Slashdot Mirror

Blaming Wallstreet for an "information blackout" (and ultimately for the current economic situation, while simultaneously giving the government a free pass

The housing crisis, caused by lending institutions granting mortgages to unqualified applicants, wasn't the fault of large banking corporations? They knew they could shove their losses off on Fannie and Freddie, so they had no risk, took the money and ran. Not that the govt wasn't complicit as well, dishing out TARP funds did nothing but encourage this anti-social behavior.

If the economy falters, companies are bringing in less revenue

Seriously? What planet are you on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html"Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record Last Quarter"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/corporate-profits-q3-2010-_n_787573.html"Corporate Profits Hit New Record, U.S. Workers Still Struggling "

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/performers/companies/profits/"Top companies: Most profitable" # Note, you have to go to #27 before you find one reporting a loss, and out of the top 50, only 5 report a loss

http://www.economist.com/node/18073369"How much longer can corporate America keep on delivering bumper increases in profits?"

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph"It's the Inequality, Stupid" Sorry, their title, not mine. Anyway, this gives an idea where that profit is going. If you are NOT in the top 1% of income earners, your after tax income has likely gone down since 1979. If you are in the top 1%, it has gone up more than 120%.

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-last-two-decades-were-greatif-you-were-a-ceo-or-owner-not-if-you-were-anyone-else-5"15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America" # CEO pay up 298% from 1990 to 2005, while the average workers pay is up 4.3%.

I would go on, but I have to get back to my wage-slave existence so I can have a roof over my head and something to eat tonight. Crying and/or going postal in the office would probably get me marked down on my performance review.

Statistically, it's been demonstrated that the top 5% of all income earners pay 50% of all taxes, while the bottom 70% pay less than 5% of all taxes.

That's only true if you conveniently leave out payroll taxes, which now amount to well over 40% of all Federal tax revenues.

And the people at the bottom pay a much higher percentage of payroll taxes than those at the top.

Before you ask, here

Well, you're right that the submission is a bit sketchy. The link to the interview was hosted by Mother Jones, so a quick site search provided the following links to actual articles which claim things and explain them.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/07/charles-monnett-polar-bear-scientist
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/details-monnett-polar-bear-boemre

I'm not a fan of Mother Jones, so I can't speak to whether these articles are 'fair and balanced' or are just part of the 'lame-stream media', but you can read them and go from them.

I'll also point out that that Dr. Monnett's attorney's didn't 'willing allow' this. Dr. Monnett signed a Kalkines warning, which means (according to wikipedia) that he is being forced to co-operate with an internal investigation, although he is immune to criminal charges (presumably due to his 5th amendment rights). If he doesn't answer questions, he'll be fired.

Well, you're right that the submission is a bit sketchy. The link to the interview was hosted by Mother Jones, so a quick site search provided the following links to actual articles which claim things and explain them.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/07/charles-monnett-polar-bear-scientist
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/details-monnett-polar-bear-boemre

I'm not a fan of Mother Jones, so I can't speak to whether these articles are 'fair and balanced' or are just part of the 'lame-stream media', but you can read them and go from them.

I'll also point out that that Dr. Monnett's attorney's didn't 'willing allow' this. Dr. Monnett signed a Kalkines warning, which means (according to wikipedia) that he is being forced to co-operate with an internal investigation, although he is immune to criminal charges (presumably due to his 5th amendment rights). If he doesn't answer questions, he'll be fired.

There are some real bizarre laws out there. For instance, United States companies are restricted in the resolution of satellite imagery of Israel.

This is truly bizarre, albeit true. With the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act in 1997, private companies in United States aren't allowed to provide high resolution satellite/aerial imagery of Israel. This restriction boggles my mind for a free country. Not that it matters much longer as other countries such as Turkey are going to provide high-resolution imagery of Israel in 2013.

It could be possible to construct a rudimentary "aerial" view by warping street view imagery (of course several areas and building roofs would not get into that picture) however. So yeah, there are some pretty weird restrictions out there.

Made me laugh. Pielke is the guy who argues - essentially - that since the neighborhood is burning and that is a larger problem, you shouldn't do anything about the fact that your house is on fire. http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/10/qa-roger-pielke-sr

Very useful guy if you're making a fortune generating greenhouse gases...you can use him to argue that you should be left alone until such time as slash-and-burn agriculture is outlawed.

