The model falls apart once applied to government of any size, however...
Except of course for the countries of France, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden...AND THE US...basically the majority of the western world. Again you spread the myth of small government. Again, you wont stop spouting ignorance. In fact the sole purpose, indeed the very DEFINITION, of "government" is a body that represents the collective will of the populace to enact and achieve common goals that are unachievable on any lesser scale.
This is just a short list of what government has done for you: -roads -electricity -computers -communications (postal, telephone AND internet)-space travel -national defense -extended lifespans -extended standards of living -navigation (important for trade, and included: Cartography, GIS, surveying, Loran, GPS) -weather/climate/ocean science (NOAA) -food safety -medical research -product safety
Basically the gist is this: to see life before big government, go back to the 1870s to 1900s...and see how BAD life was with unregulated capitalism. Capitalism is great...except for its self-destructive tendencies. Unregulated capitalism is WHAT LED TO the development and populatrity of communism and rejection of capitalism.
make no mistake, social democracy and its bigger government and regulations, etc, ARE ALSO a response to unregulated capitalism, but rather than a rejection, it's an attempt to harness to positive side of it, and control/negate its negatives tendencies. and the best part is: IT WORKED. we work fewer hours, more productively and in safer work environments, we dont have to work til the day we day, we have more rights and liberties, more control over our destiny, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, our rivers no longer catch on fire, comapnies aren't free (or less free anyway, in West virginia..) to dump chemicals into the water supply, food is safer to eat, we've gone to space when there was no profit motive, we've created vast netowrks of communication that enable and spread freedom...
basically, the short of it is this: you're an idiot who neither knows what he is talking about, nor appreciates just exactly how good he has it, BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.
you also apparently know nothing about life in France: they work less and carry a higher standard of living with a comparable median income, with more (mandated) time off from work, lower debt burdens, fewer bankrupties (and NONE from medical bills or school tuition)....
ya. both you and jonboy need to stop spouting ignorance.
ok, again, you clearly know nothing about which you're talking. Venezuela, again, BAD EXAMPLE.
You keep mentioning France, but you clearly know NOTHING about the place. France...the average person in France works 30 hours a week, yet earns a median wage comparable to that in the US. they have far more time off as well (in all categories, PTO, sick time, vacation, and maternity/paternity leave). They also carry almost no personal debt, whereas the average american carries between 20 and 80% of their yearly income in debt...not including their home mortgage. healthcare is essentially free, and even the uninsured incur almost no financial burdens. pre-K is universal. college is too.
now you're citing china too....and again, you DONT KNOW what you're talking about. china is NOT capitalistic (apparently you have no clue what the word even means), nor is it an exmaple of "exist-get-paid" (and never was).
you are compeltely and totally clueless on this subject.
we dont have a resource problem. we have a distribution problem. and we will continue to do so as long as governments are too scared to do something about it.
and soviet russia and cuba are NOT examples of socialist capitalism. they arent examples of socialism at all. neither are they very good examples of communism, for all that they were labeled "communist".
as for asking France how it's doing...they would tell you they're doing great. -top notch comprehensive health care, at nearly zero out of pocket expenses (even UNinsured pregancies for foreigners only come to about $500!!) -free and garunteed college education -garunteed universal pre-K education for ALL children, starting at age 2 -no bankruptcys from medical bills or school tuition
as would germany, austria, switzerland, england. and they are. you may as well ask americans how that unregulated capitalism is doing for them...and ask people in both sides of the ocean whether they'd trade places with the other side (hint: americans would, but europeans would NOT)
so kindly take your ignorance and stuff it back in the hole of misinformation you call a mouth
1) every statement came from the source article, which you apaprently didnt even bother to read. 2) you left out the 2nd part of that comment, the idea that the studies arent automatically invalid. which is the point: they arent automatically invalid, but because the company's future depends on the outcome, a favorable outcome should be suspect. which is precisely why peer review and corroboration are so important. 3) you missed the point of the last statement. Yes, more long term studies need to be done. But the point was the EPA told the company with a financial stake in the outcomes to do it. THAT IS THE POINT. the EPA effectively straddled the fence, making a weak gesture that wont offend the giant company. they should have directed an independent lab to do the study.
i agree with you mostly, but i would dispute the notion that we are better off.
the economy is better off. in deed, it's never been better. Unemployment is back to the lowest levels since before the recession, stocks and investments have never been higher, nearly all the classic indicators are in the best shape they've ever been in. except for one thing: most folks dont think the economy is doing that great...and for them personally, it's NOT.
its a paradox, but its completely true: the economy is in the best shape its been in for years, and yet for most folks its the same as it's been since during or right after the recession.
the reason? because of the most disturbing statistic of all: nearly all the gains made during and since hte recession have gone to the infamous 1%.
so they not only profited off the recession, they effectively captured nearly the entire recovery.
