"They just need to have a third party candidate do well enough that it scares them into doing their job right."
Yep. See Ross Perot. The parties started stealing parts of his platform as soon as they realized it would win them votes. The party that did it best ended up winning.
"My vote implies support, and I refuse to support someone I don't want being in charge."
Sorry, but as others have noted, your lack of voting implies support, especially in a democracy. Silence = Consent. It just means that you don't care who is in charge.
It's unlikely to make the system fail. After all, we started out only allowing white male landowners to vote. And that was considered a pretty radical system. And even if the system fails, why a better one would be put in place is a mystery to me. In other words, logic, you are doing it wrong.
"This in itself is why I support a small federal government."
Which is a meaningless term. And I think a dishonest one, although maybe not intentionally. The government ceased to be small by any definition 70 or so years ago (circa WW2 or earlier).
" Let the states and local communities decide on local needs. MHO, Federal assistance should be available if a situation gets overbearing for a state, but otherwise, stay out of local policy."
But they already do. Outside of Constitutional issues and non local issues (issues that span states), the federal government is not involved at the local level. It just so happens that many issues are Constitutional or interstate (human rights, pollution, etc.) The federal government is involved at the state and local in most cases because they are WANTED. Or at least their money is wanted. If you don't take the money then you can ignore quite a few issues.
And that is why people who say they want a small federal government are often dishonest. They are not against big government. They are against government that doesn't support what they want.
"In the book Shibumi, Trevanian says that it is a truism of american politics that anyone who can win an election most definitely does not deserve to."
Utter fucking bullshit. There are plenty of candidates that deserve to win elections and do. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking asshole. And is probably guilty of some serious projection.
So instead of regulations that may favor large businesses we should have no regulations? Yeah, that will help small businesses. They did really well in the trust era. As did the citizens. Not.
Regulatory capture happens because of a lack of citizen involvement in government and because of the attitude that businesses should not be regulated. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
The only possible check to big business is government.
"Politicians can, for the most part, manufacture the votes they need by exploiting wedge issues and other political tricks. Who wins is mostly based on who is the most skilled at playing politics and getting support from the right power brokers."
You are wrong. Politicians cannot manufacture votes. They cannot buy votes. These things are illegal.
The ultimate power brokers in a democracy are the voters. The candidate with the most votes in the US wins. And if the voters reward playing dirty, then the candidates will play dirty. But there are plenty of candidates who have lost support for playing dirty or who have been perceived to use money to influence the election.
But in our system, SILENCE IS CONSENT. Unhappy people who don't vote are the same as happy people who don't vote. If a representative gets no feedback, they assume everything is fine. Just like every other employee.
"The way that the US system is set up, not true at all."
Really? Remember Ross Perot? He had a significant effect on the election. He had no chance of winning but he forced the other parties to compete for votes. That was an improvement.
And if all the people eligible to vote wrote who normally didn't vote decided to write in votes or vote for minor candidates, they might not change the outcome but they would make a massive difference. Because then their opinions would have to be considered. Because in politics, silence IS consent.
I live in a state that is completely vote by mail. It is ridiculously easy to register to vote. You can vote for anyone you like. Anyone who doesn't vote is lazy, indifferent or ineligible. They get the representation they deserve. The problem is that I also get the representation that they deserve.
"Ramanathan, to my dismay, confuses the need for teaching mathematics with the proper teaching of mathematics. And my point is that as a mathematician, he should know better."
Where does he say that mathematics should not be taught? I think that you are creating a rather large strawman. I get the impression that he would largely agree with you that mathematics is poorly taught. And one of the reasons is that we have these periodic reports about how we are falling behind or the "map gap". So we respond with quantity rather than quality. But high school math has always largely been about learning to calculate rather than learning the logic.
But he is also right that most people don't need the amount of math that we are teaching. There is no reason that so many people take calculus. It would be better if they were to take statistics. But as long as we are seen as falling behind in math, those courses will never be emphasized because they are seen as "soft" math. And if kids have to take advanced math like calculus, they aren't going to have room to take statistics even if it were offered. It's pretty much a zero sum game. That's the problem.
