You are right about the art and not science, but there are two specific examples of folks cutting taxes, and giving a huge benefit to economy: JFK and Reagan. For stuff about JFK's tax cut, here is one link that Google turned up: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/03 01jfk.htm
As for Reagan (I know you didn't bring him up, but so many do), and the crap that we always hear about him not having a balanced budget...his tax cuts actually generated more money for government, because economy boomed, and even though they were collecting lower percentages, there was more to tax. The Democrats went into spending overdrive, and spent something like $1.38 for every dollar "earned" via taxes. That's why I'd never let a Democrat give me economic advice - you and I don't run our households like that, why should government run a country like that? I'm sure there were Republicans in there with some of their pork, too, but Democrats ran Congress. Also another oft-overlooked thing about the 80's: more minorities were lifted out of poverty during the 80's than any other period. The 80's was a win-win situation, and all the rhetoric to the contrary is largely bogus. Even the average Joe (usually) knows it - that's why Reagan is still the most popular prez in history. As a Libertarian, I think some of his social policies and stances were bogus (War on Drugs, for example). But looking at what was done during that time at the pure fiscal level, it was an outstanding achievement.
It's interesting that you say on the one hand that you don't want tax cuts to go to the top, but across the board. And yet you say you want a flat tax. Any flat tax will "benefit" the top the most, so I don't see how your two statements can make sense together, unless your flat tax is somehow "targetted".
Lower taxes are ALWAYS a good idea, but they are especially important right now. We have a higher tax burden than we have ever had in the history of the United States - there's no reason for this. How did we ever manage to run the country without such a high tax burden in the past?
I agree that cutting taxes won't help all businesses avoid bankruptcy or mass layoffs - I agree the bad ones SHOULD fail or scale back. Subsidies are always a bad idea esp. in the long run. Let the free market play out. Has Amtrak ever gotten out of the red, BTW?
But cutting taxes is not subsidies for the corps, or the rich, or whatever the latest spin is calling it...it helps everyone - like I said before: when's the last time poor person cut you a pay check? It certainly FEELS good to say, "well, at least the rich didn't just get richer". But if there are no jobs or only lower-paying jobs, how does that help the little guy, other than to make him beholden to a bunch of little bureaucrats who can hold his welfare check over his head?
Ugh - of COURSE people should not be able to just freely move between countries on a whim - there are such things as national security to worry about. There are reasons for having sovereign nations, you know. As for the EU, the oppression has already begun there...that should be entertaining to watch - at least until we get pulled into another war as a result of the EU. Why are we always told we should be more like Europe (in selective ways of course)? If you like Canada/Europe, more power to ya. There are plenty of folks who like living here, my friend. I went to college, and had many friends who were first-generation immigrants, and had no intention of ever going back to their homelands - Germany, Poland, India, other than to visit friends and family...YMMV. If you like Canada better, fine.
Where the hell did you live here that was so bigoted? Some BFE location in the deep South? Exactly how does a cultural melting pot destroy culture? It sounds like you are engaging in liberal double-think to me...having a common language (English) does not destroy culture, if that's what you are getting at. I don't know what "multi-culturalism" means in Canada, but here in the states, it's often a code word for oppressing any supposed "majority" viewpoint or culture - ie, for the holidays it means a War on Christmas And Hannukah, because any Judeo-Christian faith is viewed as the enemy by people engaged in this so-called "multi-culturalism". In other words, it's not multi-culturalism at all, it's balkanization - pitting one group against another. In any case, the government should never try to be the agent of social change, so I don't know how you can "encourage" multi-culturalism unless you are going over the bounds of what government should be doing in the first place.
BTW, buddy, I was looking to try out a short term contracting gig in London...but what do I know, I'm just "racist, bigotted, interolerant and small-minded". Sigh. History just keeps cycling - when Britain was at the height of their power, they were hated and despised just as much as we are now.
Who's being the racist here? You're the one that wants foreigners out.
Bzzzt. I want an end to the H1-B program. This does not equate to me wanting "foreigners out". If you are the same AC as the first one, then YOU'RE the bigot: you made sweeping statements about an entire nation. That much is clear. I on the other hand, want permanent immigration to supplant temporary immigration. Explain how that is racist.
Thanks for playing.
Your post just make Americans like yourself look like morons that only care about themselves.
Yeah, no other nations would EVER practice any protectionism, now would they? What a crock.
And no, an H1-B did not take my job, and no my wife didn't leave me for an H1-B. Every time the H1-B thing gets brought up, someone has to assume its about racism. For me, it's because I'm against corporate welfare. If we *really* needed so much help, why wasn't there a push for more permanent immigrants, instead of setting up some silly system like the H1-B system? And why did the whole H1-B debacle make it to projectcensored.org's top list of censored stories? If it's so pure and good, then it should be able to withstand the light of attention to be shined on it, but no one is doing that. Ask yourself why this is.
How SHOULD Owens pursue companies? My understanding is that some companies choose here over CA because taxes are more corporate-friendly. Like Texas. We also have power, which last year showed us was pretty important, and not always a given.:)
Also, if the economy would turn around, then said local policy would be a non-issue, no? So why not an economic stimulus package that would actually *do* something to stimulate? AKA, cutting capital gains taxes, along with an across-the-board tax cut. Government should do what everyone else does during a slowdown: tighten their belts. Of course, tax-and-spend Democrats don't want that, because they've never considered the money you earn your money, anyway...
BTW, I've expanded my search elsewhere, and it looks *slightly* better elsewhere in the job market, but not that much better. And good luck getting any kind of relo, of course....
The last thing that we need is to waste money on bush's backassward plans.
Well, I'm not sure which plan(s) you are talking about - the one that I think GWB had in mind was cutting capital gains taxes, as well as cutting other taxes across the board. Any honest economist will tell you that these will help. What ended up coming out in a mushminded compromise with the Democrats was quite another matter - just to cover their own asses, even though the stimulus package was so crippled, the Democrats didn't sign it in case it actually would have helped - they very much want a bad economy, make no mistake about it. They are more worried about their own political power than any of their subjects, er, I mean, citizens. And to have a bad economy next fall would be the only way they could have very much success at the polls - Bush is overwhelmingly popular right now, so they need a chink in the armor.
BTW, I agree: GIVING money away to corps who are bleeding money is wrongheaded. But a tax cut is not a "gift" to corporations. Class warfare rhetoric will do nothing to stimulate the economy - as much as the rich are despised/hated/reviled by the left, think about it: when's the last time a poor guy signed your paycheck?
And the giveaway you are talking about was a bipartisan effort, was it not? Many conservatives disagreed strongly with the giveaway, since it is corporate welfare, not the free market. Personally, I'm a Libertarian, so I'm above all the Democrat/Republican infighting.;) But if I had to choose someone to give me economic advice, let me tell you: it wouldn't be a Democrat, that's for sure. I think they confuse their budget with the economy way too much.
Plenty of jobs? Where? Doing what? I am plenty competent, with over eight years of experience, yet only one call - and I'm hardly the only one with this problem. Hell, I used to be revered by managers and co-workers alike at one point. Now, I can't even find ANY job. And yes, I'm quite willing to compromise on money. If by "competent", you mean knowing someone or being lucky enough to be applying for a job that is a perfect match (I've applied to several such jobs) AND you get selected out of the dozens of resumes that they get that are also perfect fits, then, okay, maybe I'm not "competent". For Pete's sake, the president of DJUG was laid off for three months.
