I RTFA and I looked at all the high-modded comments and the last one is yours and it is pointing to an aspect that I think is critical. Remember that he was part of a clinical trial. So if you value concepts like progress, as the patient might well have, then his suffering had purpose. On the other hand, if you are a zero-sum accountant type, long-term benefits are necessarily ignored.
A little politics: the one non-negoiatable feature of obama care has always been the N.I.C.E. modeled independent cost control panel. It was originally called IMAC, but the name always changes, and now it is publicly nameless. I suppose that makes it harder to talk about. In his health push last week, he put some numbers on this. It is to cut out the one-third cost that is waste in medicare, according to Obama.
On the other hand, in my area we are short several hundred docs, and, per the newspaper, if you are on medicare it is a real trick to find a general practice doc that will take you. It seems to be fair to say that you cannot find one.
But during the bush and the obama admins we spent 23.4 trillion dollars in speculator bailouts. and if you pay attention to such concepts, you cannot figure Iraq was a "just" war, even ignoring the intelligence frauds, like the yellow-cake forgeries. i expect we spent and still spend some significant treasury there.
there is a certain view that the proper valuation of a human life is best done by an accountant. I would give examples, but goodwin's law gets in the way.
come on, if they did not require a 10 year payback, then someone would expect them to last more than 10-20 years. so strange, comparing solar panels to generation systems that last a long time and actually produce more energy during their life time than it took to build them.
there are some fads in medicine and the very extensive and expensive marketing the pharms do to medical types raises the eyebrows of even the medical types. and then there are thr big tv ad campaigns. so it is fine to complain. but recognize these people selling miracle herbs are not involved in truth-seeking. sure it does not make enough money to buy a slew of congress critters, but how to do you parse the morality to make them different than a big pharm?
looks to me that part of your argument is from "change". If do idealistic stuff, you come across "objective truth" and mine is something like
the only constant in the universe is change, in the whole and each and every of its parts.
as you might guess, I consider it the only objective truth.
but many people would make a list of universal principles, often nicely physical. what people put in and not is sort of interesting.
you mentioned climate science. oh sure, you could hope for a physical computer model with computer power to avoid dominating processes being sub-cell. no one is really claiming it is possible, even this century, but it might be a real good and maybe urgent thing to try for. it is conceivable i would favor putting significant money into the effort. on the other hand, i put every bit of money i had into screwing up copenhagen.:-)
that the universe is finite but unbounded is a fairly common idea, i guess due to einstein. so try let the past be unchangeable, but the future changable, which is reasonable, and let physics be infinite, which is on the philosophical side, though so far nicely emperical, and perhaps you are also saying something about time.
best i know, bolton talked about how he thought he could biuild this and that, but when pressed he said he had to check with OMB.
this slash and burn is an OMB controlled thing
the merits are irrelevant here
but the personally suspect the negative merits are what ultimately drive this
figure the goal is to close down any real manned space exploration
and people talked about how private enterprise can do a better job on all this. people need to realize that private capital does not do big tech risks. accounting just does not support putting money into long term projects. benefits 50 years out simply cannot exist in a business plan. you might talk about r&d, but on one hand all the r&d is pretty much supported by the feds, and on the other, when the ceo speaks of innovation, they are talking about something marketing phbs do, not einstein. ah well, I guess it was a rant.
here re a few highlights from the hearings and maybe there is going to be a big demo at the cape
as far as the site, it was the first one that came on a google search. if the site is only silly, it is one up on fox and nbc
I'm not doing your research for you. The burden of proof is upon you.
oh hell. where in the above quote from my post did i ask you to do research for me. not quoted, i observed that the site article had links which i thought you would like to have. i am not sure how that is saying you have to do my research for me.
seems like every site i quote is silly as far as you are concerned
That would be because prisonplanet.net and larouchepac.com are conspiracy theorist fantasy lands.
fantasy lands, well as far as larouchepac.com, I supposed if you felt like you needed to build the best private intelligence agency in the world, as the wikipedia article quoted some NSC type saying, and i in turn quoted, then you might think things were happening that were not reported on nbc. so what is not a conspiracy? consider the american revolution as part of a big time conspiracy. and it is easy to find references to the committee for correspondence. do you wish to argue this was not an element of a conspiracy?
you seem to be really factoid oriented, and then only from some sort of acceptable sources. i consider this to be a philosophical error. sort of sense-certainity as opposed to sense conception. and i do not respect an argument of coincidence. this is nice traditional philosophy
do you agree that phillip expresses some interest in doing genocide.
I would agree that the prince's opinions as portrayed are unacceptable. But I still don't understand what he has to do with climate change, and would argue that his opinions are totally irrelevant in any case.