I agree with reading about it on the Internet. I like RSS, but I've found it homogenizes my content so that things don't jump out at me and the really interesting stories get buried with all the mediocre ones. So I keep the following list of bookmarks to check on a weekly basis:

ABC (Australia) Science, ABC (US) Science, Air & Space Magazine, ARKive, Ars Technica, BBC SciTech News, CBS Sci-Tech News, Chet Raymo, Cosmos News, Current: Science, Discover, Discovery News, Edge, Economist Science, EurekAlert!, Flyp media, Futurity, h+, Inkling Magazine, LiveScience, Massimo Pigliucci, Mother Jones Environment, MSNBC Science News, National Geographic News, National Public Radio (US), Natural History Magazine, New Scientist, New York Times Science, New Yorker Science, Newsweek Science, Orion, PhysOrg, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, R&D Magazine, Ripley's Believe It or Not!, Science Daily, Scientific American, Seed Magazine, Science Cheerleader, Science News, Schrodinger's Kitten, Slashdot Science, Smithsonian, Space.com, The Technium, Time Magazine Science, USA Today Science, US News & World Report Science, Wired News, World Changing

We just need to outsource the Congress.

There are those who say that has already happened.

Link to the print version so you don't have to click through three pages with entire page ads in between.

Just for the record, you could ZERO OUT the military budget for this year and STILL have a deficit. We are pathetically profligate no matter which team you're on.

Sure. But we're in the middle of a terrible recession and we just renewed a huge temporary tax cut. So this is the worst possible moment to look at the deficit.

But it's hardly an insoluble problem. For example, the CBO's Extended Baseline Scenario says that if Congress does nothing at all most of the long-term deficit problem will go away. The economy should get better, the tax cuts will expire, the AMT will stop getting patched, the Medicare "doc fix" will vanish, the wars will end, and we wind up in long-term budget balance.

Here's a chart chart that graphically illustrates the difference between the EBS and the likely "Alternative Fiscal Scenario" in which we keep doing all of these things.

Now is Congress actually going to let this happen? Of course not. But they don't need to. We simply need Congress to re-institute strong PAYGO rules, where every spending hike is matched by a cut or a tax increase, and every tax cut is paid for.

This is a big demand, but it's hardly asking for the moon. It's a hell of a lot easier (and better) than asking Americans to eliminate the social safety net or privatize the military.

I can counter your right wing sources with left wing ones:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/27/153179/report-from-poll-taxes-to-voter-id-laws-a-short-history-of-conservative-voter-suppression/
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10711/voter-suppression-bills-sweep-country
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/voter-fraud-or-voter-suppression
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/15/voter_suppression

While I do think there is some voter fraud in the modern era, and would point to Florida in the 2000 election and Ohio in 2004, it is often twisted and blown out of proportion to fuel a hysteria that we need to make it harder to vote. So we end up with laws that make it harder to vote for those who vote Democratic. I find it hard to believe that is an accident.

What we need is a way to verify votes that does not end up constituting an effective poll tax, and keeping people who have a right to vote from the polls. I wonder if any slashdot readers have any suggestions? I'd be quite hopeful on that account, some rather clever people read this site and have left encouraging comments on past articles about voting.

Not really, if it then just shifts to hassle whatever other mode of transportation you choose to take (train, bus, ferry, private car, etc.)

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly

Allow me. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam.

There is nothing divine about humanity. We came from animals and maintain our animal nature in everything we do. There is no reason it should exclude "reasoning." And we have known for quite some time that belief trumps fact.

It shows in nearly everything we do. In fact, "reasoning" has been used to support disinformation, misinformation, lies and misunderstanding for as far back as humans go. Religion and religious organizations are a wonderful example of this. Even the practice of saying "bless you" after a sneeze evolved from the reasoning that sneezes are the body's rejection of bad spirits and to say "bless you" would invoke a barrier that prevents those bad spirits from re-entering the body.

We like to think in terms of ideals even now. The people who want to reject the idea are clinging to their ideals without acknowledging our truest natures.

I had not considered this idea before I read the article. But it really does fit with everything else I know of human nature and behavior -- certainly fits better than the idea that we are of divine origin and everything we do is because we are "special and unique" in some way. Everything we learn about ourselves eventually proves we are not quite so unique or special... we are just dominant, adaptable and successful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F02%2F09%2F143289%2Ftea-party-islamophobia%2F&rct=j&q=tea%20partiers%20obama%20muslim&ei=1hf2TaLBO6f00gGLpvzsDA&usg=AFQjCNHmffrP1DXzniaMkuqXqmLW6o2QdQ&cad=rja

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/odonnell-aide-obama-is-secret-muslim

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fspectrum%2F2010%2F08%2F20%2Fone-fifth-wrongly-think-obama-s-muslim.html&rct=j&q=conservative%20poll%20obama%20muslim&ei=Thj2TcbZKMLr0gGJjeGwAg&usg=AFQjCNEvsTsTQELKHv91pHTgfjEKret-Mg&cad=rja

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008190061

Now go fuck yourself.