I can tell you plenty of horror stories, some involving me directly, some involving close friends I have lots of respect for. I don't mean to come off like I have a large ego, but I am quite good at whatever I tackle.
If there are so many jobs, why does the paper keep running stories like the two they recently put in there dealing with laid-off techies? Even before I saw the one recent story, I was actually considering doing the driving course. I sold some tech books on Ebay that were bought locally by a fellow developer laid off back in the spring...he's working at Home Depot now. I'm sure he was quite willing to compromise, too, but he ended up at Home Depot, anyway - I guess I can't speak for his skills or experience, but it still says something, IMHO. A friend of mine called unemployment line, and the fellow he was talking to at unemployment office used to be a developer.
There are plenty of bigots out there such as yourself that help justify a bogus system such as the H1-B system, but I for one am not buying it.
Americans are "unimaginative"? What bunk. Take your racism and cram it, buddy. Oh, I know you probably don't THINK that you are a bigot, but making such statements as you made above certainly makes you look like one. I consider myself very creative and I have the tendency to innovate when given the chance - and I don't appreciate stupid blanket statements like yours.
Anyway, there are plenty of intelligent and creative people everywhere, and that why historically, America has welcomed PERMANENT immigration - but I don't think Einstein was here on an H1-B. Sorry, but bringing a bunch of folks here to replace coders for six years, and then kicking them out in favor of a fresh supply doesn't give the foreigners much time or leverage for any innovation, now does it? I don't remember any H1-B's I ever worked with ever providing much innovation at all. They just were forced to work ridiculous hours and basically got kicked around until they either were used up and had to go elsewhere, or finally got their green card, and went elsewhere, or demanded better hours and better pay, or worse, had to go home because they had no green card and H1-B was up.
Well, they'll need to do *something* with all the laid-off techies, since they won't be working anything other than McJobs...any economic stimulus package that might have helped has been trashed by Daschle and his Nazi cohorts. Here in Colorado, the Denver Post ran a story about former techies driving TRUCKS, for Pete's sake. *WHY* do we need H1-B's, again? Not that they were every really needed even in the late-90's....
I notice Daschle doesn't have anything to worry about, since he makes 175K - I think congressmens' paychecks should be tied to the economy - we all have to tighten our belts, why don't they? Nah, they'll play politics to dick over EVERYONE, and then they run off to their nice vacation with their great big, taxpayer-paid paychecks, not to mention other perks that fall outside of a salary.
Anyway, it'd beat living out of your car or the local Y. There were already horror stories like that last spring, why we are still importing workers (H1-B's) and doing no tax cuts is a real mystery. Hopefully, all you voters remember to speak out about this crap...H1-B's should be on a ballot for the PEOPLE to vote for in a state-by-state basis, not some representatives to decide to do what never would be chosen by the people. I mean, who would vote to have more foreigners (and I'm not talking about immigrants here, I'm talking about the new class of indentured servants that the H1-B creates) taking jobs that hardly exist in the first place, and who the hell would NOT vote for lower taxes!!!
Man, that one page is *really* hard to read. Here:
http://www.sf.perm.ru/eng/solaris/sf_history.htm l
At least in Galeon and Mozilla, anyway...maybe other browsers display this better? Hard on the ol' glazzies, and it's really distracting me from the content. I feel like I'm trying to read Wired.
These people also said the "storm of planes" will not stop, and that America is going to fall sooner than later. Now who's hiding in caves living like animals, and who's living their normal lives with hardly a hitch? The only thing these pieces of garbage were able to do was to commandeer one of OUR pieces of technology for a short duration while our guard was down. Big deal. I'm pretty tired of hearing what "geniuses" these people are - any 12-year old kid could learn how to fly a plane when you don't have to worry about taking off or landing properly. Give me a break.
Nice try, caveman. Watch out for those daisy-cutters.
NEVER! And I seriously doubt you will get a clause in there to get them to have such a trigger.
Has NOW disbanded? How about NAACP? How about the EPA? Once an organization has been formed(in the government or otherwise) to solve some ill, it will never disband - they will find other "battles" to fight, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched and unrelated they are to the original aim. Take the NAACP for example. Years ago, the civil rights was about ending segregation. Now, we've come full circle, and they are DEMANDING segregation: they claim that blacks owe America nothing, that they want separate dorms, separate schooling, black studies - some extreme liberals are pushing the made-up (like Festivus on Seinfeld) holiday, Kwanza. If that's not balkanization, I don't know what is. But the liberals who now control these organization are not about unity, they are about division. If people can't help themselves by joining in the opportunities in America, then they are at the mercy of these organizations or government programs. And Jesse Jackson has lowered himself to the level of outright extortion, now. It's about him and his buddies, it's not about helping to raise blacks to any kind of higher level.
Clue me in: how exactly does segregration help blacks? How do bilingual schools benefit Hispanics? That's rhetorical, because they don't.
Bottom line: rest assured that if we get a committee to "oversee" M$, it will never go away, and will in fact expand at a rate that is faster than the rate of inflation - the government grows at a rate faster than inflation - there's no reason this little slice of bureaucracy won't do the same. Ask yourself: why should government grow at a rate faster than inflation? Why doesn't the government have to tighten ITS belt when everyone else does at times like we are having now? Pretty soon, they will be "regulating" what they know little or nothing about throughout the industry, not just M$. And that's very, very bad: it could even involve regulating something like Gnu/Linux/FreeBSD right out of existence! Don't believe it? Ask yourself how the EPA finally came around to regulating the amount of water your toilet flushes, even if you need to flush repeatedly to get the same results, which can end up using MORE water than a toilet pre-EPA regulation? (It might not have actually been EPA, but a related government organization at the state level, but that's not the point)
Let's not forget that income tax was supposed to be temporary when it was started. Let's not forget that social security was supposed to be separate from taxes, and that number was not supposed to be used to track individuals...what do we have now? Instead of being repealed, we have more income tax being levied that ever before, we have social security money being used for whatever politicians feel like threatening so that Big Government(mostly Democrats) can have power over votes. And the SSN is being used for virtually anything you are involved in: try to get a job or a loan without giving it out.
Everytime someone proposes a government "solution" to a problem, you should take a look around at past results of such "solutions" and realize they are failures or just plain pork on a grand scale. This should be shot down as quickly and as definitively as possible. The possibility of corruption is far too great. We have far too much of that in other arenas as it is. Let's not ruin the software industry, too.
Just what this country needs - even more Big Government. Why should a company that creates so much wealth for so many people be held accountable to the whims of three little bureaucrats? What a ridiculous notion. That's about a half-step away from fascism. In actuality, it probably would BE fascism, since in effect, M$ will become run by the State.
How is replacing one possible monopoly with a definite monopoly (the government) a good idea, again?
