The only way we will be able to undo the damage the 1% have done to our country will be through an extraordinary action outside the accepted political system
Possible. But until it gets bad enough that States call a constitutional convention, or the US has a civil war, there are options to try within the existing system.
I've pledge to Mayday. Have you? http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim https://mayday.us/
but you'd have to be kind of crazy to back the idea that America's prosperous period after WWII had nothing to do with winning the war!
True. But how much of a factor?
Not being bombed to rubble gave us some time, say, a 5-10 year head start over some countries (but many were not bombed very hard). How do we account for the next 50-60 years of massive world economic dominance?
It should be easy to agree that there are many factors involved. And I have yet to see any conclusive 'proof' or convincing study that attempts to weigh the factors and reach an answer as to which were most important.
All these things are probably factors: huge landmass with room to grow, large abundant natural resources, loans before, during, and after the war from the US to various countries, higher taxes allowing the government to invest in space flight, infrastructure, etc..., stronger unions, protected product markets, little to zero competition on our own continent, etc...
I'm just guessing here, but I bet even if Japan had ruined our west coast, and Germany our east coast, the US still would have bounced back faster than other countries.
But, the American prosperity after World War II was due to the fact that the rest of the world had basically been converted to rubble and it takes a couple of decades to rebuild after such destruction. America lost a lot of young men, but our infrastructure was intact after the war.
I agree with everything you are saying, just pointing out why we had 50 years of growth and prosperity. We built industry, everyone else had to rebuild.
I've seen no good evidence about which factors were more important for the US economic domination from 1950 to present.
Liberals (which I'm one) tend to talk about strong unions, high taxes, worker/product protection, government spending. Conservatives tend to talk about how we weren't bombed and some other non-tax / non-government issues. More neutral factors are things like large landmass for growth, abundant natural resources, small to zero economic competition on our borders.
All those points probably contributed to strong economic growth for the US, but which points were more important?
I have little hope for honest, real portrayals of facts come election time, when a liberal (assuming you are?) views Obama as spineless and the Right (far right) views Obama as a dictatorial tyrant trampling the rule of law and needing to be impeached....
Man I wish that libel and slander laws could be applied more strongly in politics and on news shows...
Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
All freedom has boundaries. Boundaries often come in the form of regulation. Good regulation prevents noses from being broken. (Like your business dumping it's trash in the river to save money (fist) and it poisoning my farm (nose). )
I suspect a lot of people may know its coming. The 6 months could be a nice way of saying "start looking for a new job now, and start saving up money". It is certainly better than having no warning.
Too much of a coincidence for a plane to crash in a war zone where a fighter was shot down just the other day and a transport aircraft An-26 was shot down by a missile at 25,000ft couple of days ago. And by the way, why would a commercial airliner fly through such an airspace anyway?
No U.S. carrier has been allowed to fly over certain parts of Ukraine since the end of April, due to an FAA order.
The logical consequence is that behaviour change must be forced through legislation, taxes etc. And every rational person should agree to that.
You are right that liberals and conservatives should agree that the only way to change behavior is with incentives/disincentives, laws/taxes, etc..
What I find myself disagreeing with conservatives the most about -+ -, is what the outcome of those laws/changes is going to mean to an average person. There seems to be many assumptions by conservatives like 1) energy prices will go up 2) energy use will be restricted 3) jobs will go down 4) etc.. basically that there is no way to change without widespread detrimental economic consequences. I think those assumptions are completely unfounded. Or at the least, overblown.
Conserving energy and/or increasing efficiency is always a good thing when possible. But it is definitely not the solution.
The amount of energy the world wants to use is always going to go up. Even if population is stable, we want to do more stuff. More toys, more electric vehicles, new technology (electric space elevator? future stuff), desalination plants, etc...
Cheap plentiful energy is the future. And nothing is cheaper than renewables once the infrastructure (storage, smart grids, long distance power transfer) is put in place.