The evacuation was a precaution immediately after the emergency was declared because there might be a release. If you evacuate after a release you're probably screwed and already breathing in byproducts.

So they've been keeping people out of the area for two months now, and are still extending the evacuation zone, all as a PRECAUTIONARY measure? I think your more and more extraordinary claims require more and more extraordinary evidence -- and yet you've not even provided a source for that supposed WHO statement that there was "no evidence of any significant release of radiation". After about 30 seconds of googling I come up with this:

The U.S. National Nuclear Safety Administration has produced a map (as part of a presentation) showing the estimated first-year, long-term radiation dose in and around the Fukushima nuclear plant. âoeIn the red swath of land northwest of the plant where weather deposited a lot of fallout, potential exposures exceed 2000 millirems/year. That is the level at which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would consider relocating the public,â says ScienceInsider. âoeAlthough 2000 millirems over 1 year isnâ(TM)t an immediate health threat, itâ(TM)s enough to cause roughly one extra cancer case in 500 young adults and one case in 100 1-year-olds.â

Another report (also by the NNSA) talks about up to 20 or so mRem/h a week after the incident.

Now, we might discuss whether 1 cancer case per 500 young adults and year is or isn't a lot, but this all sounds like a bit more than "no significant release of radiation" to me.

See, your problem is assuming that an Apple hater will understand logic. They cannot, for it goes against their unshakable absolute TRUTH that Apple is an evil company out to rape everyone they can get their grubby hands on. Facts? They don't need no stinkin' facts. They've got the knowledge and no amount of reality will change it!

Relevant: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

Most of us who went into science didn't do it for the money. The Scientific Method has enabled virtually all technological innovation since the Enlightenment. What could be more honorable than work in a realm where smart people collaborate and have their ideas tested through competition and peer review? Unfortunately, Science, and its annoying reliance on concepts like "rationality," "fact," and "uncertainty" make an easy target for ideologues in recent years. For an interesting (and depressing) perspective on why people maintain beliefs contrary to scientific evidence, see Chris Mooney's recent article: The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

"the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl"

I see what you did there! But there are parts missing...where's the "TEPCO is a corporation and all corporations are evil so this result was totally expected." The link text says, unveiled its plan for dealing with the crisis...don't you really mean "snowed the gullible media with its non-plan for handwaving away reality while paying no corporate income tax?" And where's the throwaway comment about capitalism failing? I mean, a dry recital of facts with a single opinion statement disguised in the middle is how things work these days, isn't it?

What's the point of a crisis like Fukushima if we don't take advantage of it to score points in favor of environmentalist anti-nuclear political objectives?

Disclaimer: as a dissident, I must be a paid shill of the nuclear companies, there is no other explanation for me speaking such heresy in public, nobody could possibly have a different opinion that the approved correct one.

http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/
Stagnant (even declining) real wages for three decades in the USA for most workers while productivity has doubled or tripled. Who go the benefits? Whose life became more precarious?
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap

See also though:
    "RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=channel

Whoah. You know how silly it sounds to say that half of Americans own the means of production? Do you really not know how little the bottom 90% has invested in stock? Not much. That includes ALL investments, including 401Ks. You are absolutely, 100% wrong on this. The average American is a serf. If he wants to eat and have a roof over his head, he will do what the ultra rich .001 percent tell him.

I've posted it before. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Please, read this carefully. If you do not have figures that refute what is claimed in the report, please do not dispute those claims, as your arguments, without evidence, will fall on deaf ears. You need to understand, the American dream is dead. It was stolen by Wall Street. We CAN get it back, we CAN have an ownership society.

I don't want to do away with ownership. I don't want to do away with the free market. I'm a socialist, not a communist. I would like to see more democratic control over the means of production, in the form of workers' and buyer's cooperatives, not government run factories. Governments can run natural monopolies, not well perhaps, but better than private owners can. As for non-monopolies, I must accept the evidence I have seen. I wish human nature were different, but when factories in in the former USSR were privatized, they performed better. The monopolies that were privatized did worse.

But first, we need to deal with the small but powerful band of thieves and brigands who have stolen our American dream. As long as the top 10% own two thirds of ALL wealth, the middle class will stagnate as they have for the last thirty years.o

First, that doesn't fit the definition of counterfeiting. They aren't trying to pass them as anything else.

- let's look at that claim, shall we?

here you can see prices for cotton, you can zoom out to 10 years time-line Note how it used to be around $50 in 2003.

So in 2003, it was possible to get a pound of cotton for 50 USD. OK. So if I am expecting AT MINIMUM to have dollars in my possession today, that are still printed by the Fed, shouldn't I expect those dollars to buy roughly the same amount of cotton as they bought in 2003?

