Slashdot Mirror

Uniform Driver's License Standards vs. The Mark of the Beast

The Social Security card was never meant to be used for identification purposes. When the system was created in 1935, to assuage the concerns of American citizens, Congress insisted that the card would never and should never be used for purposes of identification. Its sole purpose was to ensure that workers were paying the required payroll tax. Individual workers were assigned numbers so that the proper governing authority could easily account for the contributions made to the Social Security fund. Nonetheless, the use of the number grew steadily over the years. Starting in 1961, the Civil Service Commission began using the number to identify all federal employees. In 1962, the IRS started requiring the number to appear on all completed tax returns.

This document explores the ways the SSN does not qualify as a violation of the warning of Revelation Chapter 13 concerning the mark of the beast. And why there is a new system coming soon that will come far too close. And given the drifting useage of the SSN, this new system is guaranteed, by design, to be in full violation of the warning, once the technology takes its logical course.

This new system of nationally uniform drivers license standards are standards written by the federal government that change licensing entirely. In fact it's a nice bit of newspeak to call it anything BUT a National ID card. It makes this turkey an easier sell. I, however, will call it what it is.

Since 9-11, many countries are working on National ID cards, including the United States. The plan is actually harder sell in liberal Europe than the US because Europe still has memories of how Nazi Germany used travel documentation in WWII as a means of control.

Tony Blair has opted for a voluntary cards. "However, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to live a normal life without the new ID card in England - possession of a valid card will be necessary for boarding an aircraft, buying gas, opening a bank account, starting a job or claiming government benefits." So much for "voluntary", unless you don't need to go anywhere. Like out of Germany in the late 1930's.

In the US, the voices against the National ID plan are almost exclusively pro-immigration groups. Seeing the majority of the population, including the church, relatively unsympathetic towards immigrants, and often downright hostile, is unfortunate. Especially considering the balance of the church's time is spent preaching, in a sense, what comes around, goes around. It reminds me of the poetic account of the rise of Nazi Germany.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
-Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

To think that these IDs are someone else's problem is a falsehood in the first place. Such an ID card, if put into place, will be a gift to identity thieves, who will now be able to get all the information they need from multiple sources as seemingly innocuous as your video rental store. State DMVs have alrea

Summary: you can be arrested and detained for up to four years because the police think you appear dangerous and might commit a crime.

And what crime has Jose Padilla committed? He's been in a military jail for years, denied a lawyer because the powers that be in the US have declared him a terrorist, although they don't seem to want to actually charge him with anything.

Seems to me that we're more than happy to detain people too when we don't like them.

And before you dismiss me as some liberal loony, check that link again. It's not just liberals pissed about Bush trampling all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "keeping us safe from terror."

That is a consequence of the distinction of inter- vs. intra- state commerce. Rather than adapt their organization to comply with 50 different states' shipping regulations (which largely didn't undergo deregulatory reform like federal trucking laws in the 80's), Fedex just makes sure every shipment crosses state lines.

The Cato Institute made hay of this a while ago

Federal Express picks up a package in Terre Haute, Indiana, bound for nearby Gary. Although FedEx has a state-of-the-art national hub in Indianapolis, it is cheaper to fly the package to the company's hub in Memphis, Tennessee, sort it there, and fly it back to Indiana, even at twice the cost of transporting it directly, than to comply with state regulations governing intrastate carriers.

Yes they have.

Yes. It would be incredibly easy to have spent less than Bush. Read this excellent study on spending in this administration, and you will probably be shredding your Republican Party membership card.

Even if Gore went to War and/or Kerry took the same actions as Bush, the spending would have been far less, because we would have saved money from Halliburton, etc. And the Dems wouldn't have blown $700+ trillion on a prescription drug program that's useless. Not to mention the insane money blown on hastily organized HSA and TSA.

Refer to my other reply further down that talks about the imbalance of contributions and receipts for smaller rural states versus larger urban states.

The fact of the matter is that corporate subsidies and welfare payouts dwarf rural subsidies by any way you look at it. In fact, corporate subsidies dwarf welfare payouts on its own. But here we are talking about industries like the train/rail indsutry and the airline industry. These are not rural industries. (Nor can they specifically be labeled urban industries.) Your average rural farmer or rural trade worker or rural laborer does not get subsidized at all. Yet you see urban laborers receiving too much welfare.

Refer to http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm063099.html on corporate subsidies.

I think it's hilarious that someone with a link to Cato in his profile is arguing that we should spend more federal money on stem cell research.

Maybe you should read this article.

This is one of the biggest problems that I see with our apparently inevitable slide toward an ownership society.

The plan as I read it is to offshore everything with the thought that we'll still own the capital and intellectual property that people who do the actual work will be dependent on. I think incidents like this shine a spotlight on why this kind of thing won't work in the long term. What happens when the people who do the actual work (and that you're throwing the equivalent of scraps to) decide they don't like your arrangement? They change the rules (example: steal people's identities) and you have little recourse since you don't actually do anything and are wholly dependent on them.

I do not complain, I stated a fact. The links were not in front of me, and after reading said links, all I saw were 2 charts, with no analysis. If you read the responses to the link http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=145518&cid=121 87185 you'll find that the comment is worthless, and if you check http://www.corporatism.netfirms.com/pay.htm#int visually, it's easy to see the correlation, furthermore, here are some links to show you how the minimum wage is harmful to employees in a free market system. http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2005/050143.htm http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/pd082100a.html
Let me guess, you're a democrat who's still whining about how your party has no ideas besides we're not republicans. Here's a joke for you:
A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his Businesscard and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took 20 bucks out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless guy. The Democrat was very impressed , and when they came to another homeless person , he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless guy and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republicans pocket and gave the homeless person 50 bucks. Now you understand the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Pay less taxes, and everyone loses.