I did not ask you to understand the relevance as of yet. just putting out one factoid, useful in my opinion, and seeing how you respond. now i asked a specific question and you avoided it. looking at the virus attitude, are we talking about genocide? if you think not, then perhaps you are doing some nominalism.
sort of interesti9ng how phillips opinions as quoted and with links are simply "unacceptable". sort of like farting at the dinner table?
so if you do not agree that the concept here is genocide, then we need not talk further.
treat this like an intelligence gathering problem
I have better things to do than chase down evidence for your completely unsupportable argument. Believe whatever you want, I honestly don't care, but you don't get to decide for yourself what the facts are.
perhaps my phrasing was not quite right. I was not asking you to chase anything down. more i was saying adopt a certain patience.
on the other hand i am not going to pull up stuff from over a 70 year period, a lot of stuff, just to get the sort of silliness you have been offering. kind of looks to me like there is a cetain sophism involved on your part. -- fc032bfbab83f20123b00ec07db504f1 mmm... hash
as far as the site, it was the first one that came on a google search. if the site is only silly, it is one up on fox and nbc
seems like every site i quote is silly as far as you are concerned. I like this article because it had supporting links and i thought you would like it,
but one at a time. do you agree that phillip expresses some interest in doing genocide. and in a simple way, we can say this might stem from the apparent fact that he is a malthusian
treat this like an intelligence gathering problem. the other pieces might well come
on larouche, it was considerably more than a couple years and as i recall the main charge was something like conspiracy to confuse the irs.
so a lot on wikipedia, i was too lazy to read the whole thing, but pulled two sections out
He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. His defenders believe the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials and a mass-media brainwashing campaign.[1] His appellate attorney, Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that the case represented an unprecedented abuse of power by the U.S. government in an effort to destroy the LaRouche movement.[2]
LaRouche provokes sharply contrasting views. His supporters see him as a political leader in the tradition of Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, Jr., and a brilliant thinker who has been unfairly persecuted, while critics regard him as a cult leader, a conspiracy theorist, a fascist, and an anti-Semite.[3] Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council, described LaRouche's staff in 1984 as one of the best private intelligence services in the world, while the Heritage Foundation has said that he leads "what may well be one of the strangest political groups in American history."[4]
In Russia, Maxim Kalashnikov characterizes LaRouche as a well-known dissident and founder of "physical economy".[136][137] Tatania Shishov, writing in Russia Today, describes LaRouche as "the greatest American economist, a prominent politician, one of the first to struggle with the financial oligarchy and its major institutions - the World Bank and IMF. He has no equal in the field of economic and financial forecasts."[138] GG Pirogov of the Russian Academy of Sciences calls him "one of the greatest original thinkers of the twentieth century."[139] Russian economist and LaRouche movement member Stanislav Menshikov says that LaRouche is among those few economists who look at the root causes, and therefore see what others cannot see.[140]
LaRouche publications report that he addressed both the Economics Committee of the Russian State Duma and the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2007; also that year, a paper by LaRouche was presented by Jonathan Tennenbaum, a member of the LaRouche movement, at a conference in Moscow on the Russian plan to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait.[141] On May 15, 2007, he addressed the Russian Academy of Sciences to commemorate the 80th birthday of Stanislav Menshikov, according to LaRouche PAC.[142] In November 2005, an eight-part interview with LaRouche was published in the People's Daily of China, covering his economic forecasts, his battles with the American media, and his assessment of the neoconservatives.[143]
Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, says that that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. LaRouche also urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation with the socialist countries like the Marshall Plan after World War II, which rebuilt Germany. Qazwini goes on to say that in recent years there has been a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia, calling him the spiritual father of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a massive industrial project which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been kept isolated and backward.[144]
so all in all, best private intelligence service in the world?, why not quote them?
buy let us look at genocide one data point at a time
let us consider hung up on labels. I agree nominalism is not verty pretty. But if a guy in the 21th century, probably usa, talks about professional structural engineers with a contemporary context, it seems fair to think about what professional has meant in the USA for the past 200 years. and in spite of all your silliness, I was making the point that expertise can be based on something than say being a professional structural engineer. And i believe i said in my comment USA and i did that limit on purpose, so when you talk about a bridge being good in europe or a roman empire guy, there is a bit of a subject change.
Now let us consider the nitpicking about 12o nations. your url did not talk at all about the number nations and did not mention the g77, which he was representing. from the name, you could be forgiven for thinking he only represented 77 nations, but I have given up on forgiving you. So try this. http://www.g77.org/doc/members.html looks like from that you might think he represented 130 nations, but as I recall in what i read it was more like 127. 120 was selected by me to be conservative.
just glancing at the parent, you seem to want to label emperical knowledge as science. I guess if you label it, it is.
now about the not enough money to pay for the coffins quoting. I think i misusedd the quote, just as you say.
oh on wire rope, John the father in law introduced wire rope to the USA and wire rope was a big part of his bridges. before that, I guess they used hemp rope in a similar way, and, at least to our modern sensibilities, we would not be surprised if the bridges soon fell down.
hmm, you seem like a good enough guy, but the conversation is "odd". oops, there i go again!
in passing, it is a little flakey to talk about professionalism, pre 1820. that is about when, hmm, harvard, implemented the concept around lawyers. a professionals praxis is positivism. and for engineers the idea is the scientist figure things out and the engineers apply it, and that is hard to do with out a quantative science base. you might think of a professional as someone with a certain attitude of responsibility to his client. but that does not have much with how I think of professional. and I vaguely have an engineering degress, MSE.
sometimes i use words in a deeper way than you do, sometime i try to be a bit funny, and then sometimes the words are intentional ambiguous, which is part of humor,and I expect sometime I am flakey.
as far as awg and genocide, hmm, that is easy to give an example of someone who says it and from a nice official position. at copenhagen, the sudan guy was repping over 120 nations. there was an offer of money to the countries he represented. He quipped " it is not enough money to pay for the coffins" so it looked like to him the awg policies would kill a lot of people
otherwise here is an overview of some of the population "control" proposals that surfaced around early copenhagen as the solution to awg
this is a reasoned response, but a minor and a major error need to be corrected.