But today the prices for cotton are over 200 USD / pound.

So from 2003 50 to 2011 200. Feels like counterfeit 'money' to me.

However let's now see what that means translated to what I call money.

In 2003 gold was roughly 350/ounce

For an ounce of gold you could buy 7 pounds of cotton in 2003.

Let's see, today gold is around 1430-1440. For an ounce of gold it is possible to buy... wait for it ..... 7 pounds of cotton.

--
I can do the same thing with coffee, sugar, copper, grains, etc.etc.etc.

Whatever you think the definition of 'counterfeit' is or should be, it clearly does not protect the value of the fiat against the hands on the printing presses.

This is the reflection of actual inflation. Not the BS that the gov't is feeding you with, this is real inflation, real money expansion. They also have redefined inflation to mean something else, not money expansion but end consumer prices rising.

However they are not being honest their either. They are measuring 'core inflation rate', which excludes things that really matter: food, energy, clothing, housing.

So aside from food, energy, clothing and housing, it's all peachy, their inflation levels are under 2% they say.

OK. What they do not tell you though is this: a country that does not produce much of anything, but lives off credit of producer nations does not need to buy much of raw materials.

Instead it prints dollars (which I call counterfeiting), which are backed by nothing, and then it pays with this fiat for the goods that are coming into the country from productive nations.

Productive nations OTOH have to take in those dollars, exchange them for their own currency, buy raw materials (commodities), add value (production) and then send the made goods to USA.

The real question of course is this: when are they going to come to their senses and stop this madness? When are they going to start enjoying fruits of their labor themselves and realize they do not need to destroy their own purchasing power so that US consumer does not see the levels of inflation his gov't causes around the world.

I think the time is very near now when the world wakes up from this nightmare.

Also Liberty Dollars are very different from US coins:
Gold with Ron Paul on it

Silver face

Silver back

You are full of shit.

Gold Liberty Dollar - it has RON PAUL on it. Which POTUS are you going to confuse that with?

And that's GOLD.

And it says: "RON PAUL for President 2008" and it says "GOLD STANDARD IN LEADERSHIP"

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

Let's do silver - What? Do you normally see silver coins in your wallet that say: "LIBERTY, Trust in god, USA" with Lady Liberty on the face and this picture on the back?

There are plenty of different things that can remotely resemble US coins. Some of them are coins of other countries and some are from other times.

The guy in the story is facing 15 years in jail, 250K in fines and confiscation of $7,000,000 worth of silver/gold and finished coins.

He was selling them ABOVE the face value, obviously, it's called seigniorage.

You can say whatever you like, but his coins are nothing like US dollars in circulation, they are much more valuable than any other normal coin and they are not sold at face value. The guy went quite far out of his way to make sure they are not mistaken for US Mint coins.

Also 'DOLLAR' is not unique to USA.

Counterfeiting is an attack on the state. Why do you think Newton had counterfeiters executed?

So which president are you going to confuse for the likeness of Ron Paul on this gold coin, precisely?

Or maybe you are too daft to realize you are holding a piece of silver that has likeness of 'Lady Liberty' on the face, with a $20 face value on the back, and that you are asked to pay more than $20 to buy one from the guy, because he was making pretty good seigniorage?

Oh, you're one of /those/. Okay.

- I am happy that you and I are in different camps.

Yeah, and that's essentially what I said. Going to either extreme, is almost certainly a bad thing. And while we can debate endlessly about where exactly the optimal balance between capitalism and socialism is, it seems inituitively obvious to me that USA currently errs on the side of capitalism.

I don't actually think that large fractions of the American population *agrees* with the development we've seen the last 30 years where the share of income enjoyed by the top-1% has risen by 120% (i.e. more than doubled) whereas it's risen by 30% for the top-20% and fallen for everyone else.

In short, this: http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png is a bad development, and I do *not* think it reflects voter-will, so when it happens anyway, I'm inclined to believe the main reason is capital has gained influence whereas the voting public has lost influence.

In America, we make new pies (i.e. increase our GDP) so that the wealthiest .001 percent can have more pie, NOT so that you, Mr. Peasant, can have any pie. You can eat cowflops, or whatever it is you peasants eat. Pie is for the rich.

  http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

This shows just how little of the "new pies" the working man has gotten over the last thirty years. In fact, not only has the bottom twenty percent not gotten ANY of the new pie, they have had some of their original pie stolen as well.

Your argument that wealth is not static and traded only apples if the new wealth is distributed equitably. If all of the newly created wealth goes to the top .001 percent, then does it even matter to the rest of us that new wealth was created? No, because, even though we created all of that wealth, we get none of it. The rich do not create wealth, they steal it.