I couldn't agree more with your points - I'm all for (and have been for some time) finding alternatives to oil. Not so much for some blind need to "save the earth" (it's a lot cleaner than ever, but, shhhh, don't tell the screaming tree-huggers that, they'll have a baby) but to get off our dependency from countries that give us a smile to our faces and then preach hatred and outright lies about America all the while...all to keep people from looking too closely at their own little regime. It's time to yank that rug, ASAP - drill in ANWR in the meantime, but dump money and incentives into finding a comparable alternative.
Yeah, screw the hateful bastards. We don't need 'em, and they sure don't want us there - let's give them what many of them CLAIM they want, and yank our money and infrastructure out of there. See how good they do financially without us - BWHAHAHAHA. It's hard to generate any real wealth under a regime...unless you are just sitting on a goldmine like they are - if the need goes away, they are so screwed.
Great ideas, if they are great enough, can take on anyone - to take as an example something from a speech Guy Kawasaki made to a graduating class: companies that used to cut up ice and ship it worldwide used to flourish...and in some areas, it probably looked like a monopoly that could not be broken - but a paradigm shift occurred.
That all became obsolete when along comes a method to make ice anywhere, and at anytime - but the original companies were focused on the wrong things - better saws, etc., completely missing the point - guess who survived? Then the next paradigm shift came when refrigeration was used...in a free market, the best ideas will eventually win out - they just need to be packaged in the right way, have the right backing, marketed ad infinitum to get the average Joe to notice, etc. Another great example of a paradigm shift that greatly marginalized a former monopoly: IBM almost completely missed the PC boat. I don't really buy that an attractive idea can be held back by a company or group of companies for very long - if the idea is truly viable. If that were possible, IBM/Digital would have held back the PC, and forced consumers to keep buying expensive Big Iron and expensive proprietary terminal hardware, etc. Paradigm shifts happen. Once there is enough momentum, and mindshare, etc., they seem to almost explode with force and get adopted at a rapid pace. Sometimes, it happens almost independently - the phone, for example. Also cryptography and calculus - I think all of these were developed independently at nearly the same time - I doubt this is an accident. If inventors/thinkers/whatever are really "standing on the shoulders of giants" then there reaches a point where it seems like these kinds of things almost naturally fall out of the R&D process. I bet there is some chaos theory about this somewhere, but anyway. I just think it is highly possible we may be on the verge of another paradigm shift...it may take a few decades, but hey, it's a start.
I also won't deny that in many cases Big Brother and Big Oil or other such entites conspire(d) together to keep a certain product alive and well - a great example is diamonds - I don't know about any U.S. government involvement with that specifically, but diamond cartels have done a great job at making people think diamonds are rare or valuable. That's why government should stay, as much as possible, out of business dealings. Eventually, there will be corruption of the payoff type to provide protection for a certain product - campaign funds, lobbying, etc...in a truly free market, this would be kept to a minimum.
It's time for the U.S. to get out of relationships with countries that hate us, i.e, most of the Middle East - could this be part of the ticket?
Then we can take a hands-off approach to everyone unless they pose an immediate threat (such as Iraq) or declare war, such as Afghanistan. For everything else, let them fight their own battles, use their own diplomacy, etc. I'm tired of giving these backwards countries excuses to label us "imperialists".
Anyway, to (ab)use a pun: more power to the alternatives, I say.
And I'm saying we try/tried those tactics, and they are failing/have failed - people still hate us in other countries, and the dictators/warlords/whatever take the bennies we tried to give to ALL the people for themselves. Basically, other countries won't free themselves from hunger and depravation until they throw off the yoke of dictators that won't let them practice social and, most importantly, ECONOMIC freedom.
Taxing Americans even MORE than they already are will help not a whit...it only helps to oppress Americans, and does not free anyone anywhere else - it just goes into some domestic wanna-be dictator politician's pet project.
Helping other people sounds great, but in reality, trying to get people out of poverty(long-term) is about the same as trying to exercise or breathe for them - it's something they have to do for themselves. Giving a safety net is a reasonable short-term measure, but anything long-term has to be done by those in need - they need to kill/otherwise remove their dictators keeping them from economic freedom, and get on with their lives via a system of free markets.
As for giving 10% more, speak for yourself. I'm currently out of work, but when I was, I was taxed way too much already, thank you very much. I voluntarily give to charities of my choosing...but that's not the same as the jackbooted IRS and other entities STEALING my money in the name of the common good. America is already the most giving nation on Earth as it is.
All humans are equal, but not all countrys' governing and economic systems are. Some don't recognize the human right to practice economic and social freedoms. It's not the responsibility of the U.S. to right all wrongs in other countries. It'd be nice to do that if it'd actually work, but we'll just end up with billions lost, and countries that hate us even more. We are already called imperialists, why give them more ammo?
As long as people perpetuate inane talking-heads style opinion over scientific fact, our populus will remain ignorant. Which is to say, will always be the case.
And yet you seem to display an ignorance of statistics. 150 years of data is hardly significant in a system that is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. I'm not saying we shouldn't take a hard look at what we can do to minimize risk. But proclaiming it as fact when THERE IS STILL SCIENTIFIC DEBATE is intellectually dishonest.
I myself used to think that it parallels the evolution "argument" but I viewed the people proclaiming global warming as fact as akin "creationist scientists". After some reflection, though, I think that's not really fair to you and others that argue for global warming and evidence for it, since this argument IS still being debated in the word of science - evolution isn't. Especially since those in support of global warming are scientists - I don't know of any creationist scientists that use any hard, peer-reviewed scientific methods to back up their claims.
Evolution is only being argued in the world of politics, really, and I thought the only scientific debate is really more along the lines of the fine grained things, like fossil records, and were we aquatic hominids, etc...
Anyway, I'm not even saying that global warming doesn't exist - I'm merely saying that the jury is still out, and that's the truth. There is simply no denying that. It may turn out that some irrefutable evidence comes down the pipe, and most scientists agree on it, but until then, saying otherwise is just plain wrong.
I remember watching Nova this fall, and a scientist on there, while talking about something else (Antarctica, IIRC) mentioned that they don't know if global warming is really happening or not. Hardly a political arena, either - this is PBS we're talking about. If PBS has any leanings at all, it's to the left.
Finally, energy usage doesn't feed people. That is a far more complicated issue. Feeding people simple required people to grow food near where they live, and to eat it.
Hate to nitpick here, but...energy usage doesn't feed people? Of course it does - America exports quite a bit of food, we help feed a large portion of the world, in fact - do you think people are out hoeing in their gardens to do that? Nope, it's automated on a grand scale. And that takes energy. So, at least indirectly, energy does feed people. Also, don't you remember the cycle of life from biology: it all starts with the sun...photosynthesis needs energy, no? Okay, that's getting a bit pedantic...
Stopping wars and putting money into development will help feed people far more then genetically engineered crops or using are engergy or whatever.
Some points:
1. It is my understanding that genetically engineered crops are more resilient and can withstand things like frost, pests, little water, etc...how is that not going to have an impact on feeding third world countries?
2. Stopping wars? How does one achieve that? Military power. What does the military power run on? Energy...can't fight any wars without power. Even the Taliban knows that.
3. I hope you are not implying that the U.S. needs to "put money into development" of other countries? That's not our responsibility. People hate us enough now with our interventionist policies from the past and present, we don't need to add to that hate, all at taxpayer expense. I don't really think it's our responsibility to end wars, unless they are wars when we our our allies are attacked - we end up getting hated by those we are helping, anyway.(Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan...) I think we should adopt a policy of "benign neglect" when it comes to other countries and their conflicts and needs, etc.