"Do most people need to know multivariable calculus? No. But one thing most people are missing is an understanding of basic statistics and logic."
Yet there are people claiming that math teaches logic. That it is essential for it.
And the fact that calculus is routinely taught but basic statistics is not pretty much says it all. Statistics is far more important in employment than advanced math like calculus. Yet that is not reflected in the curriculum.
If students can get through high school math and not understand logic, are we actually teaching math? Or are we just teaching them to solve equations?
"Music and literature may be popular, but they are hardly essential. And history's importance mainly comes from informing politics."
I would consider our culture to be essential. And how does democracy work with an uniformed electorate?
"If only a few people know the language of science, then only a few people will control it. This is not a good state of affairs for freedom."
The problem is that most people don't care. Or they are going value their religion over science. I think the polling pretty much bears that out.
For those that do, they don't need advanced math. I have an advanced degree in a science field. I have taken calculus which I never use.
Calculus is useful for a small group of people. Not the general college population. Certainly not the general high school population.
More important in my field is statistics. Which is not required and/or emphasized. Which means it is misused and/or misapplied on a regular basis. This is common in many fields, like medicine. But in our quest to teach the high end math useful in a few fields we ignore the important math useful in almost all fields.
The key point to keep in mind: Requiring courses tends to be a zero sum game. For every one you require, you have to eliminate another.
"Let's be honest. Strictly speaking most people do not need ANY of what they learn in school except reading and writing and basic algebra."
Not true. Other subjects are taught so that students can be good citizens. I know this concept is rather outdated but it is extremely important. Democracy does not work if people are not well educated.
In any case, basic math is far more important than algebra.
"Someone who has an education in only a range of topics that is limited to their interests will be a flat, bland and incapable person."
Citation needed. More importantly, does it really matter? Plenty of people are boring, have limited interests and are very good at what they do.
"Similarly, math teaches and practices a way of approaching problems that other subjects don't address."
And these would be what exactly? Sorry, but logical thinking and criticial reasoning is the same regardless of specialty. Only the vocabulary changes. And no one is suggesting that we stop teaching math or english or history. But most people don't need calculus. That includes most people who take it.
The difference between english and math is that everybody has to communicate. Not everybody has to use advanced math. But virtually everybody could use math that deals with everyday life. And we ignore that because we are too busy teaching advanced math.
"In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw."
If so, then the distinction between an operational flaw and a design flaw is a distinction without a difference. Or at least one without significance. If a system designed to prevent something from happening can be easily subverted when implemented as designed then it has a huge design flaw. It assumed (and required) that basic security practices would be followed (unique combinations). If this was not followed, it was worthless. This was by design.
"Meanwhile, in order to get warm bodies into public schooling, the standards for certification just get lower and lower."
What reality do you live in? The standards for certification have increased. Massively. Ever heard of NCLB (No Child Left Behind)? If you have an advanced degree (or any degree for that matter) you are actually UNQUALIFIED to teach in public K-12 schools. The standards for teaching are far higher than most jobs. In my field, I need a degree to be hired. To teach in the schools, I need the degree and a certification. The certification requires additional courses in my field, more courses in general, an internship and many other requirements. Not to mention the requirements for entry into the certification program.
Now it may be true that some states don't care about the actual quality of the certification. But that is pretty obvious from the quality of the education system. And those states that don't have unions don't have good education systems. So unions aren't the problem.
Is there any real difference between your alternatives?
They make most of their money from certain core products that have little or no competition. They have little chance of replacing that revenue stream with any set of new products in any near term time frame (if ever). Anything that would enable them to replace the revenue stream would probably be very risky to their existing products or be the result of something bad that happened to them.
They are stuck on top of a very mature and profitable revenue stream. Sure, it has its dangers but it is a very nice place to be.
"Everyone says "mismanaged," but the only thing that really matters is the bottom line. If they mangle the hell out of Sun, but still manage to grow their own stock valuation by $7.4B in the next 20 years or so, they profited from the purchase."