The G77 is the name of the body and you might think there are 77 countries in it and you might be right. but the sudanese guy was representing over 120 countries and I said that already.
he was not complaining about a reduction in aid. the proposal was to give underdeveloped countries money to conform to awg policy dictates. this was basically anti-carbon emmissions, intrusively monitored, and also enforced. If you want to consider it this way, you could say that he said not enough money was being offered. but the better way is to say that he said anti-development policies will kill a lot of people.
so he did a quip for the media. He was talking about attempted genocide, but he was also funny in a dire way. You said something like People will still need stuff, even if it costs more. So in the same way the quip was done, I used to respond to you. But if you need more serious, figure that if it costs more in Africa, people die.
majority of consumers. I have a hard time processing your remarks hear, perhaps because i am not a keynesian. I do not bother to call him an enemy, mainly because he was oh, morally complicated. but he was certainally fdr's enemy at bretton woods and fortunately fdr won. anyway, I do not process "consumer" very well. but if you care to talk about population, try adding up the population of china, india, brazil and the 120 countries sudan represented. remember, this population destroyed copenhagen
i think the next question was about the 1.5 quadrillion. it is likely no one really knows how much speculative crap there is out there. the number comes from the larouchies in the following way. they floated "up to 1 quadrillion dollars". a lot of wiggle room. and not particularly official. rather shortly it went to the rather precise and more official 1.5 quadrillion. I figure once they floated, someone gave them some insider information. but i never have asked and i probably would not get an answer on this anyway.
regarding who owes who. regarding usa mortgage speculation, some of it is difficult to decide even in a court. things got sloppy. but the basic answer as far as the financial oligarchy is concerned, "my ficticious assets need to be propped up by everyone" Currently the immeadiate source is sort of the taxpayer. and the brazilian carry trade. but the lives of the population are now on the line. You might look at the brutal austerity that is being demanded of greece. and then reflect on the economic purposes of awg policies.
scientific consensus: I think you are right regarding a comparision between man-made global cooling and awg. but i think talking about scientific consensus is a little unseemly. so we got some nonsense about himalayan glaciers into the ipcc report. so the chair lied on when he was told about it. (and makes a lot of money on this crap, but it is okay because he gives it all to a greenie outfit) but the real deal is a nice legit scientist gets quoted that he noticed this problem sometime ago but he was afraid to mention it. oh, and we have climategate talking about getting people fired. if you think scientific consensus is a big deal, you have a little bit going for you, but personally, I think pushing the consensus argument is a bit unseemly at this point.
and then i expect you need to deal with some people in the russian academy of science.
and some indian scientist types maybe
and i would be curious to know what sort of scientific advice on awg the chinese leadership is getting
hmm, I guess my post hit a sensitive point or two.
Here is something i cut and pasted from the parent.
Emily Warren Roebling [wikipedia.org] might not have had a formal education, but to say she was uneducated is laughable. Do you often talk about things you know nothing about?
This is kind of interesting. I talked about no structural engineers, no professional engineers, and no science base for the bridge building. But as i said, people manage to build bridges that did not fall down. This was pretty much a new thing. It was pretty much trial and error, so you would expect there had been some successes in the past to work from. so where did i say someone was uneducated? Odd, the way you seem to equate non-scientist to uneducated. oops, I have seen that somewhere before!
Regarding roebling (john, the father-in-law, who is better timed for my remark mid-century), i have heard of him before, because of his classical education and importance to the early usa. first of all, looks like his first bridge was 1844, pretty close to midcentury. looks he himself introduced the wire rope tech that made this sort of thing actually work, so i doubt things were working before then. Now he had a nice continental engineering training, although perhaps not the degree. But you know, I said "structural engineer" in exact quote of the original comment. I kind of think the original commenter wanted someone with a finite element software package. and if you do not have one, do not trust any bridge you build. I do not see any relationship between what i said and your complaint. sort of interesting.
and going on, another cut and paste
some people just like genocide.