"perception is reality", and while the economy is great, the right gets to make hay out of most folks having not fully recovered yet because for them, it hasn't, and they blame the president cause they dont any better. which of course plays right into the Koch brothers goals: they effectively get to eat their cake and have it too.
Timeline: Company has a pesticide, second in use only to Monsanto's roundup. Concerns begin to grow about the chemicals effect Scientist is hired by company to join panel of scientists evaluating chemical Scientist notes that frogs are being born hermaphroditic, or with multiple (excess) malformes testes. Scientist begins to feel uncofortable, held back, and pressured at company Scientist leaves, returns to university lab, and replicates experiment, getting same results Scientists presents findings to company again Company disputes findings as flawed, by using flawed arguments Scientist is warned to be paranoid because giant companies with billions in revenue have no problem squashing annoying bugs (pun intended) Company begins smear campaign against inconvenient scientist, buying search terms, following him, harassing him EPA holds hearings 17+ studies are presented. 12 from the company, all show no effect on frogs Scientist presents his fidnings, showing effects on frogs Other independent scientists present findings, corroborating the scientists findings Company settles class lawsuit, where details about its smear campaign come out
Sorry, there's more here than just someone trying to get famous. Essentially ANY STUDY done by a company with a financial stake in the result, showing the outcome the comapny favors must be considered suspect.
Logically, it isnt automatically (100% certainty) invalid...but historically they have consistently been invalid more often than not,as companies attempt to buy out the scientists and fund fraudulent studies. Tobacco is the most famous example.
And btw, when the hearings were over? The EPA proposed further study must be done...and told the company with a finanical stake in the outcome to do it.
on the contrary. sobriety checkpoints absolutely should be allowed. your sterotype of what a drunk does while driving is actually not representitive, and not sufficient in deterrence. reliance solely your method of capture simply does not work as a method of enforcement.
that's not to say all sobriety checkpoints are well executed or well planned. a proper checkpoint is at a natural chokepoint in travel for folks going from Point A (a bar or other establishment reliant on alcohol) to B (usually home). but lets remember that drunk driving kills over 11000 people yearly, which is one third of all traffic deaths. costs to the economy of over 50 billion dollars annually just in wrecks. the additional costs in lost labor, lost jobs, bankrupties, and lawyer fees arent known.
essentially there is no 4th violation in this. there is nothing to take back. you have no valid claim here. the public interest in preventing deaths and accidents from drunk driving is simply so overwhleming, and the courts agree. there is no better way to catch and prevent drunk driving.
you have no case. you might as well argue that speed traps (cop ons ide of the road) constitutes an unreasonable search since he's efectively tagging everyone who goes by (and yes people ahve tried to claim that, and no, that also doesn't fly in court).
a lot of speed traps are simply revenue generating gotchas. but not all of them! some places are legitimate safety hazards and keeping a cop there to get people to slow down is perfectly reasonable. also there are those individuals, we see them every day at rush hour, who given the chance WILL drive recklessly and at excessive speed,and those people are a hazard, and there is a public interest in preventing them from causing wrecks with their recklessness. and the cop sitting on the side of the rode with a radar gun helps keep them in check. that said, flashing your lights basically acheives the same goal, of slowing people down. no problem
but catching drunks? nope. totally a valid public interest in preventing that. drunk driving is a very hazardous thing, killing thousands of people a year. and i would disagree very much with the idea of warning drunks so they dont get caught. that's very much against the public interest, and very much enabling dangerous, reckless behaviour that WILL get someone hurt.
key word: unreasonable. preventing drunk drivers from driving is not unreasonable and is a VERY valid state and public interest. there really isnt any good argument in support of protecting drunk drivers from being caught.
it's "needed" because right now the comapny that would ownt he pipeline is forces to basically rent "space" in a competitors pipeline. thats why this is so absolutely silly. the existing pipes are already NOT at maximum capacity (no where close).