Remember, requiring people to purchase health insurance of some sort so they aren't a drain on the system: Big Government

Requiring them to provide documenation about their abortion: Small Government

What Texas allows discrimination against...

"Texas does not ban workplace discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or marital status"

link to the original article instead of the... um, "slightly" biased blog

I would be happier to see the barrier to becoming rich lowered; there are a lot of people in the upper-middle class who could become rich should we stop taxing them at nearly a 50% rate (I'm talking total taxes here, not just income tax). The more people become rich, the less influence a small group of elites can wield.

Wealth inequality is killing our country: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Technically, wealth inequality built this country. The internet just makes it easier for the rest of us to rage about it.

Of course they do, but they should pay far, far more than they do. I have nothing against the rich in general, but I do have something against then owning class ultra wealthy elite that own ninety percent of the wealth in this country. If you aren't an evil white titan, I have no problem with you. But the elites DO want to keep you poor, there's even a term for it "cheap labor conservative." Every single policy of the cheap labor conservative is aimed at making you poor and desperate, so that you will gratefully accept the crappiest jobs for the lowest pay. The ruling class elites have been waging this kind of class warfare against the rest of us for eternity. We did not start this war, but we will finish it.

Wealth inequality is killing our country: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Take a dollar away from the rich man and use it to actually fund jobs in the US, instead of letting him invest it overseas. If the rich weren't rich, everyone would have money to provide jobs for the less fortunate. You act as though taking a dollar away from the wealthy means the dollar disappears. It doesn't work that way. Most of our resources are owned and controlled by a very small percentage of people, and those people do have more in common with Saudi Arabian sheiks than they do with you or I. The rich won't invest in the Us because nearly everyone here is poor and we can't afford to buy anything. We are rapidly becoming a banana republic, in fact, our levels of wealth inequality and income disparity have far surpassed most banana republics.

This helpful graph illustrates the problem of soaring inequality: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Learning can (and usually does) happen outside of formal schooling.

Again, the library can be a good example. Can we make better libraries where people can go when they have an issue (like child raising issues) and get lots of support in all sorts of ways?

The internet provides some of that, but not in a face-to-face or hands-on way generally. So, we still need local spaces to learn and practice in, and things like "workshops", too. Part of this learning is life-long, but the fragmentation of US families due to jobs and geographical moves makes good parenting harder to learn from relatives. And there is so much disinformation out there, and so much profit-oriented misinformation (Baby Einstein?) that it can be hard to sort through it all...

We can create all sorts of better parenting resources (and homeschooling/unschooling resources), but there are plenty already out there.
http://www.google.com/search?q=emotion+coaching
http://www.google.com/search?q=unschooling
http://www.fci.org/new-site/parents.html

From the last, from "Mr." Fred Rogers: "Parents don't come full bloom at the birth of the first baby. In fact parenting is about growing. It's about our own growing as much as it is about our children's growing and that kind of growing happens little by little."

There is a video on that page of Mr. Rogers talking about parenthood to parents, and growing into that identity as a major life task, and requiring the help of many. It takes a village to raise a child? Maybe it takes a village to raise a parent? So, I think you are on the right theme to think about how to help parents -- it is just that the "school" model as far as compulsory school may be the wrong model for that (even as I have no objection to groups that meet regularly for convenience for people to learn together perhaps guided by someone more experienced in some way, but generally where learning is going both ways).

I had been surprised to see Fred Rogers had written books about parenting, having seen him as a kid and thinking he just made stuff for kids. But, when you think about it, the two things, kids and parents, go together. (As does then later, a living neighborhood and growing people.)

And different things work best for different personalities and histories, so I don't want to push just one agenda or style even as I feel there are some habits that are generally better in most situations than others (and even if I may struggle with them myself):
http://www.motherstyles.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_styles

The biggest issue is that parents don't have much time to learn from all the resources out there with the combination of the two-income trap and falling prey to various supernormal stimuli (like mainstream media or junk food). Such stimuli in the context of a stressful society leads to addictive seeming behavior (like watching TV instead of interacting with kids or learning more about parenting). Related:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

I should have added that, like schools vs. TV, organized religion also has some strengths in relation to helping people try to resist addictions and pressures of a materialistic world such as with twelve step programs (again though, that does not mean o

But it isn't the past couple of years. It is the past thirty or forty. ALL the newly created wealth has gone to the top, not to the people who created it. You didn't read the link, did you? I know because you ask a question that is answered there. I believe the answer you seek can be found towards the bottom, in the section titled "your loss, their gain." And both the math and underlying facts are impeccable. Here, I'll post the link again so you can educate yourself some more:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

You see, the bottom sixty percent have not seen any increase in spending power in the last thirty years. None. All that wealth was taken by the very top.