Someday we will be coating every surface exposed to the sun with solar power collecting paint http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111221211324.htm http://www.cnet.com/news/new-nanotech-quantum-dots-to-make-solar-cells-lighter-cheaper/
Or if you go back and read some earlier posts, the obvious answer seems to be the people conserving electricity are penny pinchers. Those penny pinchers are happen to fear messing up the economy to deal with climate change.
So basically, economy oriented conservative penny pinchers = conserve electricity because of cost. Environmental oriented liberal folks = don't count pennies as much, and so don't look for as many ways to save, which includes reducing energy use.
This just goes to show that most people who bitch and complain aren't willing to to do without.
You are assuming that addressing AGW requires people to go without, or for things to cost more. That is an unfounded assumption. There are many gradual ways that we can transition to cleaner energy sources without causing any noticeable hardship.
On the flip side, some people budget a week out using cash. Put X amount in an envelope for food, X amount in an envelope for fun, etc.. You can visibly see each envelope cash amount going down, and adjust your spending accordingly. And when the envelope is empty, you know you are done (despite what your bank account might say).
Literally slaves yeah. As in, show up with the contract you signed. Boss rips it up in front of your face. Takes your passport. Forces you to live in a labor camp with 45 other people, sharing one toilet. Pays you 1/2 to 1/3 what you originally contracted for. Beatings if you talk to reporters or try to get out, etc..
The money their taxpayers save can be spent locally creating the same amount (measured in dollars) of jobs that it would have if the money makes a round trip through the federal government along the way.
"could be spent locally". But it won't. In today's climate, a jobs program based on building bridges (or other infrastructure) is something Obama wants. No "true" conservative is going to go along with that. But a jobs program disguised as defense spending? Hell yeah!! Let the money rain!
You act like the program is about replacing our aging planes with the best and most affordable choices.
It is a US jobs program (which translates to: keeping a politician in office) first and foremost. Of secondary concern is slowly replacing our existing planes. We can spend as much as it takes to modify the variations of the F-35 until they are ready to assume the roles of our existing planes. If it takes 15 years... so much the better. Some Senator's home state has great jobs for 15 years.
I am sure that the US military's first concern was replacing their air fleets with the best and most affordable choices. Put that request through the political ringer through, and other concerns take first place.
I bet 99% of people would be fine with a 30 mile electric car, and renting a gas powered one 3-4 times a year when they travel further.
I think it has more to do with cost and car types right now. The only options for electric are small and expensive cars. Not many people want to take on a 400-450 dollar a month payment for a volt or leaf when the design is small and limited.
I considered getting a leaf when they had the 199 a month 3 year lease special. But I would have needed to keep my truck for snow and hauling stuff. So my insurance would have basically doubled, which wiped out the gas savings of commuting with the leaf.
If there was a small light electric 4WD truck or SUV for 25,000-30,000, I'd buy that in an instant.
Because we have a multi-billion dollar misinformation machine keeping half the country stuck on the question "is it really warming up?".
Half the country hasn't even moved on to the "who/what is causing it?" part. Let alone the "how much damage will it cause?" part.
How about we just use nuclear power for most cases because it's more efficient, safer, etc.? How about we just use electric cars for most cases because they're simpler, more efficient, etc.? How about we just stop using coal because it's fucking terrible all around?
And energy independence And less pollution And setting an example for the world And more new job types that will last forever (fossil fuels will run out someday).
Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?
Politicians spend 30-70% of their time trying to get enough money to get re-elected. Re-election is vastly more important to most of them then doing the right thing. In their minds, the end goal (their priorities) justifies the means (bad policy and inaction for a long time until the timing is just right to advance one of their goals).
If "for profit" isn't a phrase that belongs in the realm of healthcare, should we force doctors and nurses to work for just room and board?
Single-payer only means inefficient, rationed healthcare. It means people dying on waiting lists, and governments faking the documentation to avoid the embarrassment.
I worked for a non-profit hospital for many years and I made a decent salary. Doctors got market salary.
non-profit doesn't mean zero salary. It means charging just enough to cover costs, including your doctor and nurse costs, but without tacking an additional 50%-100% on the bill to make extra profit.
Single-payer only means inefficient, rationed healthcare.
