Slashdot Mirror

Just to follow up on what you've said:

I recommend this article for a critical view of McCain's attitude towards personal freedom.

In short, he doesn't believe you should have it. You're all soldier's in McCain's American army and insubordination will not be tolerated.

Oil, soil, copper, and forests are forms of wealth. So are factories, houses, and roads. But according to a 2005 study by the World Bank, such solid goods amount to only about 20 percent of the wealth of rich nations and 40 percent of the wealth of poor countries. So what accounts for the majority? World Bank environmental economist Kirk Hamilton and his team in the bank's environment department have found that most of humanity's wealth isn't made of physical stuff. It is intangible....The rest of the story is intangible capital. That encompasses raw labor; human capital, which includes the sum of a population's knowledge and skills; and the level of trust in a society and the quality of its formal and informal institutions. Worldwide, the study finds, "natural capital accounts for 5 percent of total wealth, produced capital for 18 percent, and intangible capital 77 percent." Social institutions are most crucial. The World Bank has devised a rule of law index that measures the extent to which people have confidence in and abide by the rules of their society. An economy with a very efficient judicial system, clear and enforceable property rights, and an effective and uncorrupt government will produce higher total wealth.

A much better read on the subject is the debate between Milton Friedman vs John Mackey (Whole Foods Founder) on the Social Responsibility of Business.
Friedman is of course credited with coming up with the "Conventional Wisdom" referenced in the article.

"there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." - Milton Friedman

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32239.html

The Washington Post article is about international food aid, in particular about how the US version of food aid is actually just another government subsidy for US big business. Do you somehow imagine that food aid is "organic" or "natural"? Or do you simply trot out this free market bromide from 2002 whenever someone mentions "food"?

But--to ask the organic advocates' own question--is organic agriculture sustainable over the long run? Again, the fine print says no. As their research confirms, organic farming is mining the soil of its vital minerals, particularly phosphorus and potassium. Eventually, as these minerals are used up, organic crop production will fall below its already low level. Conventional farming, on the other hand, restores mineral balances through fertilization.

The researchers also point out that "cereal crop yields in Europe typically are 60 to 70% of those under conventional management." Furthermore, they dispelled the notion that organic crops are superior food by noting, "There were minor differences between the farming systems in food quality."

Yeah the police don't like it when databasing is used to track them. The president of the California Police Chiefs association is petitioning the legislature for a law making sites like this illegal.

World Bank environmental economist Kirk Hamilton and his team in the bank's environment department have found that most of humanity's wealth isn't made of physical stuff. It is intangible. In their extraordinary but vastly underappreciated report, Where Is The Wealth Of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century, Hamilton's team found that "human capital and the value of institutions (as measured by rule of law) constitute the largest share of wealth in virtually all countries."

They have no problem with politicians driving drunk, but they want to bitch about pretending to drive drunk in a video game?

-jcr

I agree with some of what you say, however I have problems with some of it.

The Indian government has opened the market up to international trade, and these farmers can't be competitive. They're competing with Thai and Indonesian farmers who are two to three decades ahead of them in terms of technology, and whose families have been farming for ten generations.

They're also compeating with US farmers who get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, as well as heavily subsidized Japanese and European farmers.

What does the Indian government propose? GM seeds! They dole them out by the tonne without explaining that they can't be reseeded (it's not illegal, it's just impossible: the crops can't be replanted).

Except they can be reseeded: "Goliath Whomps David'. And let's not forget biopiracy, the patenting of plants Indians and other South Asians have been growing for generations: The Basmati Rice case.

They can prevent farmers from violating a contract. Ok. So? A contract is an agreement. They can prevent farmers from doing what farmers agreed not to do.

And what if the farmer neither bought Monsanto's seed nor agreed to any contract? Cross pollination does occur, naturally. Farmer Percy Schmeiser never bought the seed yet Monsanto successfully sued him for growing Monsanto's patented canola. While I admit he went out of his way to get seeds other than the Roundup he sprayed it happened naturally.

Oh, and that Monsanto data I provided in the other response about cross pollination it said even if cross pollination happens the seed would be sterile, well if it was sterile how in the world was he able to grow a crop from the seeds?

The current administration took a Zippo to the envelope, said "fuck you and your stupid envelope," and called us terrorist sympathizers, traitors, and actual terrorists if we complained.

The previous president -- not just his administration -- called his political opponents terrorist sympathizers. The only difference back then was that 90% of the mainstream media voted for him, so they were more than happy to go along with his program.