But does the bottom line really matter? Just because you manage to grow doesn't mean you had good management. You could have mismanaged your way out of significantly more money. That they don't care indicates that the bottom line really isn't of primary importance. What's the point of having good employees if you don't use their talents? If you really don't need them, then get rid of them on good terms. What's the point of throwing away goodwill if you don't have to? Or not trying to gain any if it doesn't cost anything? That is classic mismanagement.
"That being said, I'm all for instructors having to actually develop the material for their courses."
Those that do are often the best. But it requires a significant investment in time. And if the University does not value that time, don't expect it to happen.
In other words, if teaching isn't the primary basis for tenure (or employment) then expect most basic courses to be taught out of the book.
"The funny thing is to hear these instructors complain that distance learning is killing their jobs because it's really just exposing the fact that they're choosing to only be conduits of information rather than actual teachers who develop coursework."
It can actually replace much of the basic intro course work. After all, basic concepts in most fields don't change. What's the point of developing a unique course to teach the basics? Or for multiple professors to develop it multiple times? Which is why books and their asociated materials are so popular. They cover the basics allowing instructors to emphasize what they think is important.
"But I won't be going near SSD for a hell of a long time - Corsair refuse to admit to a problem, despite them having phased out the model very quickly. SSD has potential, but not at current prices, with their current life-span and failure / fault rates."
Your experience is a good reason not to buy from Corsair (poor customer service). But not to refuse to buy an SSD. Just like your experience with hard drives is meaningless, so is your experiences with SSD's. End users buy so few drives that their individual experiences are essentially anecdotes. And that includes those who have bought and used hundreds of drives.
"Not exactly, but I bet you could get an awful lot of them to move to San Jose if you could offer them a similar standard of living. Midwestern winters suck if you prefer non-winter sports, and they extra suck if you have to commute more than a few miles, plows and salt nonwithstanding. If you prefer water sports, let's be honest, the beach on a Great Lake is not like the Pacific Ocean."
But San Jose isn't exactly a great improvement over the midwest. When I think of places I would like to live in California, I never even think of San Jose. You might as well locate in South Carolina.
But in the end people will go to the jobs. Location is highly overrated. Of course there is no reason that you have to have all of your engineers located where you build your cars.
"It's not the job of big corporations and their management to give us jobs."
True. But corporations are fictional entities run by people. People through their governments can chose not to allow them or to restrict their actions. I have no problem with corporations looking out for their best interests. But don't complain when people form unions to do the same. Or use the government. If a company fails due to high costs related to a union, that was the fault of the company. They didn't have to sign the contract.
"As I see it, the progressive groups have been the ones slitting throats economically. For example, when the US got hit hard by the oil crises of the 70s, Carter came in and started hammering nails into coffins with such beauties as the Superfund program (retroactive massive liability for pollution cleanup, which was legal when the companies did it, is a great way to encourage business to stay in the US)."
Citation needed. Or never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. The Superfund Act was passed on December 11, 1980. The voting in the House was 351 to 23, in the Senate it passed by unanimous consent. So the measure had bipartisan support. Oh, and Carter lost the election the previous month. Practically speaking this means that the actual implementation of the law was done by Ronald Reagan. Not exactly a progressive.
And the best job growth in my lifetime happened under President Carter. I'd like some more of that economic disaster.
"For example, greatly inflating health care costs (unless the health care "reform" bill is found unconstitutional and the whole thing overturned)"
Citation needed. You mean the bill that will actually reduce costs? Although not nearly enough. You do realize that health care costs are rising 8-10% a year? That those costs are not sustainable? That the bill is essentially the same bill proposed by the progressive radical Republicans in 1994?
"Greatly increasing taxes (today those taxes are on the very rich, tomorrow they'll be on everyone else when the rich move their wealth out of reach)."
Citation needed. Exactly what taxes has he raised? He certainly has cut quite a few. Which does make him fiscally irresponsible. Federal taxes are really low. On everyone. They are going to have to increase. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Because we are spending. And to spend is to tax. Our greatest economic growth occurred during periods of very high federal tax rates.
And if the rich aren't going to use their money to grow the economy, then we might as well tax them (see corporate profits vs job hiring). And use it to help the economy.