Try to read some more. That isn't true. There is a reason that all Western Style Democracies, except the US, have fully or partially socialized healthcare. Hint: it isn't because they are all dumb while the US is smart.
Completely depends what environment you are working in, and what systems you need to interface with. A web app can become extremely complex, with a huge number of dependencies, very quickly.
All that stuff works together. Kinda. Then add in all the front end support like SASS (Using Compass of course), etc.. etc.. etc..
OK, now you've got your 8-9 different software pieces and are ready to start making your webapp. And it needs to talk to Amazon, Google, and Facebook. You so dive into all those API's, etc.. but it still needs to interface with your local databases and user directories, so you aren't just dealing with REST API's, Google OAuth, etc.., but local drivers and SQL and LDAP calls.
And this is just on the developer side of things. I haven't even started on the web server / administration side of things.
Granted, very few people have to specialize in all the stuff at once (front end, middle ware, api/rest developer coding, servers) but to say that "making a web site" is easier than ever before, really depends on what your web site is doing and how you are required to build it.
I mean, sure, I can set up a word press site using a host like Dreamhost in 10 minutes. But I suspect that statements like "The web is just an enormous stack of kluges upon hacks upon misbegotten designs" is really referring to sets of interdependent software like I listed above. Ruby/Rails has its own universe, Groovy/Grails, Spring, Django, etc.. there are a million ways of doing things, and it can be very overwhelming sometimes.
Are you sure about this "massive crisis"? I just did a google search for "nhs bankrupting britain" and from the looks of the first two pages of results, it appears to be a highly charged political issue... and perhaps not a reality issue.
There's a lot of "threatens to bankrupt" "could bankrupt" "will in the future..." type statements. It looks like a bunch of speculation and fear mongering. What is the reputation of the daily mall, telegraph, the guardian, and independent? They make up the bulk of the scary titles.
Also, look at all the dates of the articles talking about "could bankrupt the NHS". All last year or earlier. Was there an election cycle in Britain then?
At least these sources are from 2014. I had to go to page 2-4 of the google results to find them.
March - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9da42b90-b661-11e3-b230-00144feabdc0.html#axzz376aRXuc1 - basically the UK is facing an aging baby boomer population, just like the US. They are considering having a 10 dollar membership fee, and marking some sin taxes that already exist to help buffer the NHS funding. I didn't feel anywhere in that article that they feel in a crisis.
July - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/labour-wants-to-stay-in-its-nhs-comfort-zone-and-ignore-immigration-and-the-economy/ - looks like the NHS is one of several issues right now, but it seems more like a standard party line attack thing, not because the NHS is in crisis, but just because they always take sides over it. At least the article didn't mention any crisis.
June - http://groupthink.jezebel.com/health-care-report-finds-uks-nhs-best-in-the-world-1592477563 - best in the world.
I've yet to see an implementation that comes close to solving most critical issues.
Cost per person ranked against outcomes of most common conditions would suggest that the US is a major failure compared with any other western modern health care system. The only time the US shines is in expensive treatment outcomes for rarer conditions. The rich from around the world fly here to get the top notch cancer care, brain surgery, etc...
Yet through the Ag revolution, the industrial revolution, and now, what has remained constant is limited energy, limited resources, and limited time. If those limits begin to disappear, then I think we'll see a big shift in life.
Super far in the future stuff, yeah, but just imagine what a world will be like with for all practical purposes unlimited free energy, unlimited resources, and even farther in the future, unlimited time (no aging, or time dilation, etc..).
About the only thing of scarcity that will remain, will be physical space. However, even that disappears once space flight, and further in the future, personal space flight, become a reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Ads bring us current TV episodes legally
Fixed it for you.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/23/portugals-drug-experience-new-study-confirms-decriminalization-was-a-success/
The obvious number one downside is the potential for an increase in number of addicts.
If I recall correctly, when Portugal legalized drugs they did not see an increase in addicts.
oblig: Southpark - They Took Our Job!