"But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy... The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.... How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.... There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government." (May 5, 1995)

and

"But do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City." (June 1, 1995)

and

"We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government." (December 31, 1995)

See also Virginia Postrel's "Does Reading This Make You A Terrorist?" (July 1995)

Funny how a lot of the people who are outraged now were (at best) not paying attention then.

Well to start
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/
  sun cycle length predicts coming cool period

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/03/there-is-no-sun-link-with-global-warming/
sun cycle has no effect on temperature

http://reason.com/news/show/125300.html the David Archibald presentation mentioned here interested me.

AFAIK empirical data will be the final arbiter of the various climate beliefs (climate religion).

I don't discuss religion publicly so this is my final post on this subject. Too many people are too emotional on this subject.

Regards,
    _GP_

Loser pays is the situation in a lot of countries. People are still quite able to sue large companies. Litigation happens less often, but America is seen as pretty damn litigious.

I noticed one big problem with TFA, European nations have universal or single payer health insurance. The US does not. Because of an injury a survived due to an accident I have been denied health insurance. Unlike where in the US even if you win a lawsuit you can be denied health insurnace, in Europe even losers still have health coverage. Loser pay may work in the US if the US had single payer health insurance however as a libertarian foundation Reason opposes single payer health insurance.

The best solution is that you pay an amount based on your own legal costs.

I was involved in a civil lawsuit myself. While I was in a coma after being hit while riding my bike my family hired an attorney. In the first 3 months he spent $100,000 of his own money on the case.

Loser pays is the situation in a lot of countries. People are still quite able to sue large companies. Litigation happens less often, but America is seen as pretty damn litigious.

I noticed one big problem with TFA, European nations have universal or single payer health insurance. The US does not. Because of an injury a survived due to an accident I have been denied health insurance. Unlike where in the US even if you win a lawsuit you can be denied health insurnace, in Europe even losers still have health coverage. Loser pay may work in the US if the US had single payer health insurance however as a libertarian foundation Reason opposes single payer health insurance.

The best solution is that you pay an amount based on your own legal costs.

I was involved in a civil lawsuit myself. While I was in a coma after being hit while riding my bike my family hired an attorney. In the first 3 months he spent $100,000 of his own money on the case.

A common fear about loser-pays is that the side who loses a routine dispute will get handed a bill for 10,000 hours from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. But European courts are well aware of the danger that successful litigants will overinvest in their cases and gold-plate their fee requests. They carefully control the process to prevent that danger, giving the losing side a full chance to dispute a fee award, requiring that work be reasonable and necessary, providing that elite lawyer rates not be paid if a Main Street lawyer could have done the job, and so forth.

Loser pays is the situation in a lot of countries. People are still quite able to sue large companies. Litigation happens less often, but America is seen as pretty damn litigious.

The best solution is that you pay an amount based on your own legal costs. Of course, "Legal costs" would have to be the costs that can reasonably be accounted for, but that will cover a lot. Lawyers are legally obliged to keep careful track of accounts.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/overview.php
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29696.html

If any of what you claim in your post were true, then we wouldn't see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries (which is essentially, the whole civilized world apart from the US and a few other countries).

Since we do see lawsuits in "loser pays" countries, the only logical conclusion is that your post is incorrect about the consequences of a loser pays system.

I know that we sometimes like to argue points based on hypotheticals, as you have, but the counter to your hypotheticals is a ream of data from courts from around the world. Data > supposition, in my opinion at least.

A common fear about loser-pays is that the side who loses a routine dispute will get handed a bill for 10,000 hours from Cravath, Swaine & Moore. But European courts are well aware of the danger that successful litigants will overinvest in their cases and gold-plate their fee requests. They carefully control the process to prevent that danger, giving the losing side a full chance to dispute a fee award, requiring that work be reasonable and necessary, providing that elite lawyer rates not be paid if a Main Street lawyer could have done the job, and so forth.

> after our history teaches

not much, i'm afraid:-(

> GW (with all the fud put out by oil companies

or al gore...and i just ran across this:

"using satellite data combined with a small model, Spencer finds that
changes in cloudiness appear to drive changes in temperature. If this is
so, Spencer suggests, this means that models have fundamentally mixed up
cause and effect."

http://reason.com/news/show/125323.html

> It is religious groups that are killing America. Hopefully we bounce back from it.

or secular religionistas:

"While Title IX has been effective in promoting women's participation in
sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to
the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of
Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title
IX to mean that women are entitled to "statistical proportionality."
That is to say, if a college's student body is 60 percent female, then
60 percent of the athletes should be female--even if far fewer women than
men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic
directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as
men. To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits,
they have simply eliminated men's teams. Although there are many factors
affecting the evolution of men's and women's college sports, there is no
question that Title IX has led to men's participation being calibrated
to the level of women's interest. That kind of calibration could
devastate academic science."