Who loses if the United States stops paying Colombia to spray poison on innocent Columbian farmers?

What if your taxes pay for famine [cato.org], destruction of private property, tresspassing [americas.org], and assault? [mapinc.org]

If we don't fund these things, everyone loses? We have laws in this country. If you knowingly fund assault, murder, or destruction of private property, you should go to prison. If you unknowingly fund murder, but the murder you fund is a matter of public record, then you should be imprisoned for criminally neglegent homicide.

>His mistake was underestimating in just how low esteem Democrats hold the US Constituition.

Are we talking about George 'I love the Constitution so much I lock people up for 3 years without charges and without access to an attorney' W. Bush? Here is what those wacko ultra-liberal Democrats (NOT!) at the Cato Insitute have to say about it http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html/

Are are we talking about the George W. 'I love free speech so much I have the secret service arrest people that try to ruin my photo opportunities' Bush? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-ds c-d95.html/

Or are we talking about the guy that wanted to ammend the Consitution to prohibit one particular form of free speech, not so much because he actually cared (because deep down in side, he cares about nothing) but because he wanted to pander to the anti-liberty wing of the Republican party http://www.patridiots.com/000875.html/

Or are we talking about the George W. 'Pass the religious Bigotry and Homophobia act of 2005 and my signature will be on it tomorrow' http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.p rez.bush.marriage/ Bush?

Whatever else he is, W. is no fan of the Consitution as it is today, and certainly no fan of liberty. But hey, that's OK, he has a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle. Nobody in the last 100 years has proposed an Amendment to give people more freedom, we only seem to get amendments to take freedom away.

Actually in my position I don't do anything unethical or somehow morally negative to anyone, my fellow employees or my customers (I am not management).

If I was told to do anything unethical or anything that violated my core beliefs I wouldn't be working there. I do my best to help the customers (except those that are jackasses) and I have developed a relationship with many of them.

They have an evolving business model which is trying to increse frequency of visits and ultimately increase sell-thru which will increase profits. This does tend to piss people off when they try for 4 weeks to get a specific title but we dont have any in stock that far out from the release date.

I would say that if anyone is acting unethical it is upper management/marketing. Best Buy will pull the same sort of thing - run a killer deal on a piece of gear but only have like 2 units per store and then try to upsell the customers once the yget in the door. It is all about foot traffic and market share and some of these retailers are brutal in this regard.

However your ramblings are that of a typical uninformed, uneducated, emotional liberal who has next to no understanding of market forces and economics. Here is something to remember: the market ALWAYS attempts to equalize!

For example: many companies are outsourcing white-collar jobs to India. They are laying off hundreds of thousands while paying a wage a fraction of what they would in America to the Indians. Well... in the long term they are going to realize that the buying power of the average American is going to decrease due to the unemployment and thus less and less people will be able to purchase their products. This means the biz could go out of biz and wouldn't be selling anything to anyone; thus the market has equalized itself.

One reason for the trend of moving jobs overseas is government bloat, excessive regulation, and extreme taxation which all result in a higher cost of doing business. So the root of the problem is big government. Here is another thing to remember: big biz likes big gov!

Working for a corporation is miserable and I personally don't know why ANYONE would do it (other than for temp positions such as college, income supplement etc). Being in business for yourself is the only way to go as far as I am concerned. The problem with small biz is of course again excessive gov regulation which really makes it hard to survive.

Anyway, if you want a more educated view of things I would suggest you read some of these papers:
http://cato.org/research/
http://www.cato.org/briefingpapers/
http://www.cato.org/policyanalysis/

For more info on BB check out this site:
http://ihateblockbuster.com/

Actually in my position I don't do anything unethical or somehow morally negative to anyone, my fellow employees or my customers (I am not management).

If I was told to do anything unethical or anything that violated my core beliefs I wouldn't be working there. I do my best to help the customers (except those that are jackasses) and I have developed a relationship with many of them.

They have an evolving business model which is trying to increse frequency of visits and ultimately increase sell-thru which will increase profits. This does tend to piss people off when they try for 4 weeks to get a specific title but we dont have any in stock that far out from the release date.

I would say that if anyone is acting unethical it is upper management/marketing. Best Buy will pull the same sort of thing - run a killer deal on a piece of gear but only have like 2 units per store and then try to upsell the customers once the yget in the door. It is all about foot traffic and market share and some of these retailers are brutal in this regard.

However your ramblings are that of a typical uninformed, uneducated, emotional liberal who has next to no understanding of market forces and economics. Here is something to remember: the market ALWAYS attempts to equalize!

For example: many companies are outsourcing white-collar jobs to India. They are laying off hundreds of thousands while paying a wage a fraction of what they would in America to the Indians. Well... in the long term they are going to realize that the buying power of the average American is going to decrease due to the unemployment and thus less and less people will be able to purchase their products. This means the biz could go out of biz and wouldn't be selling anything to anyone; thus the market has equalized itself.

One reason for the trend of moving jobs overseas is government bloat, excessive regulation, and extreme taxation which all result in a higher cost of doing business. So the root of the problem is big government. Here is another thing to remember: big biz likes big gov!

Working for a corporation is miserable and I personally don't know why ANYONE would do it (other than for temp positions such as college, income supplement etc). Being in business for yourself is the only way to go as far as I am concerned. The problem with small biz is of course again excessive gov regulation which really makes it hard to survive.