"Please tell me how the "global free marketers and the moronic, short-sighted conservative and libertarians" can do more damage than the Obama administration is doing right now?"
You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts. And many of your facts are wrong. So wrong that I have to assume that it is deliberate. That you would make that statement pretty much sums it up.
"I have always believed that Nixon's opening of trade with China was a massive mistake. We basically turned a communist nation, theoretically a non-belligerent enemy, into a superpower."
Your arrogance and ignorance is amazing.
We did not turn China into a superpower. They were already one by virtue of their size and resources. And we could not have prevented China from trading with the rest of the world or gaining technology. They are however now linked with us. I would consider that a good thing from a conflict standpoint.
And China is not a communist nation. Certainly not democratic. Certainly autocratic. I think they could be considered a large private corporation. If you think capitalism, markets and corporations are a good thing, then China should be a good thing. Unfortunately, none of those things require the niceties of western democracy.
There are plenty of sources for rare earth metals. They (companies) stopped production in the US due to cost. This issue is the poster child for the problem with relying on the market for essential materials. It used to be that the US had a strategic reserve for minerals so that this type of disruption would not happen. Unfortunately, we saw that reserve as a way to make money rather than a national security issue. Couple that with the view that the government is the problem promoted by one of the major parties and this is the natural result.
Production of rare earths will likely never resume in the US without government support. No individual mining company will spend money to open a mine and produce a product when the corporation of China could collapse the market at any time. It does not make economic sense. Only government backing will counteract that power. But there is absolutely no will to do so. The Republican party is perfectly happy with those free market ideals. And many in the Democratic party have largely bought into it as well.
"Actually it's pretty interesting that it's Gene Simmons of KISS bashing Music Pirates..."
"Last time I checked, it's still pretty hard to use the internet to pirate a KISS action figure."
KISS has always been about the marketing. And what better way to get promotion than to dare people to download your music? And DDoS your site? No publicity is bad publicity...
Slashdot Mirror
"They just need to have a third party candidate do well enough that it scares them into doing their job right."
Yep. See Ross Perot. The parties started stealing parts of his platform as soon as they realized it would win them votes. The party that did it best ended up winning.
"My vote implies support, and I refuse to support someone I don't want being in charge."
Sorry, but as others have noted, your lack of voting implies support, especially in a democracy. Silence = Consent. It just means that you don't care who is in charge.
It's unlikely to make the system fail. After all, we started out only allowing white male landowners to vote. And that was considered a pretty radical system. And even if the system fails, why a better one would be put in place is a mystery to me. In other words, logic, you are doing it wrong.
"This in itself is why I support a small federal government."
Which is a meaningless term. And I think a dishonest one, although maybe not intentionally. The government ceased to be small by any definition 70 or so years ago (circa WW2 or earlier).
" Let the states and local communities decide on local needs. MHO, Federal assistance should be available if a situation gets overbearing for a state, but otherwise, stay out of local policy."
But they already do. Outside of Constitutional issues and non local issues (issues that span states), the federal government is not involved at the local level. It just so happens that many issues are Constitutional or interstate (human rights, pollution, etc.) The federal government is involved at the state and local in most cases because they are WANTED. Or at least their money is wanted. If you don't take the money then you can ignore quite a few issues.
And that is why people who say they want a small federal government are often dishonest. They are not against big government. They are against government that doesn't support what they want.
"In the book Shibumi, Trevanian says that it is a truism of american politics that anyone who can win an election most definitely does not deserve to."
Utter fucking bullshit. There are plenty of candidates that deserve to win elections and do. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking asshole. And is probably guilty of some serious projection.
"Look up regulatory capture."
So instead of regulations that may favor large businesses we should have no regulations? Yeah, that will help small businesses. They did really well in the trust era. As did the citizens. Not.
Regulatory capture happens because of a lack of citizen involvement in government and because of the attitude that businesses should not be regulated. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
The only possible check to big business is government.
"Politicians can, for the most part, manufacture the votes they need by exploiting wedge issues and other political tricks. Who wins is mostly based on who is the most skilled at playing politics and getting support from the right power brokers."