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125550.html
Reason TV covered this topic nicely. Create a real, legitimate, consensual way for people to donate their organs and be compensated, and these black market deals dry up. If I give my kidney to you and get to pay off my student loans, everyone wins.

Except none of that is true. It'd be nice for defendants if it were, but the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to physical evidence. The Supreme Court has never held there to be a self-incrimination right against giving PHYSICAL evidence -- just to forced TESTIMONY (getting up on the stand and actually describing what happened).

The 5th Amendment does NOT stop the police from forcing you to participate in a lineup.

The 5th Amendment does NOT stop the police from requesting a handwriting sample or a fingerprint.

The 5th Amendment does NOT stop the police from requesting a voice sample.

See, eg here ("It is long settled law that fingerprinting does not violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against compelled self-incrimination or the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Indeed, much non-testimonial evidence does not fall under those constitutional protections, including the analysis of blood and breath for alcohol. Samples of semen, hair, and other tissues may be taken without a suspect's consent.").

See also Schember v. California, where the Supreme Court reiterated that the 5th Amendment protects against compelled testimony primarily in the spoken word sense. Blood tests weren't compelled "testimony," even if they were "compelled" in the sense that they were forcible, over protests.

We can write laws that prohibit forced fingerprints, or forced handwriting samples -- call your Congressperson and tell them to do so if that's what you believe. But there's no right in the Constitution about that.

This is just a very obvious illustration of Yandle's theory:

The Baptist and the Bootlegger

This happened before when the CEO of some major airline called for more regulation of the airline industry and, more recently, when big agri business corps talk about 'our dependence on foreign oil'.

Nothing to see here (for economists anyway), move along.

Reason had an article about this in April of last year.

I smell a rodent.With big round ears.

If you read the newsletters, it's obvious he didn't write them

No, actually, it isn't.

The seriously racist newsletters were written within a 5 year span from 1989 to 1994, not decades as you inaccurately state.

They were not written by many anonymous contributors. They were most likely written by Lew Rockwell, Paul's one-time congressional chief of staff, and vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. Rockwell is still a friend and associate of Paul, and sometimes accompanied him to political events.

See here for more info, including words from an editor of American Libertarian who says it was common knowledge in 1988 that Rockwell wrote the stuff published under Paul's name.

We should instead have a regulatory climate friendly to the numerous private ventures trying to do the same damned thing without using our tax dollars in the process.

What private ventures are these that are putting sciecne satellites in orbit and sending probes to other planets?

Ok, there are a few private ventures interested in giving insanely wealthy people joyrides. NASA should stay out of that business, sure.

Then again, part of RP's appeal comes from his sanity rather than his strict adherence to unrealistic Libertarian ideals

His "sanity" such as his inability to accept the reality of biological evolution, his ability to make medical assessments of patients he's never examined (declaring that IDX is never medically necessary), his opposition to the separation of church and state and his typical Christian-right persecution complex? And his racism? (Paul-ites, before you claim he didn't write those articles, read the link and explain how he claimed authorship of them in 1996, just claiming they were quoted out of context?)

Libertarians need to disassociate themselves from Paul and identify him for what he is: a loon.

I voted today, and did not vote for Ron Paul. If you are considering backing him I suggest you read this piece (excerpt below) from The New Republic and consider whether he has made an adequate response (e.g. Reason Magazine)
The Newsletters: Since at least 1978, Ron Paul has attached his name to a series of newsletters--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter--that frequently made outrageous statements:
A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

Says who? Who appointed you and vested you with the power to decide what the basis of a capitalist economy is?

Well, I own a dictionary, whereas you apparently do not. This makes me more qualified to speak about the meaning of words. I suggest you check out www.dictionary.com for details.

As the Father of Capitalism and the Free Market I believe Adam Smith is the most qualified to define what capitalism's responsibility is. If his "The Wealth of Nations" isn't informative enough his "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" should do the trick. Or for a debate on what capitalism's responsibility is read a debate in the Libertarian magazine "Reason" with Milton Friedman, Whole Foods' John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor's T.J. Rodgers called "Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business".