Anyway, if you want a more educated view of things I would suggest you read some of these papers:
http://cato.org/research/
http://www.cato.org/briefingpapers/
http://www.cato.org/policyanalysis/

For more info on BB check out this site:
http://ihateblockbuster.com/

Actually in my position I don't do anything unethical or somehow morally negative to anyone, my fellow employees or my customers (I am not management).

If I was told to do anything unethical or anything that violated my core beliefs I wouldn't be working there. I do my best to help the customers (except those that are jackasses) and I have developed a relationship with many of them.

They have an evolving business model which is trying to increse frequency of visits and ultimately increase sell-thru which will increase profits. This does tend to piss people off when they try for 4 weeks to get a specific title but we dont have any in stock that far out from the release date.

I would say that if anyone is acting unethical it is upper management/marketing. Best Buy will pull the same sort of thing - run a killer deal on a piece of gear but only have like 2 units per store and then try to upsell the customers once the yget in the door. It is all about foot traffic and market share and some of these retailers are brutal in this regard.

However your ramblings are that of a typical uninformed, uneducated, emotional liberal who has next to no understanding of market forces and economics. Here is something to remember: the market ALWAYS attempts to equalize!

For example: many companies are outsourcing white-collar jobs to India. They are laying off hundreds of thousands while paying a wage a fraction of what they would in America to the Indians. Well... in the long term they are going to realize that the buying power of the average American is going to decrease due to the unemployment and thus less and less people will be able to purchase their products. This means the biz could go out of biz and wouldn't be selling anything to anyone; thus the market has equalized itself.

One reason for the trend of moving jobs overseas is government bloat, excessive regulation, and extreme taxation which all result in a higher cost of doing business. So the root of the problem is big government. Here is another thing to remember: big biz likes big gov!

Working for a corporation is miserable and I personally don't know why ANYONE would do it (other than for temp positions such as college, income supplement etc). Being in business for yourself is the only way to go as far as I am concerned. The problem with small biz is of course again excessive gov regulation which really makes it hard to survive.

Anyway, if you want a more educated view of things I would suggest you read some of these papers:
http://cato.org/research/
http://www.cato.org/briefingpapers/
http://www.cato.org/policyanalysis/

For more info on BB check out this site:
http://ihateblockbuster.com/

These guys aren't Republicans

You're right, the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave most of this power to law enforcement, was approved under a democratically controlled congress, and written in a large part by Democrats... or do we still blame Bush for that.

Funny, I didn't know the excutive was supposed to write laws ...

So I guess they're not Republicans... not all of them, at least.

Each party prides themselves on being more pro civil liberties, but neither is deserving of that praise.

And you don't even have to take it from me.

They can't open personal letters, can they?

Yes, Yes they can

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

"Rather, there is an equibrium between young trees that are storing carbon and old dying trees that release the carbon as they are broken down."

assuming static growth yes this is true. However growth in North America is increasing at an amazing rate. By definition this means that it is sequestering more Carbon. Increased growth is not just in area, but also in the quality and rate of growth in existing plant life.

In fact one of the key suppositions in Mann's proxy data was that warm climate was indicated by larger (wider) tree rings. And that this was not only indicative of greater warmth, but also increased CO2, in other words Mann grants that a warmer climate with more CO2 increases plant growth, i.e. is good.

"Do you have a reference for that?" shallow search: Possible aerosol cloud effects now range from no effect to a near total masking of the alleged manmade greenhouse effect Consumer Alert, a 501 (c)(3) organization

DOE: ."We show that GHG signal uncertainties are associated with errors in simulating the current climate in uncoupled and coupled climate models, the possible omission of relevant feedbacks..."

cloud effects "statement on feedbacks omits an important assumption about the largest positive feedback in the models considered in IPCC 1995--that water vapor in the upper troposphere is assumed to amplify the warming from the minor greenhouse gases.(17) Both theoretical (18) and observational (19) research suggest that this assumption is flawed. Indeed, the feedback may be negative."

Another consequence is that one cannot even calculate the temperature of the Earth without models that accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere."Indeed, present models have large errors here--on the order of 50 percent. Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned'' to get those quantities approximately right. "

You can find sideline references in many articles, but there are few direct articles because it is such a politically heated subject.

"what was it? 2 to 7 degrees C over the next 100 years?"

Yes it was, and a review of the high end models. Namely HadCM2, CGCM1, ECHAM4/OPCY3, GFDL and HadCM3. the spread of these for the next 100 Years was 2 to 7 degrees C. More importantly the same models show these same models showed warming of 1.5 degrees C in the 20th century. The 20 the century being over we have this data. These same models were off by 300% (actual warming in the 20th century North America), actual NA warming was approx 0.5 Degrees C. The majority of which occurred before 1940, and the majority of industrially produced CO2.

Agreed the debate is about how much, and how much of it is influenced by man (anthropogenic). More importantly the second debate is whether this is a bad thing or not. Fortunately we have real data for this. i.e. Life has flourished in all previous warm climates, and reduced during global cold climate. Cold climate increases fossil fuel usage, and is much more dangerous to animals, plants, and humans. While warm climates reduce fossil fuel usage, is beneficial to animals plants and humans. The only exception is Deserts. But of course that effect is due to the lack of moisture, not temperature.

Though an interesting effect is that we see the majority of day time temperature highs in desert while areas on equvalent latitudes, with large plant growth and water see much less warming. Showing that the thermal inertia of water has a dramatic effect.