this is simply an oil company trying to increase its own infrastructure at the cost of US taxpayers, and ram it through by turning it into a political issue for wingnuts and Faux News to complain about. it is 100% manufactured.
and the hue and cry all started because someone noticed they wanted to route it through the acquifer under the great plains, where if it leaked it would contaminate the ground water for half the country, an environmental disaster of such magnitude that it would make the Deep Horizons spill look minor.
same old same old, private profits, public risk/costs.
most oil pipelines are underground, not above ground. i know everything thinks of the alaskan pipeline, but its unique specifically because of the engineering challenges due to being above ground. its the exception, not the rule.
and specifically, the XL was being routed not just underground, but actually THROUGH the underground acquifer in the middle of the continent, as in through the same layer of rock strata. the one that covers the entire great plains and midwest, and supplies basically all the irrigation for the agriculture covering half the continent. basically the single worst place to route a pipeline through, where if something happened it would cause the absolute most harm.
just like proponents keep forgetting that the XL isn't even needed, the existing pipelines from canada still aren't flowing at capacity, and the XL simply represents the attempts of one Canadian oil company to get the US to foot the cost of getting its own pipeline so it no longer has to use one owned by its competition?
all that aside...tell me, is the plan still to route it through the main acquifer of the continent, that supplies the water for half the nation and the majority of its agricultural crop (literally, the entire plains and midwest)? i seem to rememer that being one of the other major negatives of the proposal.
basically you dont know what you're talking about, and the only one boldly lying, is you.
the coral exists because the local rivers around there have these things called mangroves, that are one of the best natural filters on earth, such that they actually spew very little spoil into the open sea, especially compared to other river systems which dont have mangroves or similar natural filters.
the coral exists because the local rivers around there have these things called mangroves, that are one of the best natural filters on earth, such that they actually spew very little spoil into the open sea, especially compared to other river systems which dont have mangroves or similar natural filters.
people forget that coral is a very low energy animal, being one that's evolved to exist in what is essentially an aquatic desert as far as filter feeders are concerned: low caloric content, low nutrient content, etc etc. coral leads an existence very similar to that of desert dwelling plants that can take hundred and thousands of years to grow in very marginal conditions that can be upset quite easily.
this thread is not over 200 comments in size, many of which have already dealth with the exact things you mentioned, and why they are WRONG. you are wrong, and worse you are lazy for not even bothering to read before chiming in with the SAME wrong fact and illogic that have already been dismissed as ignorant. you are willfully ignorant.
you need to stop talking. you are compeltely and totally ignorant without the first hint of a clue of what you are spouting. if BS were worth money, you would be the Comstock Lode of BS.
dredging is commercially required for many things. ok fine. no problem there.
But then WHY must it be dumped on the most ecologically sensitive spot in the big wide open ocean?
go another several miles out and dump it in the deep ocean, where there is no coral, and the currents lead away from the tidal pull. process it with clinker and cement into brinks that wont stay suspended. it's not like they're hurtin for space or options.
so why THAT particular spot, where it can do the most harm? its almost as if its willful intent.
Slashdot Mirror
The model falls apart once applied to government of any size, however...
Except of course for the countries of France, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden...AND THE US...basically the majority of the western world. Again you spread the myth of small government. Again, you wont stop spouting ignorance. In fact the sole purpose, indeed the very DEFINITION, of "government" is a body that represents the collective will of the populace to enact and achieve common goals that are unachievable on any lesser scale.
This is just a short list of what government has done for you:
-roads
-electricity
-computers
-communications (postal, telephone AND internet)-space travel
-national defense
-extended lifespans
-extended standards of living
-navigation (important for trade, and included: Cartography, GIS, surveying, Loran, GPS)
-weather/climate/ocean science (NOAA)
-food safety
-medical research
-product safety
Basically the gist is this: to see life before big government, go back to the 1870s to 1900s...and see how BAD life was with unregulated capitalism. Capitalism is great...except for its self-destructive tendencies. Unregulated capitalism is WHAT LED TO the development and populatrity of communism and rejection of capitalism.
make no mistake, social democracy and its bigger government and regulations, etc, ARE ALSO a response to unregulated capitalism, but rather than a rejection, it's an attempt to harness to positive side of it, and control/negate its negatives tendencies. and the best part is: IT WORKED. we work fewer hours, more productively and in safer work environments, we dont have to work til the day we day, we have more rights and liberties, more control over our destiny, our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, our rivers no longer catch on fire, comapnies aren't free (or less free anyway, in West virginia..) to dump chemicals into the water supply, food is safer to eat, we've gone to space when there was no profit motive, we've created vast netowrks of communication that enable and spread freedom...