No, it isn't, because a free market has no responsibility to provide for peoples needs in the first place.

Actually the Father of the Freemarket Adam Smith argued it is the freemarket's responsibility to provide for the people's needs, and that a freemarket was the most efficient way of meeting those needs. If you don't believe me and it hasn't come out for you with his "Wealth of Nations" then read his The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Back in October 2005 Libertarian magazine "Reason" had a debate on this with Milton Friedman, Whole Foods' John Mackey, and Cypress Semiconductor's T.J. Rodgers entitled "Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business".

Agreed. Actually, it is not uncommon to pass laws that decriminalize past acts.

Here in Illinois we had just such a situation a few years ago. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36162.html

To summarize, a homeowner shot a burglar that was in his home. The homeowner was not charged with the shooting as it was deemed to be in self-defense, but was charged for violating the town's ban on handguns. A major bruhaha ensued.

The state legislature passed a law giving people charged with violating a local government's gun laws an affirmative defense if they were defending themselves or someone else when they were caught with the gun. The town was forced to drop the charges and return the guns. No one has challenged the law on constitutional grounds, yet the anti-gunners definitely would if they thought they would win.

To be honest, I think the law is bad public policy. Not 'cause I am against gun ownership (I own several), but because it makes a mockery of the idea of law and order. My view is the same for the telco immunity issue in this topic. Personally, I believe Illinois should prohibit local gun ordinances (called "municipal preemption") and do any regulation at the State level, but that is off-topic.

Bottom line, it is not uncommon to decriminalize things that occurred in the past, and I do not believe there is anything unconstitutional about it. Sometimes it is a good thing, as it could correct bad laws. In this case of telco immunity it is bad IMNSHO. Seems kind of moot in this case, as the gov't is using the State Privilege pretty effectively to shut these lawsuits down. Very sad.

How about, because one day, I may get sick, and then the health system is going to be there for me when I need it.

The Canadian way makes sure it will _not_ be there:

Remarkably, Kuehl's proposal to socialize California's health care is being made just at the time when the Canadian system it resembles is falling apart at the seams. For instance, Canada's single payer system is projected to absorb more than half the budgets of most Canadian provinces. In addition, the amount of time a Canadian patient must wait before receiving medical care is notorious. "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years," said Dr. Brian Day in a recent New York Times article on Canada's health care crisis.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116473.html

Plus, consider that our military during times of peace consists of volunteers. They're citizens, and people just as you are. You really think most of the armed forces are going to unload their stuff on their own people, because they're ordered to do so?

I don't worry about a military dictatorship in this country. But a Police State is another thing.

Police officers have already demonstrated a willingness to kill civilians over trivial matters, and then rationalize it afterwards. The prosecutors that are supposed to oversee the police do not hold them accountable for their crimes.

Radley Balko has been doing a marvelous job of researching and reporting about this.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/

http://www.theagitator.com/category/police-professionalism/

http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/143.html (scroll down)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193652,00.html

See also

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203345.html

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/11/post_685.php

http://justiceforsal.com/

http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/

I don't know if things have always been this bad and if a communication medium like the internet is making it easer to report and read about these atrocities, or if things are genuinely getting worse. Probably both.

But it's telling that those who believe we currently live under a fascist regime are also proponents of gun control ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/117833.html ). I'm sure it's not fascism they oppose, as long as their guy (or gal) is in power.

Plus, consider that our military during times of peace consists of volunteers. They're citizens, and people just as you are. You really think most of the armed forces are going to unload their stuff on their own people, because they're ordered to do so?

I don't worry about a military dictatorship in this country. But a Police State is another thing.

Police officers have already demonstrated a willingness to kill civilians over trivial matters, and then rationalize it afterwards. The prosecutors that are supposed to oversee the police do not hold them accountable for their crimes.

Radley Balko has been doing a marvelous job of researching and reporting about this.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/

http://www.theagitator.com/category/police-professionalism/

http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/143.html (scroll down)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193652,00.html

See also

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203345.html

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/11/post_685.php

http://justiceforsal.com/

http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/

I don't know if things have always been this bad and if a communication medium like the internet is making it easer to report and read about these atrocities, or if things are genuinely getting worse. Probably both.

But it's telling that those who believe we currently live under a fascist regime are also proponents of gun control ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/117833.html ). I'm sure it's not fascism they oppose, as long as their guy (or gal) is in power.