You are wrong. Politicians cannot manufacture votes. They cannot buy votes. These things are illegal.
The ultimate power brokers in a democracy are the voters. The candidate with the most votes in the US wins. And if the voters reward playing dirty, then the candidates will play dirty. But there are plenty of candidates who have lost support for playing dirty or who have been perceived to use money to influence the election.
But in our system, SILENCE IS CONSENT. Unhappy people who don't vote are the same as happy people who don't vote. If a representative gets no feedback, they assume everything is fine. Just like every other employee.
"The way that the US system is set up, not true at all."
Really? Remember Ross Perot? He had a significant effect on the election. He had no chance of winning but he forced the other parties to compete for votes. That was an improvement.
And if all the people eligible to vote wrote who normally didn't vote decided to write in votes or vote for minor candidates, they might not change the outcome but they would make a massive difference. Because then their opinions would have to be considered. Because in politics, silence IS consent.
I live in a state that is completely vote by mail. It is ridiculously easy to register to vote. You can vote for anyone you like. Anyone who doesn't vote is lazy, indifferent or ineligible. They get the representation they deserve. The problem is that I also get the representation that they deserve.
"Ramanathan, to my dismay, confuses the need for teaching mathematics with the proper teaching of mathematics. And my point is that as a mathematician, he should know better."
Where does he say that mathematics should not be taught? I think that you are creating a rather large strawman. I get the impression that he would largely agree with you that mathematics is poorly taught. And one of the reasons is that we have these periodic reports about how we are falling behind or the "map gap". So we respond with quantity rather than quality. But high school math has always largely been about learning to calculate rather than learning the logic.
But he is also right that most people don't need the amount of math that we are teaching. There is no reason that so many people take calculus. It would be better if they were to take statistics. But as long as we are seen as falling behind in math, those courses will never be emphasized because they are seen as "soft" math. And if kids have to take advanced math like calculus, they aren't going to have room to take statistics even if it were offered. It's pretty much a zero sum game. That's the problem.
"Do most people need to know multivariable calculus? No. But one thing most people are missing is an understanding of basic statistics and logic."
Yet there are people claiming that math teaches logic. That it is essential for it.
And the fact that calculus is routinely taught but basic statistics is not pretty much says it all. Statistics is far more important in employment than advanced math like calculus. Yet that is not reflected in the curriculum.
If students can get through high school math and not understand logic, are we actually teaching math? Or are we just teaching them to solve equations?
"Music and literature may be popular, but they are hardly essential. And history's importance mainly comes from informing politics."
I would consider our culture to be essential. And how does democracy work with an uniformed electorate?
"If only a few people know the language of science, then only a few people will control it. This is not a good state of affairs for freedom."
The problem is that most people don't care. Or they are going value their religion over science. I think the polling pretty much bears that out.
For those that do, they don't need advanced math. I have an advanced degree in a science field. I have taken calculus which I never use.
Calculus is useful for a small group of people. Not the general college population. Certainly not the general high school population.
More important in my field is statistics. Which is not required and/or emphasized. Which means it is misused and/or misapplied on a regular basis. This is common in many fields, like medicine. But in our quest to teach the high end math useful in a few fields we ignore the important math useful in almost all fields.
The key point to keep in mind: Requiring courses tends to be a zero sum game. For every one you require, you have to eliminate another.
"Let's be honest. Strictly speaking most people do not need ANY of what they learn in school except reading and writing and basic algebra."
Not true. Other subjects are taught so that students can be good citizens. I know this concept is rather outdated but it is extremely important. Democracy does not work if people are not well educated.
In any case, basic math is far more important than algebra.
"Someone who has an education in only a range of topics that is limited to their interests will be a flat, bland and incapable person."
Citation needed. More importantly, does it really matter? Plenty of people are boring, have limited interests and are very good at what they do.
"Similarly, math teaches and practices a way of approaching problems that other subjects don't address."
And these would be what exactly? Sorry, but logical thinking and criticial reasoning is the same regardless of specialty. Only the vocabulary changes. And no one is suggesting that we stop teaching math or english or history. But most people don't need calculus. That includes most people who take it.