The only way we will be able to undo the damage the 1% have done to our country will be through an extraordinary action outside the accepted political system
Possible. But until it gets bad enough that States call a constitutional convention, or the US has a civil war, there are options to try within the existing system.
I've pledge to Mayday. Have you?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim
https://mayday.us/
but you'd have to be kind of crazy to back the idea that America's prosperous period after WWII had nothing to do with winning the war!
True. But how much of a factor?
Not being bombed to rubble gave us some time, say, a 5-10 year head start over some countries (but many were not bombed very hard). How do we account for the next 50-60 years of massive world economic dominance?
It should be easy to agree that there are many factors involved. And I have yet to see any conclusive 'proof' or convincing study that attempts to weigh the factors and reach an answer as to which were most important.
All these things are probably factors: huge landmass with room to grow, large abundant natural resources, loans before, during, and after the war from the US to various countries, higher taxes allowing the government to invest in space flight, infrastructure, etc..., stronger unions, protected product markets, little to zero competition on our own continent, etc...
I'm just guessing here, but I bet even if Japan had ruined our west coast, and Germany our east coast, the US still would have bounced back faster than other countries.
I appreciate your comments, very well said.
But, the American prosperity after World War II was due to the fact that the rest of the world had basically been converted to rubble and it takes a couple of decades to rebuild after such destruction. America lost a lot of young men, but our infrastructure was intact after the war.
I agree with everything you are saying, just pointing out why we had 50 years of growth and prosperity. We built industry, everyone else had to rebuild.
I've seen no good evidence about which factors were more important for the US economic domination from 1950 to present.
Liberals (which I'm one) tend to talk about strong unions, high taxes, worker/product protection, government spending.
Conservatives tend to talk about how we weren't bombed and some other non-tax / non-government issues.
More neutral factors are things like large landmass for growth, abundant natural resources, small to zero economic competition on our borders.
All those points probably contributed to strong economic growth for the US, but which points were more important?
Obama, Spine of Silly Putty
I have little hope for honest, real portrayals of facts come election time, when a liberal (assuming you are?) views Obama as spineless and the Right (far right) views Obama as a dictatorial tyrant trampling the rule of law and needing to be impeached....
Man I wish that libel and slander laws could be applied more strongly in politics and on news shows...
Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
All freedom has boundaries. Boundaries often come in the form of regulation. Good regulation prevents noses from being broken. (Like your business dumping it's trash in the river to save money (fist) and it poisoning my farm (nose). )
I suspect a lot of people may know its coming. The 6 months could be a nice way of saying "start looking for a new job now, and start saving up money". It is certainly better than having no warning.
Too much of a coincidence for a plane to crash in a war zone where a fighter was shot down just the other day and a transport aircraft An-26 was shot down by a missile at 25,000ft couple of days ago. And by the way, why would a commercial airliner fly through such an airspace anyway?
No U.S. carrier has been allowed to fly over certain parts of Ukraine since the end of April, due to an FAA order.
My first thought: When did the US build a flying aircraft carrier?
The logical consequence is that behaviour change must be forced through legislation, taxes etc. And every rational person should agree to that.
You are right that liberals and conservatives should agree that the only way to change behavior is with incentives/disincentives, laws/taxes, etc..
What I find myself disagreeing with conservatives the most about
-+
-, is what the outcome of those laws/changes is going to mean to an average person. There seems to be many assumptions by conservatives like 1) energy prices will go up 2) energy use will be restricted 3) jobs will go down 4) etc.. basically that there is no way to change without widespread detrimental economic consequences. I think those assumptions are completely unfounded. Or at the least, overblown.
Conserving energy and/or increasing efficiency is always a good thing when possible. But it is definitely not the solution.
The amount of energy the world wants to use is always going to go up. Even if population is stable, we want to do more stuff. More toys, more electric vehicles, new technology (electric space elevator? future stuff), desalination plants, etc...
Cheap plentiful energy is the future. And nothing is cheaper than renewables once the infrastructure (storage, smart grids, long distance power transfer) is put in place.