Well, where is your evidence? You just did essentially the same thing you accused me of!
If you want pointers to some common-sense debunkers of environmental dogma, try looking up Bjorn Lomborg. ex-Greenpeace, gay, liberal, statistician. Danish. How's that for a "Yank"? (Does using that term make you a bigot, BTW? Where are you from, so I can use a derogatory name for you?)
Rolling Stone had a big piece on this guy, NYT wrote about him, Fox News had him on. Anyway, he wrote _The Skeptical Environmentalist_, in which he addresses a lot of the myths of environmentalism. He actually thinks that global warming DOES exist, but he still thinks Kyoto Treaty would cause more harm than good. So he's one point in your favor at least about the global warming issue...he's much more even-handed about his environmentalism though: heavy on data, short on rhetoric.
Here's one heavyweight pointer for the dissenters, though: it shows up that there IS argument about the science behind global warming: http://www.globalwarming.org/
Here's another dissenting viewpoint, with many links to other places..he's pro-commonsense environmentalism, too:
http://www.off-road.com/enviro_lies.html
Here's someone talking about the biggest doom-n-gloomer, Paul Ehrlich (who is really just a laughing-stock of anyone who has any memory at all):
http://www.broadbandpublisher.com/insight/main.c fm ?include=detail&storyid=154111
Of course, you'll probably just write these off as "yank right-winger politicos driving SUV's" since it's not a viewpoint you agree with.
There, I've done much more than you have in support, or at least, discussion, of my argument, other than just say, "well, *I'm* right, and *you're* wrong." Feel better?
As for saying that 99% of environmental scientists agree it is happening, well, what does that mean? That's like saying 99% of the mob is in favor of keeping drugs illegal - of course they are, it keeps them in business!!! Even if there wasn't that concern of a conflict of interest, and your "99%" figure is correct, what do they agree on? That the Earth is warming up? Okay, from what? Do they all agree it's from some greenhouse effect from CO2? How many agree that the CO2 caused by Man has any significance at all? I still submit that subscribing hook, line, and sinker to the "global warming" belief reminds me of "creationist scientists".
And, lastly, I despise SUV's. Don't make assumptions about who and what I am. As I said in another post, I find them disgracefully self-indulgent and just plain dangerous to themselves (rollovers, many don't have crumple zones, etc.) and other vehicles on the road. I can see how they affect people HERE negatively, but I fail to see how that is saying "sod the rest of the world".
Well, you are almost right in your analogy. Try measuring your cat's change in weight for a minute or two (probably much less, actually). If you have a sensitve enough scale, maybe some dust lands on your cat and shows a slight increase in weight - maybe your cat vacates his/her bowels and shows a marked decrease - should you make judgements on your cat's future diet based on this data? Hell, no. And we shouldn't be deciding (inter)national policies based on this kind of data, either.
Personally, I am all for reasoned, common-sense conservation (ie, not trying to pronounce CO2 as a "pollutant"). I find SUV's a disgraceful display of pigs bellying up to the trough - but scatterbrained pronouncements about the end of the Earth as we know it if Bush doesn't sign the Kyoto treaty don't hold water. I need to see hard data to believe it. I'm a reasonable person; I don't think that's asking much. I notice no other country signed, either, other than Romania...at least before we backed out. I haven't followed it since. The Kyoto treaty is less about common-sense environmentalism that it is a way to cripple America while giving so-called "developing nations" a free pass on their emissions. We are hardly the biggest violators of the environment, anyway: China and Russia need a lot work before they come close to our standards. Same with parts of South and Central America. It doesn't mean we can't work at doing the right thing, but not drilling on our soil for oil (ANWR - all this talk about a delicate balance up there is mostly rhetoric), not using nuclear power, etc. is self-defeating and just plain stupid. Which is what SOME environmentalists want, IMHO - defeat of the U.S.
Yeah, if anything, we are probably heading for another Ice Age in a few hundred years or few thousand years. Why are we so worried about global warming when the average temps have been DROPPING in the recent past.(I forget exact amount and over what period of time, exactly. I think it's decades, and a half degree
Fahrenheit or so.) And I doubt anything we do could be having the kind of impact that large volcanoes have. Or, worse case scenario, a large meteor...we should be expending more money and energy planning for that than the so-called global warming that's going to kill us all. That's a very real danger - there's no disagreement in the scientific community over THAT (unlike global warming, at least caused by man) - it's only a matter of time. Of course, "time" could be 500,000 years.:)
Local temps for a season or three do not equal climate - that's weather. The global warming gloom-n-doom that we've been hearing preached so much by the fanatical environmentalists needs to be taken with a big grain of salt...and I wish the mainstream media would do a better job of presenting the facts. I'm so tired of hearing about global warming as if it's a fact...global warming preachers remind me of "creationist scientists" - junk science touted as real science to push a certain agenda. But, truth will out, as always.
And you did a good job of pointing out the problem with "disability"...it has grown beyond what most folks with common sense understand as a disability into absolute nitwittery. The ADA started out as a reasonable idea, and spiraled into something circling the drain...
As an example: first we had handicap spaces and this made sense...then many, many more handicap spaces (with folks who know someone who can get them a plate or sticker) than are ever legitimately used - I mean, Sam's, Costco, WalMart have something like at least 10 such spaces - not great, but okay, I can live with that. And now we have the "pregnant women" parking spaces. Who's to say they are or are not pregnant? And since when is being pregnant a "disability"? It's an insult to those that are truly disabled, but all this crap comes in under the radar and you don't notice things like this until it's out of hand - the cloaking device, BTW, is called "political correctness".
I don't know if these new type of spaces are a result of the ADA (or the original ones for that matter), but all I can ask is, what's next? Spaces for PMS'ers, and spaces for men who were just downsized? How about spaces for someone with a leg that fell asleep? I know (and have known) several people who legitimately have need for such things, and I have absolutely no beef with that. I do, however, have a problem with so many whiners calling themselves disabled just because they feel like it. Good grief, common sense seems to go downhill daily in this country. I wonder if something similar happened during the last days of Rome...
Hmmm, this smacks of the so-called "de-regulation" (hahahaha, what utter spin that was) that was done in CA. The same one that caused an energy crisis in the sixth-largest entity as far as GDP goes. I'm not so thrilled with the idea, obviously.
Government needs to be very careful about dealing with the private sector. Very often, the people in the private sector are experts at what they do because they have to compete to get to the top. Some government bureaucrat was either elected from a small set of choices, or outright appointed, and they rarely know what they are doing - at least compared to the people they are regulating. And WE need to be as careful as possible about handing those keys to said bureaucrats, lest we end up with complete tyranny in every nook and cranny.