The difference between english and math is that everybody has to communicate. Not everybody has to use advanced math. But virtually everybody could use math that deals with everyday life. And we ignore that because we are too busy teaching advanced math.
"In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw."
If so, then the distinction between an operational flaw and a design flaw is a distinction without a difference. Or at least one without significance. If a system designed to prevent something from happening can be easily subverted when implemented as designed then it has a huge design flaw. It assumed (and required) that basic security practices would be followed (unique combinations). If this was not followed, it was worthless. This was by design.
"Meanwhile, in order to get warm bodies into public schooling, the standards for certification just get lower and lower."
What reality do you live in? The standards for certification have increased. Massively. Ever heard of NCLB (No Child Left Behind)? If you have an advanced degree (or any degree for that matter) you are actually UNQUALIFIED to teach in public K-12 schools. The standards for teaching are far higher than most jobs. In my field, I need a degree to be hired. To teach in the schools, I need the degree and a certification. The certification requires additional courses in my field, more courses in general, an internship and many other requirements. Not to mention the requirements for entry into the certification program.
Now it may be true that some states don't care about the actual quality of the certification. But that is pretty obvious from the quality of the education system. And those states that don't have unions don't have good education systems. So unions aren't the problem.
Is there any real difference between your alternatives?
They make most of their money from certain core products that have little or no competition. They have little chance of replacing that revenue stream with any set of new products in any near term time frame (if ever). Anything that would enable them to replace the revenue stream would probably be very risky to their existing products or be the result of something bad that happened to them.
They are stuck on top of a very mature and profitable revenue stream. Sure, it has its dangers but it is a very nice place to be.
"Everyone says "mismanaged," but the only thing that really matters is the bottom line. If they mangle the hell out of Sun, but still manage to grow their own stock valuation by $7.4B in the next 20 years or so, they profited from the purchase."
But does the bottom line really matter? Just because you manage to grow doesn't mean you had good management. You could have mismanaged your way out of significantly more money. That they don't care indicates that the bottom line really isn't of primary importance. What's the point of having good employees if you don't use their talents? If you really don't need them, then get rid of them on good terms. What's the point of throwing away goodwill if you don't have to? Or not trying to gain any if it doesn't cost anything? That is classic mismanagement.
"That being said, I'm all for instructors having to actually develop the material for their courses."
Those that do are often the best. But it requires a significant investment in time. And if the University does not value that time, don't expect it to happen.
In other words, if teaching isn't the primary basis for tenure (or employment) then expect most basic courses to be taught out of the book.
"The funny thing is to hear these instructors complain that distance learning is killing their jobs because it's really just exposing the fact that they're choosing to only be conduits of information rather than actual teachers who develop coursework."
It can actually replace much of the basic intro course work. After all, basic concepts in most fields don't change. What's the point of developing a unique course to teach the basics? Or for multiple professors to develop it multiple times? Which is why books and their asociated materials are so popular. They cover the basics allowing instructors to emphasize what they think is important.
"But I won't be going near SSD for a hell of a long time - Corsair refuse to admit to a problem, despite them having phased out the model very quickly. SSD has potential, but not at current prices, with their current life-span and failure / fault rates."
Your experience is a good reason not to buy from Corsair (poor customer service). But not to refuse to buy an SSD. Just like your experience with hard drives is meaningless, so is your experiences with SSD's. End users buy so few drives that their individual experiences are essentially anecdotes. And that includes those who have bought and used hundreds of drives.
"Not exactly, but I bet you could get an awful lot of them to move to San Jose if you could offer them a similar standard of living. Midwestern winters suck if you prefer non-winter sports, and they extra suck if you have to commute more than a few miles, plows and salt nonwithstanding. If you prefer water sports, let's be honest, the beach on a Great Lake is not like the Pacific Ocean."
But San Jose isn't exactly a great improvement over the midwest. When I think of places I would like to live in California, I never even think of San Jose. You might as well locate in South Carolina.
But in the end people will go to the jobs. Location is highly overrated. Of course there is no reason that you have to have all of your engineers located where you build your cars.
"It's not the job of big corporations and their management to give us jobs."