Exactly. When something is "banned", we have criminal activity,i.e. making money off giving the public whatever was "banned". Good example was alcohol prohibition in the USA.

If it does really allow for Civil Rights violations than the Supreme Court will deal with it. Until the Supreme Court or Federal Courts say it's violating Civil Rights, its not.

That, of course, requires that the violation come first. People who tout the Supreme Court as the "check and balance" its been claimed to be always manage to forget this. It costs money to appeal your way up the ladder. This isn't the stomping grounds of your $20 traffic ticket lawyer, no, you'll be paying a pretty penny for your representation if you can't catch the attention of the EFF, ACLU, NRA, or any other organization that exists to defend those the government picks on.

Not to mention that once the courts rule on something, it has no explicit power to enforce its ruling. What punishment does the DoJ face for ignoring the federal court ruling a few days ago that Jose Padilla, as a Citizen of this country, must be given a speedy trial, and most importantly, be charged with a crime?

The Supreme Court is NOT the solution to Congress's and the executive branch's stupidity and/or malice. The Supreme Court already ruled on Padilla's case. Their majority statement? "You can't sue the government for imprisoning you for years without a trial, you have to sue the Commander." What a copout!

Some 40 million to 50 million children in rich countries live in relative poverty, UNICEF estimates.

The report acknowledged difficulty in setting a global standard for poverty because it varies from country to country. It said it based its findings on the number of children growing up in households with an income less than half the national median.

"It cannot just be left to market forces alone," O'Brien said.

In the United States, child poverty "dropped significantly" in the 1990s, when many families benefited from an employment boom and higher wages for single mothers, but the problem continues there, the report said.

"There is a close correlation between growing up in poverty and the likelihood of educational underachievement, poor health, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, criminal and anti-social behavior, low pay, unemployment, and long-term welfare dependence," the study found.

Besides, taxing interstate transactions is illegal under the "Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution (3) so it'll most likely be placed in within the State "use tax" category which has been very difficult in the past to enforce.

Putting aside the fairness issue taxing ultra low dollar electronic purchases IMO just isn't worth it.

(While many states currently do require a State issued drug tax stamp, because of marijuana's current status as illegal under prohibition few people actually purchase them. The "drug tax stamp" law is most commonly used to add the extra charge of tax evasion to a drug dealer and squeeze him for a little extra money and jail time.)

1. Marijuana prohibition facts
2. Thinking about Drug Legalization
3. Interstate Taxation and the Commerce Clause

Taxes are not money wasted. They are the dues you pay to live in a civilized society. Education, Defense, Crime Prevention, Transportation, Infrastructure, these are all programs and benefits funded by your tax dollar.

Yeah. Where else would we get the money to spray poison on innocent Columbian farmers?

I can understand not liking income tax forms, not liking to fill out all the paperwork, not liking to deal with the red tape that comes from doing business with the government. That said, taxes are necessary to create government and, well, you get what you pay for. No taxes means no government.

Can you understand not wanting to contribute to famine, destruction of private property, tresspassing, and assault?

I think it's a crime that in the leading agricultural producing nation on earth, children are hungry.

Great. As long as you don't care about spraying poison on innocent Columbian children, you can pay your taxes with a clean conscience.

It's called White Male Privilege.

No, it's called a lie.

Like many lies, it has a purpose, and that purpose is to convince women that they're victims so they'll demand sympathy and special treatment, privileges, and protection, something you seem all too eager to give them.

It's almost hidden

In other words, you can't prove it or give any legitimate examples of its existence, but I should just assume it exists anyway because a bunch of man-haters with an agenda and a long, detailed history of spreading other lies (e.g., "rule of thumb") say so.

You don't have to consider sexism in the workplace

No? So female bosses never give special treatment to their female employees? And some companies don't actively seek to hire women, regardless of their qualifications, just so they can say they hire lots of women?

you don't have to be aware that it's possible you're being underpaid compared to the WM sitting next to you doing the same job.

Ah, one of the oldest feminist lies ever told rears its ugly head again. That women make less money for doing "the same job." That they only make $0.76 for every dollar a man makes.

That statistic comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and it's a comparison of the average salary of all full-time employed men in the country and the average salary of all full-time employed women. It's not a comparison of salaries between men and women doing the same job, working the same hours each week, doing the same amount of overtime, with the same amount of job experience, in the same city, for the same company... And surprise, surprise, when some of those factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap disappears.

Men make more money on average because they work more hours on average each week, are twice as likely to work overtime, and seek out higher-paying, less-fulfilling jobs because they rightly assume that society (read: women) sees them as nothing more than walking wallets and determines their self-worth based on how much money they have. Men also do the dangerous jobs women won't, and makeup 93% of on-the-job fatalities.

So yes, of course men make more money: they deserve it. There's a new book written on this very subject called Why Men Earn More.

Even Patricia Ireland had to back off this lie when confronted with the facts. Watch her squirm once she gets called on her bullshit by the head of the Cato institute.

Once you realize that you already have special privileges (just because you're a WM) then it doesn't seem so unfair when others are given the same.

White women are and have always been a protected class of citizens with special rights and privileges their male counterparts do not have. The entire concept of chivalry revolves around men sacrificing for women; that women are weak and defenseless and that men need to protect them and provide for them and give up their lives for them.

It still persists to this day, and I can give numerous examples, like the Violence Against Women Act, the federal Office of Women's Health (no office of men's health), the fact that women get custody of children more than 85% of the time (even though they initiate the divorce three-fourths of the time), a 6-7 year "death gap" between men and women no one seems eager to correct, exemption from the draft and combat service in general... The list goes on.