Think about how many bad decisions have been made regarding things like DMCA, H1-B, "hacking" laws, IP, etc. by government. Now think about how that would apply to internet access, and how royally screwed we could be because of people that have that kind of power, but little knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right about the art and not science, but there are two specific examples of folks cutting taxes, and giving a huge benefit to economy: JFK and Reagan. For stuff about JFK's tax cut, here is one link that Google turned up: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/03 01jfk.htm
As for Reagan (I know you didn't bring him up, but so many do), and the crap that we always hear about him not having a balanced budget...his tax cuts actually generated more money for government, because economy boomed, and even though they were collecting lower percentages, there was more to tax. The Democrats went into spending overdrive, and spent something like $1.38 for every dollar "earned" via taxes. That's why I'd never let a Democrat give me economic advice - you and I don't run our households like that, why should government run a country like that? I'm sure there were Republicans in there with some of their pork, too, but Democrats ran Congress. Also another oft-overlooked thing about the 80's: more minorities were lifted out of poverty during the 80's than any other period. The 80's was a win-win situation, and all the rhetoric to the contrary is largely bogus. Even the average Joe (usually) knows it - that's why Reagan is still the most popular prez in history. As a Libertarian, I think some of his social policies and stances were bogus (War on Drugs, for example). But looking at what was done during that time at the pure fiscal level, it was an outstanding achievement.
It's interesting that you say on the one hand that you don't want tax cuts to go to the top, but across the board. And yet you say you want a flat tax. Any flat tax will "benefit" the top the most, so I don't see how your two statements can make sense together, unless your flat tax is somehow "targetted".
Lower taxes are ALWAYS a good idea, but they are especially important right now. We have a higher tax burden than we have ever had in the history of the United States - there's no reason for this. How did we ever manage to run the country without such a high tax burden in the past?
I agree that cutting taxes won't help all businesses avoid bankruptcy or mass layoffs - I agree the bad ones SHOULD fail or scale back. Subsidies are always a bad idea esp. in the long run. Let the free market play out. Has Amtrak ever gotten out of the red, BTW?
But cutting taxes is not subsidies for the corps, or the rich, or whatever the latest spin is calling it...it helps everyone - like I said before: when's the last time poor person cut you a pay check? It certainly FEELS good to say, "well, at least the rich didn't just get richer". But if there are no jobs or only lower-paying jobs, how does that help the little guy, other than to make him beholden to a bunch of little bureaucrats who can hold his welfare check over his head?
Ugh - of COURSE people should not be able to just freely move between countries on a whim - there are such things as national security to worry about. There are reasons for having sovereign nations, you know. As for the EU, the oppression has already begun there...that should be entertaining to watch - at least until we get pulled into another war as a result of the EU. Why are we always told we should be more like Europe (in selective ways of course)? If you like Canada/Europe, more power to ya. There are plenty of folks who like living here, my friend. I went to college, and had many friends who were first-generation immigrants, and had no intention of ever going back to their homelands - Germany, Poland, India, other than to visit friends and family...YMMV. If you like Canada better, fine.
Where the hell did you live here that was so bigoted? Some BFE location in the deep South? Exactly how does a cultural melting pot destroy culture? It sounds like you are engaging in liberal double-think to me...having a common language (English) does not destroy culture, if that's what you are getting at. I don't know what "multi-culturalism" means in Canada, but here in the states, it's often a code word for oppressing any supposed "majority" viewpoint or culture - ie, for the holidays it means a War on Christmas And Hannukah, because any Judeo-Christian faith is viewed as the enemy by people engaged in this so-called "multi-culturalism". In other words, it's not multi-culturalism at all, it's balkanization - pitting one group against another. In any case, the government should never try to be the agent of social change, so I don't know how you can "encourage" multi-culturalism unless you are going over the bounds of what government should be doing in the first place.
BTW, buddy, I was looking to try out a short term contracting gig in London...but what do I know, I'm just "racist, bigotted, interolerant and small-minded". Sigh. History just keeps cycling - when Britain was at the height of their power, they were hated and despised just as much as we are now.
Who's being the racist here? You're the one that wants foreigners out.
Bzzzt. I want an end to the H1-B program. This does not equate to me wanting "foreigners out". If you are the same AC as the first one, then YOU'RE the bigot: you made sweeping statements about an entire nation. That much is clear. I on the other hand, want permanent immigration to supplant temporary immigration. Explain how that is racist.
Thanks for playing.
Your post just make Americans like yourself look like morons that only care about themselves.
Yeah, no other nations would EVER practice any protectionism, now would they? What a crock.
And no, an H1-B did not take my job, and no my wife didn't leave me for an H1-B. Every time the H1-B thing gets brought up, someone has to assume its about racism. For me, it's because I'm against corporate welfare. If we *really* needed so much help, why wasn't there a push for more permanent immigrants, instead of setting up some silly system like the H1-B system? And why did the whole H1-B debacle make it to projectcensored.org's top list of censored stories? If it's so pure and good, then it should be able to withstand the light of attention to be shined on it, but no one is doing that. Ask yourself why this is.
How SHOULD Owens pursue companies? My understanding is that some companies choose here over CA because taxes are more corporate-friendly. Like Texas. We also have power, which last year showed us was pretty important, and not always a given. :)
Also, if the economy would turn around, then said local policy would be a non-issue, no? So why not an economic stimulus package that would actually *do* something to stimulate? AKA, cutting capital gains taxes, along with an across-the-board tax cut. Government should do what everyone else does during a slowdown: tighten their belts. Of course, tax-and-spend Democrats don't want that, because they've never considered the money you earn your money, anyway...
BTW, I've expanded my search elsewhere, and it looks *slightly* better elsewhere in the job market, but not that much better. And good luck getting any kind of relo, of course....
The last thing that we need is to waste money on bush's backassward plans.
;) But if I had to choose someone to give me economic advice, let me tell you: it wouldn't be a Democrat, that's for sure. I think they confuse their budget with the economy way too much.
Well, I'm not sure which plan(s) you are talking about - the one that I think GWB had in mind was cutting capital gains taxes, as well as cutting other taxes across the board. Any honest economist will tell you that these will help. What ended up coming out in a mushminded compromise with the Democrats was quite another matter - just to cover their own asses, even though the stimulus package was so crippled, the Democrats didn't sign it in case it actually would have helped - they very much want a bad economy, make no mistake about it. They are more worried about their own political power than any of their subjects, er, I mean, citizens. And to have a bad economy next fall would be the only way they could have very much success at the polls - Bush is overwhelmingly popular right now, so they need a chink in the armor.
BTW, I agree: GIVING money away to corps who are bleeding money is wrongheaded. But a tax cut is not a "gift" to corporations. Class warfare rhetoric will do nothing to stimulate the economy - as much as the rich are despised/hated/reviled by the left, think about it: when's the last time a poor guy signed your paycheck?
And the giveaway you are talking about was a bipartisan effort, was it not? Many conservatives disagreed strongly with the giveaway, since it is corporate welfare, not the free market. Personally, I'm a Libertarian, so I'm above all the Democrat/Republican infighting.
Plenty of jobs? Where? Doing what? I am plenty competent, with over eight years of experience, yet only one call - and I'm hardly the only one with this problem. Hell, I used to be revered by managers and co-workers alike at one point. Now, I can't even find ANY job. And yes, I'm quite willing to compromise on money. If by "competent", you mean knowing someone or being lucky enough to be applying for a job that is a perfect match (I've applied to several such jobs) AND you get selected out of the dozens of resumes that they get that are also perfect fits, then, okay, maybe I'm not "competent". For Pete's sake, the president of DJUG was laid off for three months.