True. But corporations are fictional entities run by people. People through their governments can chose not to allow them or to restrict their actions. I have no problem with corporations looking out for their best interests. But don't complain when people form unions to do the same. Or use the government. If a company fails due to high costs related to a union, that was the fault of the company. They didn't have to sign the contract.
"As I see it, the progressive groups have been the ones slitting throats economically. For example, when the US got hit hard by the oil crises of the 70s, Carter came in and started hammering nails into coffins with such beauties as the Superfund program (retroactive massive liability for pollution cleanup, which was legal when the companies did it, is a great way to encourage business to stay in the US)."
Citation needed. Or never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. The Superfund Act was passed on December 11, 1980. The voting in the House was 351 to 23, in the Senate it passed by unanimous consent. So the measure had bipartisan support. Oh, and Carter lost the election the previous month. Practically speaking this means that the actual implementation of the law was done by Ronald Reagan. Not exactly a progressive.
And the best job growth in my lifetime happened under President Carter. I'd like some more of that economic disaster.
"For example, greatly inflating health care costs (unless the health care "reform" bill is found unconstitutional and the whole thing overturned)"
Citation needed. You mean the bill that will actually reduce costs? Although not nearly enough. You do realize that health care costs are rising 8-10% a year? That those costs are not sustainable? That the bill is essentially the same bill proposed by the progressive radical Republicans in 1994?
"Greatly increasing taxes (today those taxes are on the very rich, tomorrow they'll be on everyone else when the rich move their wealth out of reach)."
Citation needed. Exactly what taxes has he raised? He certainly has cut quite a few. Which does make him fiscally irresponsible. Federal taxes are really low. On everyone. They are going to have to increase. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Because we are spending. And to spend is to tax. Our greatest economic growth occurred during periods of very high federal tax rates.
And if the rich aren't going to use their money to grow the economy, then we might as well tax them (see corporate profits vs job hiring). And use it to help the economy.
"Please tell me how the "global free marketers and the moronic, short-sighted conservative and libertarians" can do more damage than the Obama administration is doing right now?"
You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts. And many of your facts are wrong. So wrong that I have to assume that it is deliberate. That you would make that statement pretty much sums it up.
"I have always believed that Nixon's opening of trade with China was a massive mistake. We basically turned a communist nation, theoretically a non-belligerent enemy, into a superpower."
Your arrogance and ignorance is amazing.
We did not turn China into a superpower. They were already one by virtue of their size and resources. And we could not have prevented China from trading with the rest of the world or gaining technology. They are however now linked with us. I would consider that a good thing from a conflict standpoint.
And China is not a communist nation. Certainly not democratic. Certainly autocratic. I think they could be considered a large private corporation. If you think capitalism, markets and corporations are a good thing, then China should be a good thing. Unfortunately, none of those things require the niceties of western democracy.
There are plenty of sources for rare earth metals. They (companies) stopped production in the US due to cost. This issue is the poster child for the problem with relying on the market for essential materials. It used to be that the US had a strategic reserve for minerals so that this type of disruption would not happen. Unfortunately, we saw that reserve as a way to make money rather than a national security issue. Couple that with the view that the government is the problem promoted by one of the major parties and this is the natural result.
Production of rare earths will likely never resume in the US without government support. No individual mining company will spend money to open a mine and produce a product when the corporation of China could collapse the market at any time. It does not make economic sense. Only government backing will counteract that power. But there is absolutely no will to do so. The Republican party is perfectly happy with those free market ideals. And many in the Democratic party have largely bought into it as well.
"Actually it's pretty interesting that it's Gene Simmons of KISS bashing Music Pirates..."
"Last time I checked, it's still pretty hard to use the internet to pirate a KISS action figure."
KISS has always been about the marketing. And what better way to get promotion than to dare people to download your music? And DDoS your site? No publicity is bad publicity...
"...since all he can figure out is how to swing a golf club on the golf course."
I'm afraid you are thinking of House Minority Leader John Boehner :)
"plus a video usually takes two minutes to tell me something I could read in 20 seconds."
This is why I really hate videos. Easy for them. A pain in the ass for me.