basically, the short of it is this: you're an idiot who neither knows what he is talking about, nor appreciates just exactly how good he has it, BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.
you also apparently know nothing about life in France: they work less and carry a higher standard of living with a comparable median income, with more (mandated) time off from work, lower debt burdens, fewer bankrupties (and NONE from medical bills or school tuition)....
ya. both you and jonboy need to stop spouting ignorance.
ok, again, you clearly know nothing about which you're talking.
Venezuela, again, BAD EXAMPLE.
You keep mentioning France, but you clearly know NOTHING about the place.
France...the average person in France works 30 hours a week, yet earns a median wage comparable to that in the US. they have far more time off as well (in all categories, PTO, sick time, vacation, and maternity/paternity leave). They also carry almost no personal debt, whereas the average american carries between 20 and 80% of their yearly income in debt...not including their home mortgage. healthcare is essentially free, and even the uninsured incur almost no financial burdens. pre-K is universal. college is too.
now you're citing china too....and again, you DONT KNOW what you're talking about. china is NOT capitalistic (apparently you have no clue what the word even means), nor is it an exmaple of "exist-get-paid" (and never was).
you are compeltely and totally clueless on this subject.
on what basis?
there is zero substantive logic to your statement.
if you had any concept of what it actually is you would not have said that thing you said.
we dont have a resource problem.
we have a distribution problem.
and we will continue to do so as long as governments are too scared to do something about it.
and soviet russia and cuba are NOT examples of socialist capitalism. they arent examples of socialism at all. neither are they very good examples of communism, for all that they were labeled "communist".
as for asking France how it's doing...they would tell you they're doing great.
-top notch comprehensive health care, at nearly zero out of pocket expenses (even UNinsured pregancies for foreigners only come to about $500!!)
-free and garunteed college education
-garunteed universal pre-K education for ALL children, starting at age 2
-no bankruptcys from medical bills or school tuition
as would germany, austria, switzerland, england. and they are.
you may as well ask americans how that unregulated capitalism is doing for them...and ask people in both sides of the ocean whether they'd trade places with the other side (hint: americans would, but europeans would NOT)
so kindly take your ignorance and stuff it back in the hole of misinformation you call a mouth
oh goody.
now when some jackass is driving around with the highbeams on, he can blind even more people, from a farther distance.
just what we needed.
Congratulations.
You're an idiot.
1) every statement came from the source article, which you apaprently didnt even bother to read.
2) you left out the 2nd part of that comment, the idea that the studies arent automatically invalid. which is the point: they arent automatically invalid, but because the company's future depends on the outcome, a favorable outcome should be suspect. which is precisely why peer review and corroboration are so important.
3) you missed the point of the last statement. Yes, more long term studies need to be done. But the point was the EPA told the company with a financial stake in the outcomes to do it. THAT IS THE POINT. the EPA effectively straddled the fence, making a weak gesture that wont offend the giant company. they should have directed an independent lab to do the study.
i agree with you mostly, but i would dispute the notion that we are better off.
the economy is better off. in deed, it's never been better. Unemployment is back to the lowest levels since before the recession, stocks and investments have never been higher, nearly all the classic indicators are in the best shape they've ever been in. except for one thing: most folks dont think the economy is doing that great...and for them personally, it's NOT.
its a paradox, but its completely true: the economy is in the best shape its been in for years, and yet for most folks its the same as it's been since during or right after the recession.
the reason? because of the most disturbing statistic of all: nearly all the gains made during and since hte recession have gone to the infamous 1%.
so they not only profited off the recession, they effectively captured nearly the entire recovery.
"perception is reality", and while the economy is great, the right gets to make hay out of most folks having not fully recovered yet because for them, it hasn't, and they blame the president cause they dont any better. which of course plays right into the Koch brothers goals: they effectively get to eat their cake and have it too.
Timeline:
Company has a pesticide, second in use only to Monsanto's roundup.
Concerns begin to grow about the chemicals effect
Scientist is hired by company to join panel of scientists evaluating chemical
Scientist notes that frogs are being born hermaphroditic, or with multiple (excess) malformes testes.