Ah, it looks like you forgot to multiply that 27 million by the 15,000 households who make that much.

Anyway, you say you are okay with that level of income disparity, even knowing that their wealth came at our expense? All the increase in GDP over the last thirty years went to them, and you think that is because they deserve it? What is the rationale for the majority to even participate in such a system, where their hard work is not rewarded? I rising tide, it appears, does not lift all ships.

I never said the rich got rich for no reason, I am saying, they got rich by buying legislation, having family money and rich friends, and being taught to have no sympathy for the little people. The rich, in general, do not "bring things" to society. They say, "If you want to eat, you work for me." and then the actual engineers and factory workers bring something to society, while the rich sit back and get fat off their investments, with very little risk, as we have proved we will always bail them out and refrain from charging them with crimes, even when the things they bring to the table are all outright fraud.

As for the rich giving back to society, you forget the opportunity cost. You compare "Having the rich around" to "having nothing" when there are better options, like all of us having a little more and them having a little less. Income inequality in this country is a crime against humanity. Here is a handy chart, showing how screwed we really are.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

But you already knew that, and you think that kind of disparity is perfectly fair, don't you?

Currently, many sites can't even show a threaded discussion, or have no concept of moderation

The flipside is, Facebook's idea of "moderation" is pathetic.

Ever tried to look up your local state rep or congresscritter's facebook line? If it's a Republican, be prepared to see a wall full of nothing but hate speech and vitriol. Try to post a counterargument, and it'll vanish in about 5 seconds.

What's really funny is, the Retardicans want this to be "the model" for all discourse. That's why Scott the Koch Whore is trying so hard to kick the protesters out of the WI capital, up to and including coordinated astroturfing of the sort the Republicans and their Robber Baron masters have become so good at, and even actively considered plans involving sending in paid operatives to start fights or riots which he would then try to blame on the teachers.

If Facebook wanted to be solid for discussion, they need to take away "moderation powers" from the politicians.

He really does not know what he is talking about.... but I do.

I'll post the info for him...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

the inequality is so huge that it's utterly disgusting when I hear even 1 of them whine about taxes. we can DOUBLE their taxes and they will not notice.

The only state that's NOT having budget problems is North Dakota. Ellen Brown says North Dakota is sitting pretty because they own the Bank of North Dakota.

See How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street.

All the other states are slaves to their financiers on Wall Street. For example, the City of Phoenix (Arizona) borrowed a billion dollars over the past 5 years to build out the water system. Now the water department wants to raise an extra $24million a year by raising water fees... 'Cause the usury always gets paid first.

I calculate that the interest charge on a billion dollars a year (at 5%) is $50million. If Arizona owned a bank like North Dakota, the Bank of Arizona would have financed the Phoenix water expansion (at, say, 3%). Most of the $50million the city is now bleeding out to Wall Street would instead be flowing into the state's treasury.

The financial crisis is easily fixable, with the right solutions. Money and the Crisis of Civilization, and ... Richard Clark's A Bailout for the People are also on my recommended reading list.

How easy is it for a government official to get away with erasing documents of this nature?

Do what Bush did and arrange for a conversion from Lotus to Exchange or vice versa and let the inconvenient bits get dropped on the floor in the process.

Or, just do what Palin did and use non-audited email accounts like yahoo or hotmail for government business too.
Fortunately alaskan sunshine laws don't have enough lumens to shine on those and aren't strong enough to make using them illegal either.

Yeah, we already knew you were a jackass and a troll. Thanks.

"What is government if words have no meaning?"

Yeah I don't think the shooter fits in directly with any major ideology. That said Mother Jones has two very interesting articles on the language he uses and reports from friends close to him. They mention the "sovereign citizen" movement as a possible influence. I don't know what the truth is but I know that most communist are not real big fans of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/sovereign-citizens-jared-lee-loughner

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

Peace my brothers & sisters,
End15

Yeah I don't think the shooter fits in directly with any major ideology. That said Mother Jones has two very interesting articles on the language he uses and reports from friends close to him. They mention the "sovereign citizen" movement as a possible influence. I don't know what the truth is but I know that most communist are not real big fans of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/sovereign-citizens-jared-lee-loughner

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

Peace my brothers & sisters,
End15

Not quite true. If I don't like the way "big business" is regulating the Internet, I'm free to start my own business to compete with "big business," one which is less expensive and provides more features to customers. This is still possible even in today's heavily regulated free market economy.