I can tell you plenty of horror stories, some involving me directly, some involving close friends I have lots of respect for. I don't mean to come off like I have a large ego, but I am quite good at whatever I tackle.
If there are so many jobs, why does the paper keep running stories like the two they recently put in there dealing with laid-off techies? Even before I saw the one recent story, I was actually considering doing the driving course. I sold some tech books on Ebay that were bought locally by a fellow developer laid off back in the spring...he's working at Home Depot now. I'm sure he was quite willing to compromise, too, but he ended up at Home Depot, anyway - I guess I can't speak for his skills or experience, but it still says something, IMHO. A friend of mine called unemployment line, and the fellow he was talking to at unemployment office used to be a developer.
One word - baloney.
There are plenty of bigots out there such as yourself that help justify a bogus system such as the H1-B system, but I for one am not buying it.
Americans are "unimaginative"? What bunk. Take your racism and cram it, buddy. Oh, I know you probably don't THINK that you are a bigot, but making such statements as you made above certainly makes you look like one. I consider myself very creative and I have the tendency to innovate when given the chance - and I don't appreciate stupid blanket statements like yours.
Anyway, there are plenty of intelligent and creative people everywhere, and that why historically, America has welcomed PERMANENT immigration - but I don't think Einstein was here on an H1-B. Sorry, but bringing a bunch of folks here to replace coders for six years, and then kicking them out in favor of a fresh supply doesn't give the foreigners much time or leverage for any innovation, now does it? I don't remember any H1-B's I ever worked with ever providing much innovation at all. They just were forced to work ridiculous hours and basically got kicked around until they either were used up and had to go elsewhere, or finally got their green card, and went elsewhere, or demanded better hours and better pay, or worse, had to go home because they had no green card and H1-B was up.
Well, they'll need to do *something* with all the laid-off techies, since they won't be working anything other than McJobs...any economic stimulus package that might have helped has been trashed by Daschle and his Nazi cohorts. Here in Colorado, the Denver Post ran a story about former techies driving TRUCKS, for Pete's sake. *WHY* do we need H1-B's, again? Not that they were every really needed even in the late-90's....
I notice Daschle doesn't have anything to worry about, since he makes 175K - I think congressmens' paychecks should be tied to the economy - we all have to tighten our belts, why don't they? Nah, they'll play politics to dick over EVERYONE, and then they run off to their nice vacation with their great big, taxpayer-paid paychecks, not to mention other perks that fall outside of a salary.
Anyway, it'd beat living out of your car or the local Y. There were already horror stories like that last spring, why we are still importing workers (H1-B's) and doing no tax cuts is a real mystery. Hopefully, all you voters remember to speak out about this crap...H1-B's should be on a ballot for the PEOPLE to vote for in a state-by-state basis, not some representatives to decide to do what never would be chosen by the people. I mean, who would vote to have more foreigners (and I'm not talking about immigrants here, I'm talking about the new class of indentured servants that the H1-B creates) taking jobs that hardly exist in the first place, and who the hell would NOT vote for lower taxes!!!
Man, that one page is *really* hard to read. Here:m l
http://www.sf.perm.ru/eng/solaris/sf_history.ht
At least in Galeon and Mozilla, anyway...maybe other browsers display this better? Hard on the ol' glazzies, and it's really distracting me from the content. I feel like I'm trying to read Wired.
These people also said the "storm of planes" will not stop, and that America is going to fall sooner than later. Now who's hiding in caves living like animals, and who's living their normal lives with hardly a hitch? The only thing these pieces of garbage were able to do was to commandeer one of OUR pieces of technology for a short duration while our guard was down. Big deal. I'm pretty tired of hearing what "geniuses" these people are - any 12-year old kid could learn how to fly a plane when you don't have to worry about taking off or landing properly. Give me a break.
Nice try, caveman. Watch out for those daisy-cutters.
A:
NEVER! And I seriously doubt you will get a clause in there to get them to have such a trigger.
Has NOW disbanded? How about NAACP? How about the EPA? Once an organization has been formed(in the government or otherwise) to solve some ill, it will never disband - they will find other "battles" to fight, no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched and unrelated they are to the original aim. Take the NAACP for example. Years ago, the civil rights was about ending segregation. Now, we've come full circle, and they are DEMANDING segregation: they claim that blacks owe America nothing, that they want separate dorms, separate schooling, black studies - some extreme liberals are pushing the made-up (like Festivus on Seinfeld) holiday, Kwanza. If that's not balkanization, I don't know what is. But the liberals who now control these organization are not about unity, they are about division. If people can't help themselves by joining in the opportunities in America, then they are at the mercy of these organizations or government programs. And Jesse Jackson has lowered himself to the level of outright extortion, now. It's about him and his buddies, it's not about helping to raise blacks to any kind of higher level.
Clue me in: how exactly does segregration help blacks? How do bilingual schools benefit Hispanics? That's rhetorical, because they don't.
Bottom line: rest assured that if we get a committee to "oversee" M$, it will never go away, and will in fact expand at a rate that is faster than the rate of inflation - the government grows at a rate faster than inflation - there's no reason this little slice of bureaucracy won't do the same. Ask yourself: why should government grow at a rate faster than inflation? Why doesn't the government have to tighten ITS belt when everyone else does at times like we are having now? Pretty soon, they will be "regulating" what they know little or nothing about throughout the industry, not just M$. And that's very, very bad: it could even involve regulating something like Gnu/Linux/FreeBSD right out of existence! Don't believe it? Ask yourself how the EPA finally came around to regulating the amount of water your toilet flushes, even if you need to flush repeatedly to get the same results, which can end up using MORE water than a toilet pre-EPA regulation? (It might not have actually been EPA, but a related government organization at the state level, but that's not the point)
Let's not forget that income tax was supposed to be temporary when it was started. Let's not forget that social security was supposed to be separate from taxes, and that number was not supposed to be used to track individuals...what do we have now? Instead of being repealed, we have more income tax being levied that ever before, we have social security money being used for whatever politicians feel like threatening so that Big Government(mostly Democrats) can have power over votes. And the SSN is being used for virtually anything you are involved in: try to get a job or a loan without giving it out.
Everytime someone proposes a government "solution" to a problem, you should take a look around at past results of such "solutions" and realize they are failures or just plain pork on a grand scale. This should be shot down as quickly and as definitively as possible. The possibility of corruption is far too great. We have far too much of that in other arenas as it is. Let's not ruin the software industry, too.
Just what this country needs - even more Big Government. Why should a company that creates so much wealth for so many people be held accountable to the whims of three little bureaucrats? What a ridiculous notion. That's about a half-step away from fascism. In actuality, it probably would BE fascism, since in effect, M$ will become run by the State.
How is replacing one possible monopoly with a definite monopoly (the government) a good idea, again?
George Orwell, call your office.
I couldn't agree more with your points - I'm all for (and have been for some time) finding alternatives to oil. Not so much for some blind need to "save the earth" (it's a lot cleaner than ever, but, shhhh, don't tell the screaming tree-huggers that, they'll have a baby) but to get off our dependency from countries that give us a smile to our faces and then preach hatred and outright lies about America all the while...all to keep people from looking too closely at their own little regime. It's time to yank that rug, ASAP - drill in ANWR in the meantime, but dump money and incentives into finding a comparable alternative.
