road itself well reasoned enough maybe, but it still ends in the need to just be a lemming and jump off the damn cliff? better to be damned for trying to do something, than doing nothing at all? and again, while i appreciate the metaphor of da vinci trying to build a rocketship, i don't think the cyncism is warranted here - we already can do some pretty badass stuff, and we have no shortage of egg-heads such as yourself to make it all work

The guy behind the "Climategate" released a statement to accompany the second tranche of e-mail disclosures... /// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context /// "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day." "Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes." "One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true. "Poverty is a death sentence." "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get.... http://foia2011.org/ Not sure where whoever this is ranks the various ills that can beset humanity, but there are quite a few folks including myself that accept the scientific consensus that the globe is warming and CO2 emissions are driving the change who nonetheless think that diverting trillions of dollars into limiting emissions will be a massive waste of money because it won't actually do much to prevent warming, will cripple or at least substantially hinder economic growth, and waste precious resources that could be put to much better use if the goal is to prevent human suffering and ecosystem damage. Given the yawning chasm between the rich world's economic output and its present future commitments to its old people - anything that makes it tougher to pay for them by hindering growth and output is toast. Might as well accept that, quit the international kabuki dance, and allow smart folks to benefit by giving people the tools to make more stuff with fewer resources and learn to live in a world with a higher CO2 concentration for the next few centuries. i'm confused on the connection between what i said and you said obviously, the bottom line is human happiness, be the matter at hand the environoment, taxes, pitbulls in city-parks, whatever specifics are easiest to comprehend - the al gore types want to see less use of fossil fuels - isn't oil going to run out rather soon, in the grand sense of time, and if it is in fact tied up in damaging the envirnoment, isn't it wise to push alternatives as soon as possible?

the debate, good sir and as you must be aware, is of course not wether there should be a dichotomy, but how extreme that dichotomy should be.

Yeah, that would be constitutional. article 1, section 8, clause 3 of fw's tired old document: the congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." sounds like it covers at least companies workign across state borders - i'm sure most states have sufficient paper to cover their asses in similiar fashion hey, you wanted a proposal - you got one - next objection, other than giving lawyers excuses to do what they love best?

Crickets. i imagine the department of labor is up for enforcing a federal law requiring executive pay and benefits be no more than say, 20 times that of a full-time employee's? congress likes laws to be as complicated as they can get, of course, so i imagine they might like to tie that X-factor somehow to the size of a company, perhaps offering more profit to those who start the small and mid-sized businesses that employee the most folks.

'cuz, in the end, it makes jayb a better person than you? it's hard to seperate the anti-evolution crazies from the anti-warming crazies, b/c i suppose they're usually the same general brand of crazy. which are you again? accuse who you like of being zealots, i'm pretty sure i asked a # of reasonable, open-to-debate questions up there that you ignored?

shit yeah, looks like fun to sort after after several beers

badass! wtf is the frog technique?

but...but...but...that took like 30 seconds of my life to do and the bastards at the aclu won't put my gift of 69 cents on my credit card!

you gonna host in yer swank new abode geoff?

if they're like my union i can appreciate their view - every year for a good long while now we've been giving up something and taking on more and more of health care costs - there's no goddamn fat left it feels like, and so of course the knife hurts more now...

prospects on the bill passing the senate? on the house doing the same? obama signign it?

hey, so long as congress ain't gonna get busy fixing the current fuckups, they might as well use the time to make all new ones?

would sending a whole busload of such cockroaches to mars be cheaper then the new curiosity mission?

i've hardly dedicated my life to studying the issue, but the scientific method i've got a fine enough grasp on - what is your point? there's been no shortage of work on the subject for decades obviously, and the common conclusions is clearly not your cup'o'tea. is it your assertion that the vast majority of scientists who've taken on the subject are wrong, or that the majority of scientists who have are in fact opposed to the theory that humans are causing an unprecedented change in earth's climate, but its somehow the fault of died-in-the-wool-true-believers that we, the sad masses, haven't been properly taught? clearly the world is getting warmer. clearly humans have been dumping co2 and everything else under the sun into the air w/ abandon for 2 centuries. it does seem rather counter-intuitive to think the 2 things are unrelated.

might have something to do w/ there only being like 4 people who post w/ any frequency 'rooooound here?

i'm sure tvash will trade you a photo of him scarfing down a bag of caramel bugles in exchange for one of you banging a betty? honestly, no one gives a crap about such things of course - for myself, i do wonder why you've emerged from the preternatural slime all charged up over al gore's cause of the lost decade? jesus h tap-dancing christ, where's the nut in bitch'n'bout global climate change or whatever the machine wants to call it these days? and how are any of the proposed solutions (less oil consumption, more efficient electronics, green energy innovation, etc) evils on the same scale as war w/o end, titanic public debt, the dismantling of the state, corporate co-opting of the republic, etc.? is this really where the Good Fight needs to be made currently?

you been gone 6 whole months? didn't know the co2 re-education camp graduated its prophets in such a hurry!

gay or ghey or just gaaaaaaay?

ironic that the alternate cover-story seems to be just why they shoulda kept the international one?

funny, my "acceptance stage" is more along the lines of "fuckit, let's just get drunk"