No, it's not possible to start your own business to compete with multinational megacorporations, not in any meaningful or useful sense. Everybody hates all of the cell phone carriers, everybody hates their cable company, but very few people have meaningful choice available -- at best it's giant douche vs. turd sandwich. Why? Because big business doesn't compete on cost and features; it "competes" on controlling the market. As James K. Galbraith, explaining his father's work, put it, "Corporations exist to control markets, and often to replace them. Business leaders reduce uncertainty not through clairvoyance (or 'perfect foresight,' as the economics textbooks call it), nor by confident exploitation of probability ('portfolio diversification'). They do it by forming organizations large enough to forge the future for themselves."

UnitedHealth Group's revenues are about the same as the total GDP of the nation of Bangladesh. Exxon-Mobil's profits -- not gross receipts, but profits -- are several times the budget for the entire EPA. The idea that corporations of this magnitude are controlled by market forces or are subject to competition from entrepreneurs is sheer fantasy.

On the other hand, I am not free to start a competing government and remain an American citizen.

But you can take over the existing government, if you get a majority of voters to back you. You can't take over an existing megacorporation, or compete with one, unless you get a majority of the dollars to back you.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/monsanto-vs-milkman Give it a read.

In fact, these leaks serve as such a ringing vindication of American policies, that some people have suspected that the leaks were intentional.

Except, you know, for the part about illegal spying on U.N. officials. And the hints about how our policy toward Iran is being crafted to keep our "friends" in Saudi Arabia happy. And the stuff about the U.S. leaning on Spain to quash the criminal investigation of torture, "extraordinary rendition", and the killing of journalists. And the monkey business with money sent by Germany and other allies intended to build up the Afghani army.

"Ringing vindication of American policies"? In a pig's eye.

How about homeschooling? That helps people escape the "two income trap".
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap
"Middle-class parents are stretched thin these days. Between health care costs, child care hassles, looking for a home in a good district, and paying for college, raising a child is becoming increasingly expensive. Little wonder, then, that married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless counterparts, and 75 percent more likely to have their homes foreclosed. And the danger is growing worse by the year: In 2002 1.6 million people filed for bankruptcy, many of those middle-class parents. a record . As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi note in their book, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, having a child is now "the single best predictor" of bankruptcy. "
    In the face of such hardships, many families have sent both parents into the workforce to try to make ends meet. After all, surely if both parents work full-time it shouldn't be hard to ensure financial security, right? Wrong, say authors Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi, in their book, The Two Income Trap. Two-income families are almost always worse off than their single-income counterparts were a generation ago, even though they pull in 75 percent more in income. The problem is that so many fixed costs are rising -- health care, child care, finding a good home -- that two-income families today actually have less discretionary money left over than those single-earner families did. As the authors write: "Our data show families in financial trouble are working hard, playing by the rules -- and the game is stacked against them.""

So, you can live somewhere cheap to live where you can work less and homeschool.
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
    http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html

We do that ourselves.

On math, see:
    "When Less is More: The Case for Teaching Less Math in Schools: In an experiment, children who were taught less learned more."
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201003/when-less-is-more-the-case-teaching-less-math-in-schools
"The school that Kenschaft visited happened to be in a very poor district, with mostly African American kids, so at first she figured that the worst teachers must have been assigned to that school, and she theorized that this was why African Americans do even more poorly than white Americans on math tests. But then she went into some schools in wealthy districts, with mostly white kids, and found that the mathematics knowledge of teachers there was equally pathetic. She concluded that nobody could be learning much math in school and, "It appears that the higher scores of the affluent districts are not due to superior teaching but to the supplementary informal 'home schooling' of children."

You and hundreds of millions of others (plus me for a long time) have been scammed about schooling. :-)

But sure, a rural lifestyles has its pros and cons.

Bush's Fatherland Security czar, Michael Chertoff, profits from the sale of the nudie-scanners.

http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-about-full+body-scanners

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/full-body-scanner-lobby-michael-chertoff-rapiscan-2552674.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2627190/posts

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam

To paraphrase the central figure of a major western religion:

You have heard that it was said, "Go forth and rape and murder all the rapists and murderers." But I say to you, Do not resist a rapist or murderer. If anyone murders your wife, turn to him your cheeks.

He even goes on to explicitly state that if someone sues you, you should give them more than they ask for! If Tenenbaum was a good Christian, he would willingly give the RIAA at least double the $675k they won. And Rasset shouldn't feel right giving less than $3 million!

When the porn makers come for your money and your dignity, give them your Constitutional rights too! It's what Obama or Bush would do, right? Because they're Christians, right?

Here is a related book that talks about moving from city to country, including like (for some people) making money on selling a house in the city and then buying cheaper in the country: "Life After the City: A Harrowsmith Guide to Rural Living" by Charles Long. Although it also suggests it may often be a one way trip if city real estate prices keep going up (but the recent bubble has changed those dynamics).