Give me examples of the special treatment men receive. It's very simple, actually. The game works like this: "x law affects women unfairly because..." See if you can play it. If not, then stop trying to claim victimhood for them.

In reality Cable and Telephone companies have been in bed with the government for so long I expect they have many children running around, monstrous, flesh-eating children.

What is this really about? Increased centralization of government authority. In other words, this is the state government usurping the authority of city governments. As a libertarian, I see this as a bad thing. Unfortunately, many libertarians seem to be wandering in the wilderness lately, seeing themselves not as proponents of increased liberty, which necessitates weakened government, but rather as knee-jerk pro-business.

If you are a libertarian and you support this law, you should ask yourself, which is better for liberty a strong, centralized government that looks out for its cronies in business or a weak, decentralized government.

The Treaty has been a dead issue since before it ratified. The joke is that Bush couldn't get it through the Senate if he wanted to. Al "Earth in the Balance" Gore proved that.

Science isn't accomplished through general popular agreement. Science is not about reaching consensus, it's about discovering truth -- often times despite popular opposition.

Skepticism.net FAQ on Global Warming

CATO on Global Warming

Bruce Berkowitz: The Pseudoscience of Global Warming

This is what the Bush FCC appears to have planned for you.

Oh no! Bias! How can I trust any of this information when you're biased?

Ha ha ha, just kidding.
Docket #04-405
Docket #04-440
(warning: PDFs)

Remember, this is what "economic freedom" is all about. I don't want the government telling me what traffic I can and can't block with my Baby Bell. That would be communism- and we all know how that turned out.

• The actual cause of rising temps here ; from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division.
• Debunking the myth of consensus by the scientific community on GW here; from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• More GW debunking goodness here from the University of Virginia.

• The actual cause of rising temps here ; from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division.
• Debunking the myth of consensus by the scientific community on GW here; from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• More GW debunking goodness here from the University of Virginia.

Fact 1: National ID cards were used in Saddam Hussein's Iraq to track, then torture and kill people who said "bad things" about Hussein.

Fact 2: National ID cards were used to oppress citizens of the Soviet Union (do a find on "7. INTERNAL PASSPORTS").

Fact 3: Eastern Europeans experienced oppression and idiocy via national ID cards too.

Rumor 1 ("rumor", because it comes from prisonplanet.com rather than a more-reliable source): The Dept. of Homeland Security has hired the former head of socialist East Germany's infamous "Stasi" domestic spy agency - the same man who architected their national ID program.

Fact 4: Today, the U.S. House has approved by a 261-161 vote to institute an electronic national ID card system for all Americans.

Chances are good that President Bush will sign this into law, claiming that it will help fight terrorism and other boogeymen, nevermind the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used IDs as legit as anybody else's.

Question: From whom are you "free" of observation and interference when you are required to possess means of constant monitoring? Where is your right to be left alone, as suggested by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in his famous dissent in 1928?

Even former President Ronald Reagan recognized the danger of national ID cards, albeit, from the perspective of Biblical prophecy. What about today's Republicans? Oh, that's right, Reagan Republicanism is dead, except in convenient revivals of peoples' dreams of a (relatively) freer, happier, more-hopeful America for which Reagan is so well remembered. No, the new cheer among Republicans is "long live big government totalitarian bureaucracy!" as imposed by President Bush.

Most Republicans in government are fuckwads. If they want my vote, or the vote of anybody who is even *remotely* interested in protecting the civil liberties and Constitutional protections for which the U.S. has been so famous and well-regarded, then they'd do well to listen to one of their own.

Until then, fuck that coke-snorting, basement-level-IQ RINO running the country, fuck those groupthink RINOs in Congress. Real Republicans vote against totalitarianism and in favor of federalism -- precisely the opposite traits of any national ID program we could ever institute.

Fucking commie pinko red-staters, every one of them.

"Courier services, or even inter-city FedEx/UPS would all seem to be examples of "setting up a small-time mail service"."

But they are not allowed to carry standard, first-class mail. And they are not legally allowed to put stuff in your mailbox.

"I don't understand when the Post Office has ever strong-armed anyone who was doing something similar, though I am open to the possibiliy if you have a link or two."

Here's a blurb from a page that discusses the USPS monopoly:

"The most controversial business was the American Letter Mail Company, organized by Lysander Spooner. Spooner was not a businessman but a radical political reformer. He set up a mail service between New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore partly to make money but mainly as a challenge to the constitutionality of the postal monopoly. The Articles of Confederation of 1778 had vested the Congress with the ``sole and exclusive right [of] .|.|. establishing and regulating post offices'' (Art. IX). The Constitution had simply granted ``the power to establish post offices and post roads.'' This language led many, including Justice Joseph Story, to doubt whether the power the Constitution gave to set up posts and post roads was intended to be exclusive (Spooner 1971: I, 21; Priest 1975: 45-46). Spooner argued the postal monopoly was unconstitutional and in his newspaper advertisements he offered to cooperate with the government in bringing the issue in front of the Supreme Court if the government would leave his company unmolested until the issue was settled (New York Tribune, 20 January 1844). The Postmaster General was unwilling to cooperate, and Spooner was driven out of business after six or seven months due to fines, legal expenses, and the irregularity of his mail caused by government seizure (Spooner 1971, I: 14). Spooner also may have lost business to more efficient firms. While he riled the federal government with his ``impudence'' (House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads 1843-44a), other mail companies--more intent on making a profit than making a point--kept a low profile and flourished."