Someday we will be coating every surface exposed to the sun with solar power collecting paint
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111221211324.htm
http://www.cnet.com/news/new-nanotech-quantum-dots-to-make-solar-cells-lighter-cheaper/
Or if you go back and read some earlier posts, the obvious answer seems to be the people conserving electricity are penny pinchers. Those penny pinchers are happen to fear messing up the economy to deal with climate change.
So basically, economy oriented conservative penny pinchers = conserve electricity because of cost.
Environmental oriented liberal folks = don't count pennies as much, and so don't look for as many ways to save, which includes reducing energy use.
This just goes to show that most people who bitch and complain aren't willing to to do without.
You are assuming that addressing AGW requires people to go without, or for things to cost more. That is an unfounded assumption. There are many gradual ways that we can transition to cleaner energy sources without causing any noticeable hardship.
My local cornershop convenience store owner tells me that his fee is 70 cents per transaction.
He begs us to use cash.
On the flip side, some people budget a week out using cash. Put X amount in an envelope for food, X amount in an envelope for fun, etc.. You can visibly see each envelope cash amount going down, and adjust your spending accordingly. And when the envelope is empty, you know you are done (despite what your bank account might say).
Literally slaves yeah. As in, show up with the contract you signed. Boss rips it up in front of your face. Takes your passport. Forces you to live in a labor camp with 45 other people, sharing one toilet. Pays you 1/2 to 1/3 what you originally contracted for. Beatings if you talk to reporters or try to get out, etc..
Lots of states will lose jobs?
They don't even lose jobs.
The money their taxpayers save can be spent locally creating the same amount (measured in dollars) of jobs that it would have if the money makes a round trip through the federal government along the way.
"could be spent locally". But it won't. In today's climate, a jobs program based on building bridges (or other infrastructure) is something Obama wants. No "true" conservative is going to go along with that. But a jobs program disguised as defense spending? Hell yeah!! Let the money rain!
You act like the program is about replacing our aging planes with the best and most affordable choices.
It is a US jobs program (which translates to: keeping a politician in office) first and foremost. Of secondary concern is slowly replacing our existing planes. We can spend as much as it takes to modify the variations of the F-35 until they are ready to assume the roles of our existing planes. If it takes 15 years... so much the better. Some Senator's home state has great jobs for 15 years.
I am sure that the US military's first concern was replacing their air fleets with the best and most affordable choices. Put that request through the political ringer through, and other concerns take first place.
I bet 99% of people would be fine with a 30 mile electric car, and renting a gas powered one 3-4 times a year when they travel further.
I think it has more to do with cost and car types right now. The only options for electric are small and expensive cars. Not many people want to take on a 400-450 dollar a month payment for a volt or leaf when the design is small and limited.
I considered getting a leaf when they had the 199 a month 3 year lease special. But I would have needed to keep my truck for snow and hauling stuff. So my insurance would have basically doubled, which wiped out the gas savings of commuting with the leaf.
If there was a small light electric 4WD truck or SUV for 25,000-30,000, I'd buy that in an instant.
Because we have a multi-billion dollar misinformation machine keeping half the country stuck on the question "is it really warming up?".
Half the country hasn't even moved on to the "who/what is causing it?" part. Let alone the "how much damage will it cause?" part.
How about we just use nuclear power for most cases because it's more efficient, safer, etc.?
How about we just use electric cars for most cases because they're simpler, more efficient, etc.?
How about we just stop using coal because it's fucking terrible all around?
And energy independence
And less pollution
And setting an example for the world
And more new job types that will last forever (fossil fuels will run out someday).
Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?
Politicians spend 30-70% of their time trying to get enough money to get re-elected. Re-election is vastly more important to most of them then doing the right thing. In their minds, the end goal (their priorities) justifies the means (bad policy and inaction for a long time until the timing is just right to advance one of their goals).
We need campaign finance reform.
If "for profit" isn't a phrase that belongs in the realm of healthcare, should we force doctors and nurses to work for just room and board?
Single-payer only means inefficient, rationed healthcare. It means people dying on waiting lists, and governments faking the documentation to avoid the embarrassment.