Yeah just kill everyone you don't agree with, sounds reasonable to me.
i was talking about nwgers who explictly push genocide and giving an explanation for their behavior. it is impossible for me to find a basis for your claim that i approve of genocide in my post. so, once again, it is interesting that you come up with such stuff.
so i suppose it might be some sort of blocking thing, but i suspect it was quite conscious, after all, two in a row.
your next point might fit in this pattern too, but it is kind of a claim of no clarity and it could be true and in any case, i am too close to do an easy evaluation. i will leave it up to the other readers.
oh sure. I have no use for awg or even gw, but as long as we insist on talking in terms of those pale things called facts, we might as well try to get on the same page.
to me, a country's evaluation of a security issue has a very operational implication and in a strong way, a kind of operational consideration can give a fact more truth than some statistical argument. Here we have something that is moving toward true, not yet true, but there is an intention. as an example, consider einstein general relativity theory. I am more impressed by the successful use of the theory in a jovian space craft trajectory than say a mercury precession experiment.
your conclusion is correct. Russia is planning to do one nuclear power plant a week, the real deal, but it is not enough to replace fossil fuel, and you do not have to be an awger to think we should go away from fossil fuels, but it is interesting that most of them want silly stuff like solar, but rarely high energy density stuff like nuclear.
as far as population, one very close to the brit government and crown population think tank used awg to propose a reduction in projected population. looking at the detail, you might think they want to kill 3 billion people. but the economics is flakey, so if had of done awg policies, we would get 5 billion dead. we still may get that, but things are hopeful.
when talking about big time genocide, it is always appropriate to remember, who was it, prince phillip "I want to be reincarnated as a deadly virus". rather consistent that the queen bitch crawled out from under her rock to claim world leadership and demand the commonwealth nations toe the awg line. australia seems to have had some issues.
I subscribed to scientific american for a long time, since high school. In the maybe 80's an emminent scientist type had a awg article therein. The body pushed awg real heavily, but a sensible person pays attention to the actual conclusions. It was just a claim for variabilty. given the obvious editorial position of the mag, i let the sub lapse.
looking a few years later, to your children's book, I wonder how much science there was to back it up. This is not particularly about the current issues about the science, just a little time traveling.
i think the comments on this story have exceeded 800. High volume.
Here is a easy way to respond to your people need stuff: no people.
So looking at copenhagen, sudan was chair of g77 and their negotiator was representing maybe 120 nations. Now part of the proposal was for africa to cut development in exchange for some bribes. the sudanese guy had a nice quip: the money is not enough to pay for the coffins.
A lot of awg want to say this is science and leave it to the priesthood. but there are other approaches than science to a question. the awgers like to complain about politics getting into it, for instance, often with probably valid populist slanders on big oil. but here is an interesting story.
in the 70's there was a priesthood guy push man-made global cooling. some people were pushing that back then. when awg came out, he switched quickly to that position. One wonders how the data changed. later he appears in the climategate files in 2003 telling Phil that everyone must be a "true believer" in global warming. 2003 is kind of an interesting date. it is well before awg was very news worthy. Now he is obama's science czar and still pushing awg. so do you trust him as either a scientist or a politician?
so i figure empire types have been fighting the idea of national sovereignty since nicholaus of cusa. Note that was the formal issue copenhagen went down on. what else do empires go for? they hate real tech progress. we have already touched on genocide. for the past couple of millennia the western civ variety have been monetarist.
so you want to know where the wealth goes. There is sort of a paradox. The 1.5 quadrillion dollars in derivatives need all the wealth in the world to support its fictecious value. but on the one hand there is not enough wealth to do this and on the other hand, the unpayable debt collapses the physical economy so the amount of wealth decreases.
I heard a good joke. suppose I have one dollar. I mortgage it out completely and to 1 million people. Wow, now there a million dollars in assets floating around.:-)
times like this you get a lot of crazy stuff. you bought off on awg. the oligarch faction in russian around the finance minister bought off on BRIC. Both approaches are clearly history. Now these people have no options. I like it.
the IPCC prediction is of course unreliable. but it looks to me that there is some melting of himalayan glaciers. the reason I say that is that India recently opened up their own climate research section in the government. They did this because the awg stuff is so suspect. But himalayan glacier melt is a national water security issue and the indians think the glaciers are melting and maybe uncomfortable fast. but there is really no data of much of any kind. so they are going to get some. check back in ten years.
I saw some gloss that the Russian government came out last week in some way against awg. It has been pretty obvious to them for some time. Political leaders would talk to academy of science types and talk publically about what they heard. As I recall, they did not hear pro-awg cant.:-) so much for scientific consensus. the real question is the timing. I think it is because of the collapse of the BRIC strategy last week.
funny, mid 19th century america, we finally started to figure out how to build bridges that did not fall down. not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized, so almost by definition, there was no "science" in sight
awg is happily dead. I exerted myself quite a bit around copenhagen and maybe i did just a little bit of good. so I think it is time to do the post-mortem. sure we need to get rid of a lot of political types in the usa and elsewhere who have not got the word yet. some people just like genocide.
so how do we avoid another awg? One issue that comes to mind and is really obvious is the "settled", "consensus", "petition" stuff. people on both sides play at this on slashdot even. It looks to me that even "scientists" play at it and not even on just awg. what do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
I RTFA and I looked at all the high-modded comments and the last one is yours and it is pointing to an aspect that I think is critical. Remember that he was part of a clinical trial. So if you value concepts like progress, as the patient might well have, then his suffering had purpose. On the other hand, if you are a zero-sum accountant type, long-term benefits are necessarily ignored.
A little politics: the one non-negoiatable feature of obama care has always been the N.I.C.E. modeled independent cost control panel. It was originally called IMAC, but the name always changes, and now it is publicly nameless. I suppose that makes it harder to talk about. In his health push last week, he put some numbers on this. It is to cut out the one-third cost that is waste in medicare, according to Obama.
