Not only was it "brazen". His predecessor was pretty much too broken to try it. (they were not aggressively looking for bin Laden after Tora Bora). His primary opponent called him NAIVE, on national television, for suggesting this action. As a matter of fact, that was when Clinton really started to slide in the primary contest. Not only was her attack seen as mean-spirited, but most Americans saw it as "overly pragmatic" - and in fact, hell, we've got tens of thousands of troops over there, fighting and bleeding - what the fuck, let's DO this.
Then he hired her as secretary of state. Then he went ahead and DID it. That was some brazen shit right there.
No. The idea is to poke liberals in the eye, for coming up with the idea of "government services".
Then turn around, and start private businesses providing those same services, and charge 10 times as much, using the monopolized infrastructure that the taxpayers built.
I'm just doing what my stupid customers and managers are telling me to do. I don't want to call them stupid to their faces. (that didn't work out so well 15 years ago when we went through this exercise before). . .
The targets are just waiting for a bail-out, and a crapload of deficit-fueled contracts. What's not to like? Banks to Iran: "come at me, Bro!" (note to the douchebags of the world: War is soooo 20th century.)
The thing is: I don't want a more socialist policy. I don't want to go to jail, and I don't want a welfare check. I don't want to be an academic. I want to work, but I don't want to just stamp-out useless widgets that are just going to have the effect of depleting natural resources, polluting the world, and encouraging a burgeoning population to continue geometrically reproducing.
Honestly - we should have figured this shit out about 100 years ago - but the Haber-Bosch process (essentially, converting natural-gas into nitrogen-based fertilizer, increasing crop yields, and allowing our population to continue to grow) - made Malthusian economics seem wrong. In fact: the Haber-Bosch process just gave us a way to hold-off on Malthus' prediction for a while. Now look at where we are.
This was supposedly one of the effects of the modernization of agricultural work in the early 20th century - - - the widespread loss of farm jobs, and contributed greatly (and some say, primarily) to the Depression. Theorists who belong to that school of thought, also attribute to postwar modernization, the economic recovery through the development of a new middle class, and new jobs. The theory is that, this will happen again, as we lose jobs to technology and automation.
However, after looking at the Powell memo (1971) and seeing how closely correlated that was with the decline in the American middle class, I can only agree with you, that the modern death of the middle class over the past 30 (40) years, indeed, has been intentional.
Dog-beating: not taboo (and none of your business). dog-fighting: not taboo. (nudge nudge wink wink). dog-abandonment: not taboo. Eating dog meat: taboo.
Pretty soon, we'll have a problem with how the methane byproducts from all this food and starving people production.
It's fine and dandy to criticize distribution and profit as the sources of starvation. But this implies that we can comfortably and sustainably support 7+ billion people on this planet. And we're rapidly learning, as we run out of resources, and fill every corner with garbage, and destroy our atmosphere, that we can not sustainably support 7+ billion people on this planet. No matter what humane and saintly model of distribution and ownership is chosen.
Actually, in china, they sold beef-flavored melamine. They got away with it for a while. Then they got caught. Actual Executives were actually Executed.
I'd like to see that happen in the West. (clarification - I wouldn't like to see melamine-tainted food products; we've got enough food product tainting and business going on already. . . I would like to see criminal punishments that are an actual deterrent to such behavior, rather than being viewed as a 'cost of doing business').
I've been around a few thoroughbred race-horses (retired) ("owned" by the ill-considered suburbanites... upthread) - and I'd agree, (without being able to compare them with UK or other horses) they are amazingly intelligent, and sensitive animals, absolutely every bit as smart as dogs.
Unless you're fucking rich as hell though, they make terrible pets. They're pretty expensive to maintain (etc). And - the retired race horses have medical problems, they get pretty high-strung, and a little dangerous (not necessarily because they're aggressive, but because they're playful, and strong).
I think that this article's author has a really nice and ingenious plan, but I don't think we'll get political buy-in in time, and I don't think that it can be implemented on a large enough scale. (and as soon as we start sinking enough resources into carbon sequestration an methane destruction - and people PERCEIVE that those resources are causing them to lose their jobs or go hungry, or go without a vacation or a second car. . . they'll be marching in to destroy these machines).
I really think that if people (humanity) are not going to agree to do something to save themselves, then we really kind of deserve what is going to happen to us.