I worked for a non-profit hospital for many years and I made a decent salary. Doctors got market salary.
non-profit doesn't mean zero salary. It means charging just enough to cover costs, including your doctor and nurse costs, but without tacking an additional 50%-100% on the bill to make extra profit.
Single-payer only means inefficient, rationed healthcare.
Try to read some more. That isn't true. There is a reason that all Western Style Democracies, except the US, have fully or partially socialized healthcare. Hint: it isn't because they are all dumb while the US is smart.
Completely depends what environment you are working in, and what systems you need to interface with. A web app can become extremely complex, with a huge number of dependencies, very quickly.
http://nodejs.org
https://www.npmjs.org
https://angularjs.org
http://bower.io
http://karma-runner.github.io/0.8/index.html
http://yeoman.io
All that stuff works together. Kinda. Then add in all the front end support like SASS (Using Compass of course), etc.. etc.. etc..
OK, now you've got your 8-9 different software pieces and are ready to start making your webapp. And it needs to talk to Amazon, Google, and Facebook. You so dive into all those API's, etc.. but it still needs to interface with your local databases and user directories, so you aren't just dealing with REST API's, Google OAuth, etc.., but local drivers and SQL and LDAP calls.
And this is just on the developer side of things. I haven't even started on the web server / administration side of things.
Granted, very few people have to specialize in all the stuff at once (front end, middle ware, api/rest developer coding, servers) but to say that "making a web site" is easier than ever before, really depends on what your web site is doing and how you are required to build it.
I mean, sure, I can set up a word press site using a host like Dreamhost in 10 minutes. But I suspect that statements like "The web is just an enormous stack of kluges upon hacks upon misbegotten designs" is really referring to sets of interdependent software like I listed above. Ruby/Rails has its own universe, Groovy/Grails, Spring, Django, etc.. there are a million ways of doing things, and it can be very overwhelming sometimes.
Are you sure about this "massive crisis"? I just did a google search for "nhs bankrupting britain" and from the looks of the first two pages of results, it appears to be a highly charged political issue... and perhaps not a reality issue.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091221104942AAuJZDf
There's a lot of "threatens to bankrupt" "could bankrupt" "will in the future..." type statements. It looks like a bunch of speculation and fear mongering. What is the reputation of the daily mall, telegraph, the guardian, and independent? They make up the bulk of the scary titles.
Also, look at all the dates of the articles talking about "could bankrupt the NHS". All last year or earlier. Was there an election cycle in Britain then?
At least these sources are from 2014. I had to go to page 2-4 of the google results to find them.
March - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9da42b90-b661-11e3-b230-00144feabdc0.html#axzz376aRXuc1 - basically the UK is facing an aging baby boomer population, just like the US. They are considering having a 10 dollar membership fee, and marking some sin taxes that already exist to help buffer the NHS funding. I didn't feel anywhere in that article that they feel in a crisis.
July - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/labour-wants-to-stay-in-its-nhs-comfort-zone-and-ignore-immigration-and-the-economy/ - looks like the NHS is one of several issues right now, but it seems more like a standard party line attack thing, not because the NHS is in crisis, but just because they always take sides over it. At least the article didn't mention any crisis.
June - http://groupthink.jezebel.com/health-care-report-finds-uks-nhs-best-in-the-world-1592477563 - best in the world.
I've yet to see an implementation that comes close to solving most critical issues.
Cost per person ranked against outcomes of most common conditions would suggest that the US is a major failure compared with any other western modern health care system. The only time the US shines is in expensive treatment outcomes for rarer conditions. The rich from around the world fly here to get the top notch cancer care, brain surgery, etc...
Yet through the Ag revolution, the industrial revolution, and now, what has remained constant is limited energy, limited resources, and limited time. If those limits begin to disappear, then I think we'll see a big shift in life.
Super far in the future stuff, yeah, but just imagine what a world will be like with for all practical purposes unlimited free energy, unlimited resources, and even farther in the future, unlimited time (no aging, or time dilation, etc..).
About the only thing of scarcity that will remain, will be physical space. However, even that disappears once space flight, and further in the future, personal space flight, become a reality.