USPS Monolpoly Article

Eh? Antitrust laws do not simply protect against monopolies/cartels, but instead protect against anything that intentionally restrains trade (as vague as that is). There are several solid pages on vertical integration/antitrust (one, two ). Isn't payola a clear case of vertical integration? If you can control the channels of production, it doesn't matter if you have lots of competitors who will sell at a lower price than you; the customer doesn't have access to their product.

Until we get either lots of electric or partially-electric vehicles or nuclear hydrogen, nuclear is going to be used to light lights and run motors; it will compete primarily with coal and natural gas. Gas-fired turbines are cheap to build and easy to site. Coal plants burn cheaper fuel but are harder to site and take longer, and the utilities stayed away from nuclear after the WPPSS bond default (stemming from cost overruns on two nuclear plants and consequent bankruptcy). The people who run utilities have a different mindset from dot-commers; they like their jobs, and they won't keep them if things stay even moderately exciting outside of things like hurricanes and ice storms. Surprises like having your multi-billion dollar plant go from 75% complete to 35% complete as a consequence of one NRC-mandated redesign, during a period of 20% interest rates (Carter administration - look it up) are things they can quite do without. The technological, financial and political risks of nuclear are much higher than fossil-fired, and are compounded by the duration of construction.

THAT's why nobody has build a new nuclear plant in the USA for the past 25 years. With luck, maybe things will change.

That's not interesting or insightful. It's just a blanket statement.

"All local bread is better than global bread."

Is it? Is there any conclusive proof to this anywhere? As far as I can tell, both the local bakeries, regional grocery stores, and national chains all offer different kinds of bread - from nutritionally useless white bread to donuts to whole grain bread.

Food is cheap right now. It's one of the few things (along with tech) that gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper each year. And that's all food. From partially hydrogenated soybean oil (mmmmMMM!) to spinach and legumes. Milk does seem to be getting more expensive, in real terms, and I'm not sure if it's simply other costs going up and the Milk Price Support Program or something similar, increasing the overall costs, or what. It seems, however, that pricing differences between the producer and the consumer do not seem to correlate, even abroad.

But, in summary, not all mass produced food = cheap, not all mass produced food = poor quality, nor cheap = quality. I think the only difference is that for local food producers to compete, they have to have exceptional quality if they want to stay in business.

Interesting article however they are mixing pension plans with the American Social security and 401K plans.

Here is an older 1999 article from the Times which does a better job of explaining the British system.
Personnaly I could care less about what happens with the SS program, I retire in 30+ years and already am planning my retirement without factoring it in. I do miss the 14% salary that I am loosing because of it.

What SS should have been [...] is All those things were done in Chile.

1. mandatory personal retirement savings accounts.
2. Determine the average length of time people will live, It's determined every 5 or 10 years. A recent increase in the estimations decreased pensions by 10%.
3. subtract the average length of time they can usefully work,
4. determine the average monthly income needed after retirement, 70% of average income while employed.
5. figure out a reasonable rate of return on funds deposited, I think it was 6%. Real rates have varied wildly.
6. and do the math to determine how much they need to be forced to save to provide for themselves. You are forced to save 10% of your earnings plus pay 1,5% for life insurance (for your spouse and children). And you must pay the administrators of your fund something near 1%.

An optimistic summary can be read in this New York Times article, written by prominent Chilean member of Cato Institute, José Piñera.

I highly recommend their very specific and highly justified yearly recommendations to Congress. It is rare to have a group with such a consistent world view. Find it online here.

Cato is not a news source but is openly for free societies. I knew they run Socialsecurity.org, and have extensively read about SS from a large number of perspectives. I agree with their assessment that it is unfair to have such a low rate of return with the current arrangement and democratizing to have private accounts make every American join the investor class.

Also, just because they are the source does not invalidate the volumes of argumentation presented there.

I highly recommend their very specific and highly justified yearly recommendations to Congress. It is rare to have a group with such a consistent world view. Find it online here.

The conventional wisdom is that Social Security is good for the poor/unlucky/incompetent.
Look closely and I believe you'll find that Social Security is bad for at least one of these groups, poor people.
Consider this:

"A February 1996 study by the RAND Corporation concluded that, because of differences in life expectancy, Social Security actually transferred wealth from the poor to the rich. The RAND study also concluded that the current benefit structure disadvantages African-Americans, who have lower life expectancies and marriage rates. According to the study, whites consistently earn higher rates of return than blacks. In fact, on a lifetime basis, the income transfer from blacks to whites is as much as $10,000 per person."

Now imagine what these people could do with an addition 12% or so of their income? Thousands of dollars a year is being taken from them only to be returned, in part, many years later. No one would use the stock market if it were this horrible. SS only survives due to politics and misinformation.

As for the others, most people I know don't want to pay out of their pockets because someone they don't know made a stupid decision. and I simply don't know how to account for bad luck of good people. Charity of friends and family is one idea. This at least is subject to the test of the givers consent, that is, if someone deserves help from bad luck such as cancer, they most likely

Let's say my power hungry laptop eats 100W. It doesn't but let's say it did. Googling for some raw data on cost yields a range of 3 to 43 cents per kilowatt hour. That computes to 0.3 to 4.3 cents per hour of laptop use.

There is no business on this planet that wouldn't be willing to fork out 4.3 cents an hour to keep customers happy. Nothing to see here, please move on.

I would think that if they then raised prices there would be more of and outcry and class-action suits.