I don't think it's accurate to call us "apex predators" - we're very socialized now. A lot of us - and I'm talking about most of us, are not going to adapt to the change that is coming. And it's that simple. And it's sad that nature's not going to pick and choose the ones who refused to acknowledge that this was coming and try to do something about it. Nature's probably going to pick the ones who eventually *do* fall into some sort of de-socialized apex predator role. Whatever our survivors will be. . .
Why is it that we will believe Economists when they tell us that doing anything about this will destroy the economy (when they were oh-so-right about everything back in 2007-2008). . . yet we're so skeptical about climate scientists? It's not as if climate scientists have conflict of interest issues that are anywhere near in the ballpark of economists. I mean - - - fuck.
Yes - the stuff China is doing is bad. And by consuming their products, we enable them. And we are bad.
As a civilization - we need to all stop figuratively flicking our cigarette butts out the window. And by "all", I mean "all". I know that that sounds pretty awful and totalitarian, and the implications are staggering. But if we don't consider that, and continue on our present course - don't kid yourselves - we're not going to "ride this out" or "cope and adapt". It's going to get pretty god damn ugly here in about 20-30 years. It's probably already too late.
yeah, but: 1. Drop your phone into a puddle, and you can't login anywhere anymore. 2. your SD card goes bad, and you can't login anywhere anymore. 3. Download a bad OS update, brick your phone, and you can't login anywhere anymore. 4. Get a malware sms, and not only can you not login anywhere anymore, some serbian hacker now has access to your reddit account. FUCK!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
We need to build a national time-machine, go back to 2001, and ask ourselves again, seriously: why are we allied with this country?
we've also funneled billions in military aid to that government.
fuck them.
hah.
Not only was it "brazen".
His predecessor was pretty much too broken to try it. (they were not aggressively looking for bin Laden after Tora Bora).
His primary opponent called him NAIVE, on national television, for suggesting this action.
As a matter of fact, that was when Clinton really started to slide in the primary contest. Not only was her attack seen as mean-spirited, but most Americans saw it as "overly pragmatic" - and in fact, hell, we've got tens of thousands of troops over there, fighting and bleeding - what the fuck, let's DO this.
Then he hired her as secretary of state.
Then he went ahead and DID it.
That was some brazen shit right there.
No. The idea is to poke liberals in the eye, for coming up with the idea of "government services".
Then turn around, and start private businesses providing those same services, and charge 10 times as much, using the monopolized infrastructure that the taxpayers built.
Well, the reason I like working in California, is because I can go surfing at lunchtime. But I digress.
I'm just doing what my stupid customers and managers are telling me to do.
I don't want to call them stupid to their faces. (that didn't work out so well 15 years ago when we went through this exercise before). . .
The targets are just waiting for a bail-out, and a crapload of deficit-fueled contracts. What's not to like?
Banks to Iran: "come at me, Bro!"
(note to the douchebags of the world: War is soooo 20th century.)
The thing is: I don't want a more socialist policy. I don't want to go to jail, and I don't want a welfare check. I don't want to be an academic. I want to work, but I don't want to just stamp-out useless widgets that are just going to have the effect of depleting natural resources, polluting the world, and encouraging a burgeoning population to continue geometrically reproducing.
Honestly - we should have figured this shit out about 100 years ago - but the Haber-Bosch process (essentially, converting natural-gas into nitrogen-based fertilizer, increasing crop yields, and allowing our population to continue to grow) - made Malthusian economics seem wrong. In fact: the Haber-Bosch process just gave us a way to hold-off on Malthus' prediction for a while. Now look at where we are.
It was.
Google: "The Powell Memo"
This was supposedly one of the effects of the modernization of agricultural work in the early 20th century - - - the widespread loss of farm jobs, and contributed greatly (and some say, primarily) to the Depression. Theorists who belong to that school of thought, also attribute to postwar modernization, the economic recovery through the development of a new middle class, and new jobs. The theory is that, this will happen again, as we lose jobs to technology and automation.
However, after looking at the Powell memo (1971) and seeing how closely correlated that was with the decline in the American middle class, I can only agree with you, that the modern death of the middle class over the past 30 (40) years, indeed, has been intentional.
. .. after microsoft invested in Apple.
#amiright?
Untranslated, Vogon poetry.
the only problem with this, is those damn sites that have a MAXIMUM password length. WTF is with that? assholes.