I'm sure his demands will cause Congress to immediately begin to do exactly as he says in every way. Or perhaps not. He can "demand" anything. What he gets is what they want to give him.

That's even true today. The Democrat controlled congress won't send the Republican president bills he wants. Look at the economic stimulus package Bush proposed. Democrats don't accept it as it is now, with "'significant' ideological differences" between what each on wants.

Noone ever explained Customs and Immigration to you? Ships can't enter the USA without first getting approval from the Customs people, and then the IRS gets to talk to them about tariffs. No Federal Government means no Customs, which means merchant shipping stops just like the airlines.

I already addressed this even if you want to ignore it. The president can ask congress for a bill that addresses ports, with provisions that shippers pay the costs.

On the one single important issue, there is no difference - neither Party has any interest in surrendering any Federal power at all. Which means they'll be united against a President who wants to reduce Federal power to the Constitutionally mandated limits.

Look at the economic stimulus plans each wants. They both agree something needs to be done but they disagree with what course of action to take.

Note the Reagan, who was an immensely popular President didn't manage to shrink the Federal government one iota, even though that was one of his nominal goals

"Nominally" may be right but he actually wanted to, and did, increase the size of government. In late 2005 or early 2006 "Reason magazine" had an article detailing just how Reagan increased the size of government, especially the so called "War on Drugs". And he once said "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

Note, by the way, that I in no way approve of the Federal power grab over the last three-quarter century. But I know enough to know that we can't turn the clock back on it. And believing that we can is a sign of self-delusion.

Saying it can't be done is self defeating. If all those who want it to happen don't work towards that end it won't happen, but if they try it may happen. Not right away but it can. As one of my favorite singers, Billie Holiday, sung "The difficult I'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while."

I'd rather be optimistic than a defeatist. And I know something about that. If I had been a defeatist instead of an optimist I'd be dead now. Over ten years ago I was hit while riding my bike, after classes in college, and while I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. I spent more than a year in therapy and saw around a dozen therapists, some of whom said after looking at my medical records that I must of been stubborn to have survived.

I'm sure his demands will cause Congress to immediately begin to do exactly as he says in every way. Or perhaps not. He can "demand" anything. What he gets is what they want to give him.

That's even true today. The Democrat controlled congress won't send the Republican president bills he wants. Look at the economic stimulus package Bush proposed. Democrats don't accept it as it is now, with "'significant' ideological differences" between what each on wants.

Noone ever explained Customs and Immigration to you? Ships can't enter the USA without first getting approval from the Customs people, and then the IRS gets to talk to them about tariffs. No Federal Government means no Customs, which means merchant shipping stops just like the airlines.

I already addressed this even if you want to ignore it. The president can ask congress for a bill that addresses ports, with provisions that shippers pay the costs.

On the one single important issue, there is no difference - neither Party has any interest in surrendering any Federal power at all. Which means they'll be united against a President who wants to reduce Federal power to the Constitutionally mandated limits.

Look at the economic stimulus plans each wants. They both agree something needs to be done but they disagree with what course of action to take.

Note the Reagan, who was an immensely popular President didn't manage to shrink the Federal government one iota, even though that was one of his nominal goals

"Nominally" may be right but he actually wanted to, and did, increase the size of government. In late 2005 or early 2006 "Reason magazine" had an article detailing just how Reagan increased the size of government, especially the so called "War on Drugs". And he once said "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

Note, by the way, that I in no way approve of the Federal power grab over the last three-quarter century. But I know enough to know that we can't turn the clock back on it. And believing that we can is a sign of self-delusion.

Saying it can't be done is self defeating. If all those who want it to happen don't work towards that end it won't happen, but if they try it may happen. Not right away but it can. As one of my favorite singers, Billie Holiday, sung "The difficult I'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while."

I'd rather be optimistic than a defeatist. And I know something about that. If I had been a defeatist instead of an optimist I'd be dead now. Over ten years ago I was hit while riding my bike, after classes in college, and while I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. I spent more than a year in therapy and saw around a dozen therapists, some of whom said after looking at my medical records that I must of been stubborn to have survived.

Reason was on this almost ten years ago. The Nation is a Johnny-come-lately; since the leftist academic estblishment is now affecting one of their pet issues, they're paying attention. Most of the regular media is ignorant.

I think the biggest point that's been lost among all of this, however, is with a few exceptions, college students are adults and citizens.

Most administrators, parents, and media figures see college students as children to be molded and protected. A big change in thinking among those groups, or nasty rebukes by the judicial system, will be needed before there'll be real change.