Based on WHAT exactly? The right of a retailer to price however he wants to vs what? I'm sorry- but there's nothing actionable to file a class action lawsuit on. Any retailer with the money to back can use loss leaders to put others out of business and then raise their prices.

In many states(24) there are laws against preditary pricing. Furthermore the Sherman Anti-trust act (Federal Law) has been used in anti-competitive/preditary pricing cases. Therefore if preditary pricing were used to for competition out of business and then raising prices to compensate for selling at below cost/market values there would be criminal charges filed. From a criminal conviction a class-action lawsuit is a short step. Either way lawsuits will eat up a lot of money which means that prices are going to have to be all that much higher.

While researching for this reply I noted a large number of articles by economists both practicing and university professors that debunk predatory pricing as a means of eliminating rivals.

Examples:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
http://competition.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incb-bc. nsf/en/ct01491e.html

An interesting point about the majority of the predatory pricing laws is that the states where they are enforced prices are generally higher than states without/non-enforced laws. This in turn has lead to the general understanding that these laws do have a dampening effect on competition and result in higher prices for consumers.

Use of a loss-leader is generally used to draw new business, expand marketshare, etc. Also there needs to be a distinction between loss-leader on a few items drawing people into your store and making a profit on other items and predatory pricing which would suggest the sale below cost of all items that the competitor sells.

For whatever it's worth, Walmart has an extremely effective distribution system coupled with their huge sales market which gives them a lot of pull with suppliers, they are still making a profit on item sales and that by current definition in the Federal system means that they are not preditory pricing.

Of course, as I eluded to before this does not mean that Walmart could not be brought up under preditory pricing laws in several states... They have been in the past and no they don't win all their cases.

Only by comparing their local newspaper day-of-welfare-check advertisements between towns; New Wal*Mart stores ALWAYS have lower prices than well-established ones.

Prices may be lowered in new stores, I don't know personally. However, their "normal" prices seem to stay at a level below what other retailers were charging before Walmart entered the market. Thus it is a net gain for the consumer. If they do lower items I would expect that the prices are on loss leader items and are there to gain marketshare.

Anyway... I understand the loss of small-businesses that are not as efficent as Walmart. I generally don't shop at Walmart myself, but looking at the markets Walmart is in and how they handle their pricing, I still see lots of competitors that are still around even after Walmart has been in the market for over a decade. So the arguement that they practice preditory pricing needs facts/references that can be checked.

Other crusades have been

The prohibition of Alchohol during 20's. Alcohol was the the leading factor in bad health, missed work, crime, violence, etc. ie, it was the root of all evil, so banning it ofcourse would fix all these social ills.

Communism during early fifties. For its strange ability to make people homosexual. Which of course makes it the root of all evil.

The evil "switch blade" which suddenly in the late 50's became the root of all evil and in the midst of much hysteria in congress, had to be banned for our own good.

Child Porn during the late 70's. mentioned above.

Public key encryption during the early 90's, Logic dictates that Citizens with unbreakable encyption are probably criminals.

Mean looking guns, which have supplanted switch blades as the source of all crime during the 90's.

copywrite infringers in the late 90's.

Terrorists which somehow only live in oil rich nations for the 2000's.

and now video copywrite infingers.

I think his point is that its just another crusade. Something blown out of proportion to what it really should be. Check the stats:

In 2002, there was an estimated 896,000 cases of abused children. More than 60 percent of child victims experienced neglect. Almost 20 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 7 percent were emotionally maltreated. In addition, almost 20 percent were associated with "other" types of maltreatment based on specific State laws and policies.

Of those 10% that were sexually abused, how many were abused just so that they could be photographed? Does Child Porn really get the attention it deserves or is it getting a lion share because it is somehow more dirty and news worthy than a kid getting beaten to death by his drunk step dad.

It would also be nice if your documentation were to include a

specific example of a specific United States citizen who was
denied access to a lawyer in a specific court case.

Ok, I'll bite. Take a look on Google for Jose Padilla. The link I posted is just one article (from a probably biased news source), but this case has been covered on every mainstream US news source that I've ever heard of. He is a US citizen, arrested on US soil and held without charges or access to a lawyer for 2 years. Finally, there's a Supreme Court case that is going to decided if he has the right to a lawyer, but the Justice Department is arguing that he shouldn't.

So, it would appear that under certain circumstances, we have lost the right to due process, at least in the view of the Bush adminitration. Hopefully sanity will prevail and he'll eventually be provided a lawyer and actually charged with a crime.

As the article I posted points out, the point isn't whether or not Jose Padilla is guilty (and he may well be), the point is that he hasn't been proven guilty by a jury as the constitution requires.

things like Kyoto aren't a reverse - they are a brake

This is incorrect. From one of Cato Institute's position papers on the topic:

the United States agreed at a United Nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. That reduction, to be achieved mainly by cutting the combustion of fossil fuels, will lower emission levels 41 percent below where they will likely be in the year 2010 if the trend observed since 1990 continues.
The Consequences of Kyoto

You're right that my anthropomorphism isn't correct: nature doesn't try to do anything. However, this provides an easy way of discussing phenomena without too much inaccuracy, so long as one is careful

Previous post continues:

I can't believe I have to point this out, but we are kind of attached to our way of life. If Earth becomes too inhospitable for us, there aren't any better options nearby.

This is wrong for two reasons.