On the other hand, in my area we are short several hundred docs, and, per the newspaper, if you are on medicare it is a real trick to find a general practice doc that will take you. It seems to be fair to say that you cannot find one.
But during the bush and the obama admins we spent 23.4 trillion dollars in speculator bailouts. and if you pay attention to such concepts, you cannot figure Iraq was a "just" war, even ignoring the intelligence frauds, like the yellow-cake forgeries. i expect we spent and still spend some significant treasury there.
there is a certain view that the proper valuation of a human life is best done by an accountant. I would give examples, but goodwin's law gets in the way.
come on, if they did not require a 10 year payback, then someone would expect them to last more than 10-20 years. so strange, comparing solar panels to generation systems that last a long time and actually produce more energy during their life time than it took to build them.
us soldiers. malaria, haiti
http://larouchepac.com/node/13703
there are some fads in medicine and the very extensive and expensive marketing the pharms do to medical types raises the eyebrows of even the medical types. and then there are thr big tv ad campaigns. so it is fine to complain. but recognize these people selling miracle herbs are not involved in truth-seeking. sure it does not make enough money to buy a slew of congress critters, but how to do you parse the morality to make them different than a big pharm?
looks to me that part of your argument is from "change". If do idealistic stuff, you come across "objective truth" and mine is something like
the only constant in the universe is change, in the whole and each and every of its parts.
as you might guess, I consider it the only objective truth.
but many people would make a list of universal principles, often nicely physical. what people put in and not is sort of interesting.
you mentioned climate science. oh sure, you could hope for a physical computer model with computer power to avoid dominating processes being sub-cell. no one is really claiming it is possible, even this century, but it might be a real good and maybe urgent thing to try for. it is conceivable i would favor putting significant money into the effort. on the other hand, i put every bit of money i had into screwing up copenhagen. :-)
that the universe is finite but unbounded is a fairly common idea, i guess due to einstein. so try let the past be unchangeable, but the future changable, which is reasonable, and let physics be infinite, which is on the philosophical side, though so far nicely emperical, and perhaps you are also saying something about time.
i like the dilbert refenc
best i know, bolton talked about how he thought he could biuild this and that, but when pressed he said he had to check with OMB.
this slash and burn is an OMB controlled thing
the merits are irrelevant here
but the personally suspect the negative merits are what ultimately drive this
figure the goal is to close down any real manned space exploration
and people talked about how private enterprise can do a better job on all this. people need to realize that private capital does not do big tech risks. accounting just does not support putting money into long term projects. benefits 50 years out simply cannot exist in a business plan. you might talk about r&d, but on one hand all the r&d is pretty much supported by the feds, and on the other, when the ceo speaks of innovation, they are talking about something marketing phbs do, not einstein. ah well, I guess it was a rant.
here re a few highlights from the hearings and maybe there is going to be a big demo at the cape
http://larouchepac.com/node/13674
specific statute based legality is in question on what you call the spending freeze
http://larouchepac.com/node/13675
okay, let us work just on your last post
as far as the site, it was the first one that came on a google search. if the site is only silly, it is one up on fox and nbc
I'm not doing your research for you. The burden of proof is upon you.
oh hell. where in the above quote from my post did i ask you to do research for me. not quoted, i observed that the site article had links which i thought you would like to have. i am not sure how that is saying you have to do my research for me.
seems like every site i quote is silly as far as you are concerned
That would be because prisonplanet.net and larouchepac.com are conspiracy theorist fantasy lands.
fantasy lands, well as far as larouchepac.com, I supposed if you felt like you needed to build the best private intelligence agency in the world, as the wikipedia article quoted some NSC type saying, and i in turn quoted, then you might think things were happening that were not reported on nbc. so what is not a conspiracy? consider the american revolution as part of a big time conspiracy. and it is easy to find references to the committee for correspondence. do you wish to argue this was not an element of a conspiracy?
you seem to be really factoid oriented, and then only from some sort of acceptable sources. i consider this to be a philosophical error. sort of sense-certainity as opposed to sense conception. and i do not respect an argument of coincidence. this is nice traditional philosophy
do you agree that phillip expresses some interest in doing genocide.
I would agree that the prince's opinions as portrayed are unacceptable. But I still don't understand what he has to do with climate change, and would argue that his opinions are totally irrelevant in any case.
I did not ask you to understand the relevance as of yet. just putting out one factoid, useful in my opinion, and seeing how you respond. now i asked a specific question and you avoided it. looking at the virus attitude, are we talking about genocide? if you think not, then perhaps you are doing some nominalism.
sort of interesti9ng how phillips opinions as quoted and with links are simply "unacceptable". sort of like farting at the dinner table?
so if you do not agree that the concept here is genocide, then we need not talk further.
treat this like an intelligence gathering problem
I have better things to do than chase down evidence for your completely unsupportable argument. Believe whatever you want, I honestly don't care, but you don't get to decide for yourself what the facts are.
perhaps my phrasing was not quite right. I was not asking you to chase anything down. more i was saying adopt a certain patience.
on the other hand i am not going to pull up stuff from over a 70 year period, a lot of stuff, just to get the sort of silliness you have been offering. kind of looks to me like there is a cetain sophism involved on your part.