When in Hamburg, do what the Hamburgers do.
sure, if you want to pay American workers, I'll just ask $20 for that salad, thanks.
I know.
Dog-beating: not taboo (and none of your business).
dog-fighting: not taboo. (nudge nudge wink wink).
dog-abandonment: not taboo.
Eating dog meat: taboo.
Pretty soon, we'll have a problem with how the methane byproducts from all this food and starving people production.
It's fine and dandy to criticize distribution and profit as the sources of starvation. But this implies that we can comfortably and sustainably support 7+ billion people on this planet. And we're rapidly learning, as we run out of resources, and fill every corner with garbage, and destroy our atmosphere, that we can not sustainably support 7+ billion people on this planet. No matter what humane and saintly model of distribution and ownership is chosen.
Actually, in china, they sold beef-flavored melamine. They got away with it for a while. Then they got caught. Actual Executives were actually Executed.
I'd like to see that happen in the West.
(clarification - I wouldn't like to see melamine-tainted food products; we've got enough food product tainting and business going on already. . . I would like to see criminal punishments that are an actual deterrent to such behavior, rather than being viewed as a 'cost of doing business').
. . . well, next step is North Korean labor-camp prisoner DNA in the burgers. Finally, NK will have a valuable export product.
I've been around a few thoroughbred race-horses (retired) ("owned" by the ill-considered suburbanites. .. upthread) - and I'd agree, (without being able to compare them with UK or other horses) they are amazingly intelligent, and sensitive animals, absolutely every bit as smart as dogs.
Unless you're fucking rich as hell though, they make terrible pets. They're pretty expensive to maintain (etc). And - the retired race horses have medical problems, they get pretty high-strung, and a little dangerous (not necessarily because they're aggressive, but because they're playful, and strong).
I think that an aggressive version of that plan might have worked. . . 15-20 years ago.
Given the recent observations of massive arctic methane releases, I think we're really well-and-truly-fucked.
( http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/10/radio-and-laser-frequency-and-harmonic-test-ranges-for-the-lucy-and-haarp-experiments-and-their-application-to-atmospheric-methane-destruction.html )
I think that this article's author has a really nice and ingenious plan, but I don't think we'll get political buy-in in time, and I don't think that it can be implemented on a large enough scale. (and as soon as we start sinking enough resources into carbon sequestration an methane destruction - and people PERCEIVE that those resources are causing them to lose their jobs or go hungry, or go without a vacation or a second car. . . they'll be marching in to destroy these machines).
I really think that if people (humanity) are not going to agree to do something to save themselves, then we really kind of deserve what is going to happen to us.
I don't think it's accurate to call us "apex predators" - we're very socialized now.
A lot of us - and I'm talking about most of us, are not going to adapt to the change that is coming. And it's that simple. And it's sad that nature's not going to pick and choose the ones who refused to acknowledge that this was coming and try to do something about it. Nature's probably going to pick the ones who eventually *do* fall into some sort of de-socialized apex predator role. Whatever our survivors will be. . .
Why is it that we will believe Economists when they tell us that doing anything about this will destroy the economy (when they were oh-so-right about everything back in 2007-2008). . . yet we're so skeptical about climate scientists? It's not as if climate scientists have conflict of interest issues that are anywhere near in the ballpark of economists. I mean - - - fuck.
So what's your point?
Yes - the stuff China is doing is bad. And by consuming their products, we enable them. And we are bad.
As a civilization - we need to all stop figuratively flicking our cigarette butts out the window. And by "all", I mean "all". I know that that sounds pretty awful and totalitarian, and the implications are staggering. But if we don't consider that, and continue on our present course - don't kid yourselves - we're not going to "ride this out" or "cope and adapt". It's going to get pretty god damn ugly here in about 20-30 years. It's probably already too late.
. . . not if you're running adblock and noscript.
You ARE running adblock and noscript. . . aren't you?
yeah, but:
1. Drop your phone into a puddle, and you can't login anywhere anymore.
2. your SD card goes bad, and you can't login anywhere anymore.
3. Download a bad OS update, brick your phone, and you can't login anywhere anymore.
4. Get a malware sms, and not only can you not login anywhere anymore, some serbian hacker now has access to your reddit account. FUCK!
I dunno. It's all precarious as hell.
. . and a gun.