Yeah, screw the hateful bastards. We don't need 'em, and they sure don't want us there - let's give them what many of them CLAIM they want, and yank our money and infrastructure out of there. See how good they do financially without us - BWHAHAHAHA. It's hard to generate any real wealth under a regime...unless you are just sitting on a goldmine like they are - if the need goes away, they are so screwed.
Great ideas, if they are great enough, can take on anyone - to take as an example something from a speech Guy Kawasaki made to a graduating class: companies that used to cut up ice and ship it worldwide used to flourish...and in some areas, it probably looked like a monopoly that could not be broken - but a paradigm shift occurred.
That all became obsolete when along comes a method to make ice anywhere, and at anytime - but the original companies were focused on the wrong things - better saws, etc., completely missing the point - guess who survived? Then the next paradigm shift came when refrigeration was used...in a free market, the best ideas will eventually win out - they just need to be packaged in the right way, have the right backing, marketed ad infinitum to get the average Joe to notice, etc. Another great example of a paradigm shift that greatly marginalized a former monopoly: IBM almost completely missed the PC boat. I don't really buy that an attractive idea can be held back by a company or group of companies for very long - if the idea is truly viable. If that were possible, IBM/Digital would have held back the PC, and forced consumers to keep buying expensive Big Iron and expensive proprietary terminal hardware, etc. Paradigm shifts happen. Once there is enough momentum, and mindshare, etc., they seem to almost explode with force and get adopted at a rapid pace. Sometimes, it happens almost independently - the phone, for example. Also cryptography and calculus - I think all of these were developed independently at nearly the same time - I doubt this is an accident. If inventors/thinkers/whatever are really "standing on the shoulders of giants" then there reaches a point where it seems like these kinds of things almost naturally fall out of the R&D process. I bet there is some chaos theory about this somewhere, but anyway. I just think it is highly possible we may be on the verge of another paradigm shift...it may take a few decades, but hey, it's a start.
I also won't deny that in many cases Big Brother and Big Oil or other such entites conspire(d) together to keep a certain product alive and well - a great example is diamonds - I don't know about any U.S. government involvement with that specifically, but diamond cartels have done a great job at making people think diamonds are rare or valuable. That's why government should stay, as much as possible, out of business dealings. Eventually, there will be corruption of the payoff type to provide protection for a certain product - campaign funds, lobbying, etc...in a truly free market, this would be kept to a minimum.
It's time for the U.S. to get out of relationships with countries that hate us, i.e, most of the Middle East - could this be part of the ticket?
Then we can take a hands-off approach to everyone unless they pose an immediate threat (such as Iraq) or declare war, such as Afghanistan. For everything else, let them fight their own battles, use their own diplomacy, etc. I'm tired of giving these backwards countries excuses to label us "imperialists".
Anyway, to (ab)use a pun: more power to the alternatives, I say.
Maybe the Atlanteans can help Cuba with their "fish shortages".
If the dating can ever be confirmed, this will put "young earthers" into overdrive trying to refute this as some sort of atheist conspiracy.
And I'm saying we try/tried those tactics, and they are failing/have failed - people still hate us in other countries, and the dictators/warlords/whatever take the bennies we tried to give to ALL the people for themselves. Basically, other countries won't free themselves from hunger and depravation until they throw off the yoke of dictators that won't let them practice social and, most importantly, ECONOMIC freedom.
Taxing Americans even MORE than they already are will help not a whit...it only helps to oppress Americans, and does not free anyone anywhere else - it just goes into some domestic wanna-be dictator politician's pet project.
Helping other people sounds great, but in reality, trying to get people out of poverty(long-term) is about the same as trying to exercise or breathe for them - it's something they have to do for themselves. Giving a safety net is a reasonable short-term measure, but anything long-term has to be done by those in need - they need to kill/otherwise remove their dictators keeping them from economic freedom, and get on with their lives via a system of free markets.
As for giving 10% more, speak for yourself. I'm currently out of work, but when I was, I was taxed way too much already, thank you very much. I voluntarily give to charities of my choosing...but that's not the same as the jackbooted IRS and other entities STEALING my money in the name of the common good. America is already the most giving nation on Earth as it is.
All humans are equal, but not all countrys' governing and economic systems are. Some don't recognize the human right to practice economic and social freedoms. It's not the responsibility of the U.S. to right all wrongs in other countries. It'd be nice to do that if it'd actually work, but we'll just end up with billions lost, and countries that hate us even more. We are already called imperialists, why give them more ammo?
As long as people perpetuate inane talking-heads style opinion over scientific fact, our populus will remain ignorant. Which is to say, will always be the case.
And yet you seem to display an ignorance of statistics. 150 years of data is hardly significant in a system that is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. I'm not saying we shouldn't take a hard look at what we can do to minimize risk. But proclaiming it as fact when THERE IS STILL SCIENTIFIC DEBATE is intellectually dishonest.
I myself used to think that it parallels the evolution "argument" but I viewed the people proclaiming global warming as fact as akin "creationist scientists". After some reflection, though, I think that's not really fair to you and others that argue for global warming and evidence for it, since this argument IS still being debated in the word of science - evolution isn't. Especially since those in support of global warming are scientists - I don't know of any creationist scientists that use any hard, peer-reviewed scientific methods to back up their claims.
Evolution is only being argued in the world of politics, really, and I thought the only scientific debate is really more along the lines of the fine grained things, like fossil records, and were we aquatic hominids, etc...
Anyway, I'm not even saying that global warming doesn't exist - I'm merely saying that the jury is still out, and that's the truth. There is simply no denying that. It may turn out that some irrefutable evidence comes down the pipe, and most scientists agree on it, but until then, saying otherwise is just plain wrong.
I remember watching Nova this fall, and a scientist on there, while talking about something else (Antarctica, IIRC) mentioned that they don't know if global warming is really happening or not. Hardly a political arena, either - this is PBS we're talking about. If PBS has any leanings at all, it's to the left.
Finally, energy usage doesn't feed people. That is a far more complicated issue. Feeding people simple required people to grow food near where they live, and to eat it.
Hate to nitpick here, but...energy usage doesn't feed people? Of course it does - America exports quite a bit of food, we help feed a large portion of the world, in fact - do you think people are out hoeing in their gardens to do that? Nope, it's automated on a grand scale. And that takes energy. So, at least indirectly, energy does feed people. Also, don't you remember the cycle of life from biology: it all starts with the sun...photosynthesis needs energy, no? Okay, that's getting a bit pedantic...
Stopping wars and putting money into development will help feed people far more then genetically engineered crops or using are engergy or whatever.
Some points:
1. It is my understanding that genetically engineered crops are more resilient and can withstand things like frost, pests, little water, etc...how is that not going to have an impact on feeding third world countries?
2. Stopping wars? How does one achieve that? Military power. What does the military power run on? Energy...can't fight any wars without power. Even the Taliban knows that.