--
fc032bfbab83f20123b00ec07db504f1 mmm... hash
as far as the site, it was the first one that came on a google search. if the site is only silly, it is one up on fox and nbc
seems like every site i quote is silly as far as you are concerned. I like this article because it had supporting links and i thought you would like it,
but one at a time. do you agree that phillip expresses some interest in doing genocide. and in a simple way, we can say this might stem from the apparent fact that he is a malthusian
treat this like an intelligence gathering problem. the other pieces might well come
hi chris,
on larouche, it was considerably more than a couple years and as i recall the main charge was something like conspiracy to confuse the irs.
so a lot on wikipedia, i was too lazy to read the whole thing, but pulled two sections out
He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. His defenders believe the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials and a mass-media brainwashing campaign.[1] His appellate attorney, Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that the case represented an unprecedented abuse of power by the U.S. government in an effort to destroy the LaRouche movement.[2]
LaRouche provokes sharply contrasting views. His supporters see him as a political leader in the tradition of Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, Jr., and a brilliant thinker who has been unfairly persecuted, while critics regard him as a cult leader, a conspiracy theorist, a fascist, and an anti-Semite.[3] Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council, described LaRouche's staff in 1984 as one of the best private intelligence services in the world, while the Heritage Foundation has said that he leads "what may well be one of the strangest political groups in American history."[4]
In Russia, Maxim Kalashnikov characterizes LaRouche as a well-known dissident and founder of "physical economy".[136][137] Tatania Shishov, writing in Russia Today, describes LaRouche as "the greatest American economist, a prominent politician, one of the first to struggle with the financial oligarchy and its major institutions - the World Bank and IMF. He has no equal in the field of economic and financial forecasts."[138] GG Pirogov of the Russian Academy of Sciences calls him "one of the greatest original thinkers of the twentieth century."[139] Russian economist and LaRouche movement member Stanislav Menshikov says that LaRouche is among those few economists who look at the root causes, and therefore see what others cannot see.[140]
LaRouche publications report that he addressed both the Economics Committee of the Russian State Duma and the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2007; also that year, a paper by LaRouche was presented by Jonathan Tennenbaum, a member of the LaRouche movement, at a conference in Moscow on the Russian plan to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait.[141] On May 15, 2007, he addressed the Russian Academy of Sciences to commemorate the 80th birthday of Stanislav Menshikov, according to LaRouche PAC.[142] In November 2005, an eight-part interview with LaRouche was published in the People's Daily of China, covering his economic forecasts, his battles with the American media, and his assessment of the neoconservatives.[143]
Iqbal Qazwini, writing in the Arabic-language daily Asharq Al-Awsat, says that that LaRouche was one of the first who predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, and German unification. LaRouche also urged the West to pursue a policy of economic cooperation with the socialist countries like the Marshall Plan after World War II, which rebuilt Germany. Qazwini goes on to say that in recent years there has been a proliferation of the ideas of LaRouche in China and South Asia, calling him the spiritual father of the new Silk Road or Eurasian Landbridge, a massive industrial project which aims to link the continents together through networks of advanced ground transportation accompanied by the creation of industrial and agricultural development zones, and bring development to areas that had been kept isolated and backward.[144]
so all in all, best private intelligence service in the world?, why not quote them?
buy let us look at genocide one data point at a time
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_prince_philip.html
i really woonder about you.
let us consider hung up on labels. I agree nominalism is not verty pretty. But if a guy in the 21th century, probably usa, talks about professional structural engineers with a contemporary context, it seems fair to think about what professional has meant in the USA for the past 200 years. and in spite of all your silliness, I was making the point that expertise can be based on something than say being a professional structural engineer. And i believe i said in my comment USA and i did that limit on purpose, so when you talk about a bridge being good in europe or a roman empire guy, there is a bit of a subject change.
Now let us consider the nitpicking about 12o nations. your url did not talk at all about the number nations and did not mention the g77, which he was representing. from the name, you could be forgiven for thinking he only represented 77 nations, but I have given up on forgiving you. So try this. http://www.g77.org/doc/members.html
looks like from that you might think he represented 130 nations, but as I recall in what i read it was more like 127. 120 was selected by me to be conservative.
just glancing at the parent, you seem to want to label emperical knowledge as science. I guess if you label it, it is.
now about the not enough money to pay for the coffins quoting. I think i misusedd the quote, just as you say.
oh on wire rope, John the father in law introduced wire rope to the USA and wire rope was a big part of his bridges. before that, I guess they used hemp rope in a similar way, and, at least to our modern sensibilities, we would not be surprised if the bridges soon fell down.
hmm, you seem like a good enough guy, but the conversation is "odd". oops, there i go again!
in passing, it is a little flakey to talk about professionalism, pre 1820. that is about when, hmm, harvard, implemented the concept around lawyers. a professionals praxis is positivism. and for engineers the idea is the scientist figure things out and the engineers apply it, and that is hard to do with out a quantative science base. you might think of a professional as someone with a certain attitude of responsibility to his client. but that does not have much with how I think of professional. and I vaguely have an engineering degress, MSE.