Still, there are cracks in the armor when it comes to student rights. Look at the Duke Lacrosse case, and the lawsuits pending following the university's disregard for the students' rights, and then their badmouthing of the former coach.

That's actually not true. Read Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston. There is most defintely such a thing as a free lunch, but only for those who can afford the cover charge.

A better platitude for this occasion is "you have to spend money to make money."

Here's what seems a probable explanation of the whole racism debacle:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

Do you also support his racism or (at best) his support for racist organizations?

Usually I don't reply to AC's, but I'll make an exception since this tripe is floating around the internet and the MSM lately.

Ron Paul is not racist. He has never made any racist comments in public. Secondly he does not support any racist organizations. If you're talking about the newsletters that were sent out in his name, it's become obvious they were written by Lew Rockwell. Anyone who's ever read Ron Paul's writings before realized it wasn't him anyway, as the writing style was not his own. Paul's biggest weakness right now is he won't throw his friend Lew Rockwell under the bus, while Rockwell's reluctance to take responsibility is doing incredible damage to the campaign.

I could throw out the fact that two democratic candidates are connected to racists, or at best race baiters, but I'm not into guilt by association.

Taco is very careful to clearly delineate what's been written by him and what is written by others. Slashdot also has several layers of editing - a front page article whose text is blatantly racist would, I suspect, be disavowed very quickly and probably result in editors being fired.

If Rob Malda left it to others to edit the site, only published editor approved content, and put the site under his name (ie "Rob Malda's Newsletter") with no signs whatsoever that anyone other than Rob or people associated with Rob are involved, then yeah, the situation would be comparable.

It's all academic anyway. Reason has uncovered pretty damning evidence that Ron Paul actually did write many of the things that concern is being expressed about that he's now disclaiming.

While you are certainly entitled to buy whatever you want, no matter how overpriced it may be, you want to consider the words of Norman Borlaug in regards to organic foods:

If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive.

From this article in Reason Magazine. For the record, I happened to see him in an interview last year and he repeated the same sentiments.

Note: Women are getting more education, and filling more elite/management positions than men.

Note: The CEO of Avon cosmetics joined Apple's board.

Apple got a Gap board member to help with retail design and strategy. Apple got a Google board member to have a strong ally in networks and data distribution.

Apple is not looking in to selling cosmetics, I can guarantee that. What Ms. Jung brings to the table is a huge amount of experience in marketing to women. Women who, per the first note, are going to be earning more, spending more, and who are an expanding market for techno-doo-dads which have been traditionally marketed to men.

Oxygen network vs. Macbook Air? I don't know if that's what's going on here, but I think it's likely to think that Apple will be pushing their products--naming, ad campaigns and more, possibly even specific designs--in ways that will be more and more appealing to women. Making a laptop that's 3 lbs instead of 5 is not something that should be ignored by anyone who has ever noted the difference between the average man's hand/wrist strength and that of the average woman.

Sony has done something similar, but half-a$$ed, with their "Bravia - A TV both Men and Women can Love" campaign. I think Apple will go down this road, and they will do it right.

Note: Women are getting more education, and filling more elite/management positions than men.

Note: The CEO of Avon cosmetics joined Apple's board.

Apple got a Gap board member to help with retail design and strategy. Apple got a Google board member to have a strong ally in networks and data distribution.

Apple is not looking in to selling cosmetics, I can guarantee that. What Ms. Jung brings to the table is a huge amount of experience in marketing to women. Women who, per the first note, are going to be earning more, spending more, and who are an expanding market for techno-doo-dads which have been traditionally marketed to men.

Oxygen network vs. Macbook Air? I don't know if that's what's going on here, but I think it's likely to think that Apple will be pushing their products--naming, ad campaigns and more, possibly even specific designs--in ways that will be more and more appealing to women. Making a laptop that's 3 lbs instead of 5 is not something that should be ignored by anyone who has ever noted the difference between the average man's hand/wrist strength and that of the average woman.

Sony has done something similar, but half-a$$ed, with their "Bravia - A TV both Men and Women can Love" campaign. I think Apple will go down this road, and they will do it right.

We appear to be able to rule out "idiot" (well, except in the sense that if you promote racism and want to be taken seriously, then you're none-to-bright. What I mean is that of the three options, the "Someone else edited it and I never bothered reading my own newsletter" explanation is ruled out.)

Ron Paul has, in the past, said his words were being taken out of context. So either he was lying then, or he's lying now.

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. [...] Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.