We live in the NY Adirondack Park, which is pretty rural, although we live in the wimpy part closer to shopping. :-) Mostly we made the move because my wife grew up in a rural area and liked it. Also, living in an intact forest ecosystem means things like ticks and poison ivy are much less of a problem than in more disturbed areas. I grew up in a suburb that really was more like a town, and there are parts I do miss about that. But cheaper housing costs (especially, at the time, cheaper land costs) were a major factor -- in our case, by living frugally we'd have to work less and have more time for FOSS projects etc.. And while we could have picked lots of rural areas, there were also family reasons we picked this area (to be closer to a sibling).

Since we moved, we had a kid so that's absorbed much of the time we thought we'd otherwise have for free software (especially as we are choosing to homeschool -- despite it being an OK school district with smallish classes -- for all the reasons people like John Holt and John Taylor Gatto and others talk about). But, it was good we were not on a two income treadmill when we had a kid so we could spend more time together, where otherwise one income mainly goes to pay the higher costs of school taxes and related higher mortgages to be in a "good" school district and so on (so, if both people don't like their work, or your kid does not like or thrive in school, what do you get out of having your family split up during the day for financial reasons?). Related:
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap

We eventually had to pay the cable company a bunch to extend the cable out to where we live to get high speed internet. Although three years or so later DSL was finally put in. I realized a while back that it probably cost the phone company more just to run two extra phone lines to our house when we moved in for dialup than to put in a DSL hub somewhere so we would not have needed the extra lines at first (but the phone company presumably had to put in the phone lines on request due to regulations but could just decide not put in DSL). Good communications really change the nature of living somewhere (for both good and bad -- visitors like the fact there is little cell phone service around here but residents would prefer to have cell phones in case of accidents etc.).

In the case of the Adirondack Park, there is a lot of regulation, but it also has its good side (preserving a lot of the wilderness).

Taxes can also vary a lot by county or town.

Most people do not want to live where we are as jobs are typically an hour to an hour and a half drive away, and we have ice for a lot of the winter (plus lots of snow), and we have a month of biting blackflies and a month of lots of mosquitoes. But April and September are great months without insects and with clear air. And we can see the Milky Way on clear nights. :-) And there are a lot of great neighbors here. So, you have to take the good with the bad.

Still, while we don't plan to move, if I were to pick a place again, now that we have a kid, ideally it would be close to someplace with a big college (like Ithaca) or at least just 15 minutes from a 50,000 person town, and so there would be more stuff to do with a kid (including more homeschool meetups) without driving a lot.

Excuse me? I quote "the deluded SUV drivers of the world" unquote? Maybe if somebody was proposing REAL solutions instead of cap and trade, which BTW just FYI the big spokesman pushing for cap and trade is a hypocrite who will make out like a robber baron if crap and trade is passed.

Let me enlighten you as to what will happen if crap and trade is passed: The USA, which has already lost 42 THOUSAND factories since 2001, and that ain't a typo folks, that's not factory jobs, that is total FACTORIES just since 2001, will have NO way at all to compete in a global market because India and China, and rightly so, will tell you where to stick your credits and thus what few jobs not being a CEO, lawyer, or working at MickyD, will be gone. Now is Rev Al demanding we close off trade with India and China? Nope because he and his pals are making out like robber barons on cheap labor, not to mention taking bribes in the past from China. Meanwhile the "green economy" they keep blowing up our collective butts? That will be in ASIA, NOT the USA. The #1 selling low power computing device is the smart phone, which looks to replace the PC for many. Guess how many of those are made in the USA? Why zero of course!

So when I see some REAL solutions proposed, ones that will actually allow us to have a functional industry and not hamstring the USA or turn us into a third world hellhole, well then I'll be happy to sign up. More nuclear, solar and wind powerplants? ALL for it. But cap and trade is a scam, being run by the the same group that destroyed our economy. I'm sure I'll be modded to hell for daring to say anything other than "go green" but I frankly don't care. I can see first hand what these same bozo the clowns have done to our economy by simply looking out my window at the boarded up store fronts. And whether those here at /. care to admit it or not AGW has become political, with those that dare to say anything other than "the consensus agrees" getting treated like a nut.

If all the AGWers supported REAL change, like refusing to trade with massive polluters like India and China until they cleaned up their acts? Like putting Americans to work building new nuclear plants so we can kill the coal ones? Again ALL for it. Instead what we get is BS like "clean coal" and "green economy" with no actual numbers to back them up. If you support real change then it is time to put our foot down. Demand nuclear plants replace the coal plants, demand we stop trading with countries that poison the air and water, demand realistic caps NOT cap and trade BS. Because frankly all we are getting from the self appointed "guardians of the planet" is a ponzi scheme which will make them billions off the poor. Oh and if you think cap and trade will get rid of coal plants? Think Again.