sometimes i use words in a deeper way than you do, sometime i try to be a bit funny, and then sometimes the words are intentional ambiguous, which is part of humor,and I expect sometime I am flakey.
as far as awg and genocide, hmm, that is easy to give an example of someone who says it and from a nice official position. at copenhagen, the sudan guy was repping over 120 nations. there was an offer of money to the countries he represented. He quipped " it is not enough money to pay for the coffins" so it looked like to him the awg policies would kill a lot of people
otherwise here is an overview of some of the population "control" proposals that surfaced around early copenhagen as the solution to awg
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12768
this is a reasoned response, but a minor and a major error need to be corrected.
The G77 is the name of the body and you might think there are 77 countries in it and you might be right. but the sudanese guy was representing over 120 countries and I said that already.
he was not complaining about a reduction in aid. the proposal was to give underdeveloped countries money to conform to awg policy dictates. this was basically anti-carbon emmissions, intrusively monitored, and also enforced. If you want to consider it this way, you could say that he said not enough money was being offered. but the better way is to say that he said anti-development policies will kill a lot of people.
so he did a quip for the media. He was talking about attempted genocide, but he was also funny in a dire way. You said something like People will still need stuff, even if it costs more.
So in the same way the quip was done, I used to respond to you. But if you need more serious, figure that if it costs more in Africa, people die.
majority of consumers. I have a hard time processing your remarks hear, perhaps because i am not a keynesian. I do not bother to call him an enemy, mainly because he was oh, morally complicated. but he was certainally fdr's enemy at bretton woods and fortunately fdr won. anyway, I do not process "consumer" very well. but if you care to talk about population, try adding up the population of china, india, brazil and the 120 countries sudan represented. remember, this population destroyed copenhagen
i think the next question was about the 1.5 quadrillion. it is likely no one really knows how much speculative crap there is out there. the number comes from the larouchies in the following way. they floated "up to 1 quadrillion dollars". a lot of wiggle room. and not particularly official. rather shortly it went to the rather precise and more official 1.5 quadrillion. I figure once they floated, someone gave them some insider information. but i never have asked and i probably would not get an answer on this anyway.
regarding who owes who. regarding usa mortgage speculation, some of it is difficult to decide even in a court. things got sloppy. but the basic answer as far as the financial oligarchy is concerned, "my ficticious assets need to be propped up by everyone" Currently the immeadiate source is sort of the taxpayer. and the brazilian carry trade. but the lives of the population are now on the line. You might look at the brutal austerity that is being demanded of greece. and then reflect on the economic purposes of awg policies.
scientific consensus: I think you are right regarding a comparision between man-made global cooling and awg. but i think talking about scientific consensus is a little unseemly. so we got some nonsense about himalayan glaciers into the ipcc report. so the chair lied on when he was told about it. (and makes a lot of money on this crap, but it is okay because he gives it all to a greenie outfit) but the real deal is a nice legit scientist gets quoted that he noticed this problem sometime ago but he was afraid to mention it. oh, and we have climategate talking about getting people fired. if you think scientific consensus is a big deal, you have a little bit going for you, but personally, I think pushing the consensus argument is a bit unseemly at this point.
and then i expect you need to deal with some people in the russian academy of science.
and some indian scientist types maybe
and i would be curious to know what sort of scientific advice on awg the chinese leadership is getting
hmm, I guess my post hit a sensitive point or two.
Here is something i cut and pasted from the parent.
Emily Warren Roebling [wikipedia.org] might not have had a formal education, but to say she was uneducated is laughable. Do you often talk about things you know nothing about?
This is kind of interesting. I talked about no structural engineers, no professional engineers, and no science base for the bridge building. But as i said, people manage to build bridges that did not fall down. This was pretty much a new thing. It was pretty much trial and error, so you would expect there had been some successes in the past to work from. so where did i say someone was uneducated? Odd, the way you seem to equate non-scientist to uneducated. oops, I have seen that somewhere before!
Regarding roebling (john, the father-in-law, who is better timed for my remark mid-century), i have heard of him before, because of his classical education and importance to the early usa. first of all, looks like his first bridge was 1844, pretty close to midcentury. looks he himself introduced the wire rope tech that made this sort of thing actually work, so i doubt things were working before then. Now he had a nice continental engineering training, although perhaps not the degree. But you know, I said "structural engineer" in exact quote of the original comment. I kind of think the original commenter wanted someone with a finite element software package. and if you do not have one, do not trust any bridge you build. I do not see any relationship between what i said and your complaint. sort of interesting.
and going on, another cut and paste
some people just like genocide.