3. I hope you are not implying that the U.S. needs to "put money into development" of other countries? That's not our responsibility. People hate us enough now with our interventionist policies from the past and present, we don't need to add to that hate, all at taxpayer expense. I don't really think it's our responsibility to end wars, unless they are wars when we our our allies are attacked - we end up getting hated by those we are helping, anyway.(Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan...) I think we should adopt a policy of "benign neglect" when it comes to other countries and their conflicts and needs, etc.
Well, where is your evidence? You just did essentially the same thing you accused me of!
c fm ?include=detail&storyid=154111
If you want pointers to some common-sense debunkers of environmental dogma, try looking up Bjorn Lomborg. ex-Greenpeace, gay, liberal, statistician. Danish. How's that for a "Yank"? (Does using that term make you a bigot, BTW? Where are you from, so I can use a derogatory name for you?)
Rolling Stone had a big piece on this guy, NYT wrote about him, Fox News had him on. Anyway, he wrote _The Skeptical Environmentalist_, in which he addresses a lot of the myths of environmentalism. He actually thinks that global warming DOES exist, but he still thinks Kyoto Treaty would cause more harm than good. So he's one point in your favor at least about the global warming issue...he's much more even-handed about his environmentalism though: heavy on data, short on rhetoric.
Here's one heavyweight pointer for the dissenters, though: it shows up that there IS argument about the science behind global warming: http://www.globalwarming.org/
Here's another dissenting viewpoint, with many links to other places..he's pro-commonsense environmentalism, too:
http://www.off-road.com/enviro_lies.html
Here's someone talking about the biggest doom-n-gloomer, Paul Ehrlich (who is really just a laughing-stock of anyone who has any memory at all):
http://www.broadbandpublisher.com/insight/main.
Of course, you'll probably just write these off as "yank right-winger politicos driving SUV's" since it's not a viewpoint you agree with.
There, I've done much more than you have in support, or at least, discussion, of my argument, other than just say, "well, *I'm* right, and *you're* wrong." Feel better?
As for saying that 99% of environmental scientists agree it is happening, well, what does that mean? That's like saying 99% of the mob is in favor of keeping drugs illegal - of course they are, it keeps them in business!!! Even if there wasn't that concern of a conflict of interest, and your "99%" figure is correct, what do they agree on? That the Earth is warming up? Okay, from what? Do they all agree it's from some greenhouse effect from CO2? How many agree that the CO2 caused by Man has any significance at all? I still submit that subscribing hook, line, and sinker to the "global warming" belief reminds me of "creationist scientists".
And, lastly, I despise SUV's. Don't make assumptions about who and what I am. As I said in another post, I find them disgracefully self-indulgent and just plain dangerous to themselves (rollovers, many don't have crumple zones, etc.) and other vehicles on the road. I can see how they affect people HERE negatively, but I fail to see how that is saying "sod the rest of the world".
Well, you are almost right in your analogy. Try measuring your cat's change in weight for a minute or two (probably much less, actually). If you have a sensitve enough scale, maybe some dust lands on your cat and shows a slight increase in weight - maybe your cat vacates his/her bowels and shows a marked decrease - should you make judgements on your cat's future diet based on this data? Hell, no. And we shouldn't be deciding (inter)national policies based on this kind of data, either.
Personally, I am all for reasoned, common-sense conservation (ie, not trying to pronounce CO2 as a "pollutant"). I find SUV's a disgraceful display of pigs bellying up to the trough - but scatterbrained pronouncements about the end of the Earth as we know it if Bush doesn't sign the Kyoto treaty don't hold water. I need to see hard data to believe it. I'm a reasonable person; I don't think that's asking much. I notice no other country signed, either, other than Romania...at least before we backed out. I haven't followed it since. The Kyoto treaty is less about common-sense environmentalism that it is a way to cripple America while giving so-called "developing nations" a free pass on their emissions. We are hardly the biggest violators of the environment, anyway: China and Russia need a lot work before they come close to our standards. Same with parts of South and Central America. It doesn't mean we can't work at doing the right thing, but not drilling on our soil for oil (ANWR - all this talk about a delicate balance up there is mostly rhetoric), not using nuclear power, etc. is self-defeating and just plain stupid. Which is what SOME environmentalists want, IMHO - defeat of the U.S.
Yeah, if anything, we are probably heading for another Ice Age in a few hundred years or few thousand years. Why are we so worried about global warming when the average temps have been DROPPING in the recent past.(I forget exact amount and over what period of time, exactly. I think it's decades, and a half degree :)
Fahrenheit or so.) And I doubt anything we do could be having the kind of impact that large volcanoes have. Or, worse case scenario, a large meteor...we should be expending more money and energy planning for that than the so-called global warming that's going to kill us all. That's a very real danger - there's no disagreement in the scientific community over THAT (unlike global warming, at least caused by man) - it's only a matter of time. Of course, "time" could be 500,000 years.
Local temps for a season or three do not equal climate - that's weather. The global warming gloom-n-doom that we've been hearing preached so much by the fanatical environmentalists needs to be taken with a big grain of salt...and I wish the mainstream media would do a better job of presenting the facts. I'm so tired of hearing about global warming as if it's a fact...global warming preachers remind me of "creationist scientists" - junk science touted as real science to push a certain agenda. But, truth will out, as always.
And you did a good job of pointing out the problem with "disability"...it has grown beyond what most folks with common sense understand as a disability into absolute nitwittery. The ADA started out as a reasonable idea, and spiraled into something circling the drain...
As an example: first we had handicap spaces and this made sense...then many, many more handicap spaces (with folks who know someone who can get them a plate or sticker) than are ever legitimately used - I mean, Sam's, Costco, WalMart have something like at least 10 such spaces - not great, but okay, I can live with that. And now we have the "pregnant women" parking spaces. Who's to say they are or are not pregnant? And since when is being pregnant a "disability"? It's an insult to those that are truly disabled, but all this crap comes in under the radar and you don't notice things like this until it's out of hand - the cloaking device, BTW, is called "political correctness".
I don't know if these new type of spaces are a result of the ADA (or the original ones for that matter), but all I can ask is, what's next? Spaces for PMS'ers, and spaces for men who were just downsized? How about spaces for someone with a leg that fell asleep? I know (and have known) several people who legitimately have need for such things, and I have absolutely no beef with that. I do, however, have a problem with so many whiners calling themselves disabled just because they feel like it. Good grief, common sense seems to go downhill daily in this country. I wonder if something similar happened during the last days of Rome...
Hmmm, this smacks of the so-called "de-regulation" (hahahaha, what utter spin that was) that was done in CA. The same one that caused an energy crisis in the sixth-largest entity as far as GDP goes. I'm not so thrilled with the idea, obviously.
Government needs to be very careful about dealing with the private sector. Very often, the people in the private sector are experts at what they do because they have to compete to get to the top. Some government bureaucrat was either elected from a small set of choices, or outright appointed, and they rarely know what they are doing - at least compared to the people they are regulating. And WE need to be as careful as possible about handing those keys to said bureaucrats, lest we end up with complete tyranny in every nook and cranny.
Think about how many bad decisions have been made regarding things like DMCA, H1-B, "hacking" laws, IP, etc. by government. Now think about how that would apply to internet access, and how royally screwed we could be because of people that have that kind of power, but little knowledge.