1. We already enjoy rewarding lives through a fantastic range of environments, from arctic to tropic, rainforest to desert. Climate change will only redistribute what portion each of these makes of the total. We're not talking about post-WWIII nuclear wasteland.
2. Kyoto in particular is ill-conceived. It would have a disproportionate effect on our lifestyle, significantly damaging the GDP (i.e., our ability to create wealth). For example, its effect on countries that happen to have great area is exaggerated. See the following
   • The Consequences of Kyoto
   • The Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Examination of Administration Forecasts
   • Kyoto: Do the Math

things like Kyoto aren't a reverse - they are a brake

This is incorrect. From one of Cato Institute's position papers on the topic:

the United States agreed at a United Nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. That reduction, to be achieved mainly by cutting the combustion of fossil fuels, will lower emission levels 41 percent below where they will likely be in the year 2010 if the trend observed since 1990 continues.
The Consequences of Kyoto

You're right that my anthropomorphism isn't correct: nature doesn't try to do anything. However, this provides an easy way of discussing phenomena without too much inaccuracy, so long as one is careful

Previous post continues:

I can't believe I have to point this out, but we are kind of attached to our way of life. If Earth becomes too inhospitable for us, there aren't any better options nearby.

This is wrong for two reasons.

1. We already enjoy rewarding lives through a fantastic range of environments, from arctic to tropic, rainforest to desert. Climate change will only redistribute what portion each of these makes of the total. We're not talking about post-WWIII nuclear wasteland.
2. Kyoto in particular is ill-conceived. It would have a disproportionate effect on our lifestyle, significantly damaging the GDP (i.e., our ability to create wealth). For example, its effect on countries that happen to have great area is exaggerated. See the following
   • The Consequences of Kyoto
   • The Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Examination of Administration Forecasts
   • Kyoto: Do the Math

things like Kyoto aren't a reverse - they are a brake

This is incorrect. From one of Cato Institute's position papers on the topic:

the United States agreed at a United Nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. That reduction, to be achieved mainly by cutting the combustion of fossil fuels, will lower emission levels 41 percent below where they will likely be in the year 2010 if the trend observed since 1990 continues.
The Consequences of Kyoto

You're right that my anthropomorphism isn't correct: nature doesn't try to do anything. However, this provides an easy way of discussing phenomena without too much inaccuracy, so long as one is careful

Previous post continues:

I can't believe I have to point this out, but we are kind of attached to our way of life. If Earth becomes too inhospitable for us, there aren't any better options nearby.

This is wrong for two reasons.

1. We already enjoy rewarding lives through a fantastic range of environments, from arctic to tropic, rainforest to desert. Climate change will only redistribute what portion each of these makes of the total. We're not talking about post-WWIII nuclear wasteland.
2. Kyoto in particular is ill-conceived. It would have a disproportionate effect on our lifestyle, significantly damaging the GDP (i.e., our ability to create wealth). For example, its effect on countries that happen to have great area is exaggerated. See the following
   • The Consequences of Kyoto
   • The Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Examination of Administration Forecasts
   • Kyoto: Do the Math

things like Kyoto aren't a reverse - they are a brake

This is incorrect. From one of Cato Institute's position papers on the topic:

the United States agreed at a United Nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. That reduction, to be achieved mainly by cutting the combustion of fossil fuels, will lower emission levels 41 percent below where they will likely be in the year 2010 if the trend observed since 1990 continues.
The Consequences of Kyoto

You're right that my anthropomorphism isn't correct: nature doesn't try to do anything. However, this provides an easy way of discussing phenomena without too much inaccuracy, so long as one is careful

Previous post continues:

I can't believe I have to point this out, but we are kind of attached to our way of life. If Earth becomes too inhospitable for us, there aren't any better options nearby.

This is wrong for two reasons.

1. We already enjoy rewarding lives through a fantastic range of environments, from arctic to tropic, rainforest to desert. Climate change will only redistribute what portion each of these makes of the total. We're not talking about post-WWIII nuclear wasteland.
2. Kyoto in particular is ill-conceived. It would have a disproportionate effect on our lifestyle, significantly damaging the GDP (i.e., our ability to create wealth). For example, its effect on countries that happen to have great area is exaggerated. See the following
   • The Consequences of Kyoto
   • The Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Examination of Administration Forecasts
   • Kyoto: Do the Math

• The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the American Civil Liberties Union that conducts its litigation and communication efforts. ACLU Foundation is tax-deductible, but the ACLU is NOT tax-deductible.
  
  
• The American Red Cross offers domestic disaster relief; community services that help the needy; support and comfort for military members and their families; the collection, processing and distribution of lifesaving blood and blood products; educational programs that promote health and safety; and international relief and development programs.
  
  
• The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) provides effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals through national programs in humane education, public awareness, government advocacy, shelter support, and animal medical services and placement.
  
  
• Amnesty International undertakes research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination.
  
  
• The Cato Institute seeks to broaden public policy debate to include the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace.
  
  
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation works to protect fundamental rights regardless of technology; to educate the press, policymakers and the general public about civil liberties issues related to technology; and to act as a defender of those liberties.
  
  
• The Nature Conservancy preserves the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive through land acquisition and conservation easements.
  
  
• The Rainforest Action Network campaigns for the forests, their inhabitants, and the natural systems that sustain life by transforming the global marketplace through grassroots organizing, education, and non-violent direct action.
  
  
• Trickle Up helps the lowest income people worldwide take the first step up out of poverty, by providing conditional seed capital and business training essential to the launch of a microenterprise.
  

Science is founded upon doubt--constantly challenging existing theories in search of physical truth. Considering most predictions concerning the earth's climate are based on poorly performing computer models, current theories are far from conclusive. Check out Patrick Michaels http://www.cato.org/people/michaels.html.