Yeah just kill everyone you don't agree with, sounds reasonable to me.
i was talking about nwgers who explictly push genocide and giving an explanation for their behavior. it is impossible for me to find a basis for your claim that i approve of genocide in my post. so, once again, it is interesting that you come up with such stuff.
so i suppose it might be some sort of blocking thing, but i suspect it was quite conscious, after all, two in a row.
your next point might fit in this pattern too, but it is kind of a claim of no clarity and it could be true and in any case, i am too close to do an easy evaluation. i will leave it up to the other readers.
oh sure. I have no use for awg or even gw, but as long as we insist on talking in terms of those pale things called facts, we might as well try to get on the same page.
to me, a country's evaluation of a security issue has a very operational implication and in a strong way, a kind of operational consideration can give a fact more truth than some statistical argument. Here we have something that is moving toward true, not yet true, but there is an intention. as an example, consider einstein general relativity theory. I am more impressed by the successful use of the theory in a jovian space craft trajectory than say a mercury precession experiment.
your conclusion is correct. Russia is planning to do one nuclear power plant a week, the real deal, but it is not enough to replace fossil fuel, and you do not have to be an awger to think we should go away from fossil fuels, but it is interesting that most of them want silly stuff like solar, but rarely high energy density stuff like nuclear.
as far as population, one very close to the brit government and crown population think tank used awg to propose a reduction in projected population. looking at the detail, you might think they want to kill 3 billion people. but the economics is flakey, so if had of done awg policies, we would get 5 billion dead. we still may get that, but things are hopeful.
when talking about big time genocide, it is always appropriate to remember, who was it, prince phillip "I want to be reincarnated as a deadly virus". rather consistent that the queen bitch crawled out from under her rock to claim world leadership and demand the commonwealth nations toe the awg line. australia seems to have had some issues.
ah my. History.
I subscribed to scientific american for a long time, since high school. In the maybe 80's an emminent scientist type had a awg article therein. The body pushed awg real heavily, but a sensible person pays attention to the actual conclusions. It was just a claim for variabilty. given the obvious editorial position of the mag, i let the sub lapse.
looking a few years later, to your children's book, I wonder how much science there was to back it up. This is not particularly about the current issues about the science, just a little time traveling.
safe side:
quip from the rep of say 120 nations at copenhagen, on the bribes offered the underdeveloped nations: not enough to pay for the coffins.
oh ell, some people just like genocide.
i think the comments on this story have exceeded 800. High volume.
Here is a easy way to respond to your people need stuff: no people.
So looking at copenhagen, sudan was chair of g77 and their negotiator was representing maybe 120 nations. Now part of the proposal was for africa to cut development in exchange for some bribes. the sudanese guy had a nice quip: the money is not enough to pay for the coffins.
A lot of awg want to say this is science and leave it to the priesthood. but there are other approaches than science to a question. the awgers like to complain about politics getting into it, for instance, often with probably valid populist slanders on big oil. but here is an interesting story.
in the 70's there was a priesthood guy push man-made global cooling. some people were pushing that back then. when awg came out, he switched quickly to that position. One wonders how the data changed. later he appears in the climategate files in 2003 telling Phil that everyone must be a "true believer" in global warming. 2003 is kind of an interesting date. it is well before awg was very news worthy. Now he is obama's science czar and still pushing awg. so do you trust him as either a scientist or a politician?
so i figure empire types have been fighting the idea of national sovereignty since nicholaus of cusa. Note that was the formal issue copenhagen went down on. what else do empires go for? they hate real tech progress. we have already touched on genocide. for the past couple of millennia the western civ variety have been monetarist.
so you want to know where the wealth goes. There is sort of a paradox. The 1.5 quadrillion dollars in derivatives need all the wealth in the world to support its fictecious value. but on the one hand there is not enough wealth to do this and on the other hand, the unpayable debt collapses the physical economy so the amount of wealth decreases.
I heard a good joke. suppose I have one dollar. I mortgage it out completely and to 1 million people. Wow, now there a million dollars in assets floating around. :-)
times like this you get a lot of crazy stuff. you bought off on awg. the oligarch faction in russian around the finance minister bought off on BRIC. Both approaches are clearly history. Now these people have no options. I like it.
the IPCC prediction is of course unreliable. but it looks to me that there is some melting of himalayan glaciers. the reason I say that is that India recently opened up their own climate research section in the government. They did this because the awg stuff is so suspect. But himalayan glacier melt is a national water security issue and the indians think the glaciers are melting and maybe uncomfortable fast. but there is really no data of much of any kind. so they are going to get some. check back in ten years.
I saw some gloss that the Russian government came out last week in some way against awg. It has been pretty obvious to them for some time. Political leaders would talk to academy of science types and talk publically about what they heard. As I recall, they did not hear pro-awg cant.:-) so much for scientific consensus. the real question is the timing. I think it is because of the collapse of the BRIC strategy last week.
funny, mid 19th century america, we finally started to figure out how to build bridges that did not fall down. not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized, so almost by definition, there was no "science" in sight
awg is happily dead. I exerted myself quite a bit around copenhagen and maybe i did just a little bit of good. so I think it is time to do the post-mortem. sure we need to get rid of a lot of political types in the usa and elsewhere who have not got the word yet. some people just like genocide.
so how do we avoid another awg? One issue that comes to mind and is really obvious is the "settled", "consensus", "petition" stuff. people on both sides play at this on slashdot even. It looks to me that even "scientists" play at it and not even on just awg. what do you think?
oops, "preceive", maybe you are pushing sense-certainity, naughty naughty