Scientist begins to feel uncofortable, held back, and pressured at company
Scientist leaves, returns to university lab, and replicates experiment, getting same results
Scientists presents findings to company again
Company disputes findings as flawed, by using flawed arguments
Scientist is warned to be paranoid because giant companies with billions in revenue have no problem squashing annoying bugs (pun intended)
Company begins smear campaign against inconvenient scientist, buying search terms, following him, harassing him
EPA holds hearings
17+ studies are presented.
12 from the company, all show no effect on frogs
Scientist presents his fidnings, showing effects on frogs
Other independent scientists present findings, corroborating the scientists findings
Company settles class lawsuit, where details about its smear campaign come out
Sorry, there's more here than just someone trying to get famous.
Essentially ANY STUDY done by a company with a financial stake in the result, showing the outcome the comapny favors must be considered suspect.
Logically, it isnt automatically (100% certainty) invalid...but historically they have consistently been invalid more often than not,as companies attempt to buy out the scientists and fund fraudulent studies. Tobacco is the most famous example.
And btw, when the hearings were over? The EPA proposed further study must be done...and told the company with a finanical stake in the outcome to do it.
on the contrary. sobriety checkpoints absolutely should be allowed. your sterotype of what a drunk does while driving is actually not representitive, and not sufficient in deterrence. reliance solely your method of capture simply does not work as a method of enforcement.
that's not to say all sobriety checkpoints are well executed or well planned. a proper checkpoint is at a natural chokepoint in travel for folks going from Point A (a bar or other establishment reliant on alcohol) to B (usually home). but lets remember that drunk driving kills over 11000 people yearly, which is one third of all traffic deaths. costs to the economy of over 50 billion dollars annually just in wrecks. the additional costs in lost labor, lost jobs, bankrupties, and lawyer fees arent known.
essentially there is no 4th violation in this. there is nothing to take back. you have no valid claim here. the public interest in preventing deaths and accidents from drunk driving is simply so overwhleming, and the courts agree. there is no better way to catch and prevent drunk driving.
you have no case. you might as well argue that speed traps (cop ons ide of the road) constitutes an unreasonable search since he's efectively tagging everyone who goes by (and yes people ahve tried to claim that, and no, that also doesn't fly in court).
bingo.
a lot of speed traps are simply revenue generating gotchas. but not all of them! some places are legitimate safety hazards and keeping a cop there to get people to slow down is perfectly reasonable. also there are those individuals, we see them every day at rush hour, who given the chance WILL drive recklessly and at excessive speed,and those people are a hazard, and there is a public interest in preventing them from causing wrecks with their recklessness. and the cop sitting on the side of the rode with a radar gun helps keep them in check. that said, flashing your lights basically acheives the same goal, of slowing people down. no problem
but catching drunks? nope. totally a valid public interest in preventing that. drunk driving is a very hazardous thing, killing thousands of people a year. and i would disagree very much with the idea of warning drunks so they dont get caught. that's very much against the public interest, and very much enabling dangerous, reckless behaviour that WILL get someone hurt.
key word: unreasonable.
preventing drunk drivers from driving is not unreasonable and is a VERY valid state and public interest.
there really isnt any good argument in support of protecting drunk drivers from being caught.
sorry, but this has been covered already in higher threads and you are wrong on almost all points.
it's "needed" because right now the comapny that would ownt he pipeline is forces to basically rent "space" in a competitors pipeline.
thats why this is so absolutely silly. the existing pipes are already NOT at maximum capacity (no where close).
this is simply an oil company trying to increase its own infrastructure at the cost of US taxpayers, and ram it through by turning it into a political issue for wingnuts and Faux News to complain about.
it is 100% manufactured.
and the hue and cry all started because someone noticed they wanted to route it through the acquifer under the great plains, where if it leaked it would contaminate the ground water for half the country, an environmental disaster of such magnitude that it would make the Deep Horizons spill look minor.
same old same old, private profits, public risk/costs.
the ground "under" the pipeline?
most oil pipelines are underground, not above ground. i know everything thinks of the alaskan pipeline, but its unique specifically because of the engineering challenges due to being above ground. its the exception, not the rule.
and specifically, the XL was being routed not just underground, but actually THROUGH the underground acquifer in the middle of the continent, as in through the same layer of rock strata. the one that covers the entire great plains and midwest, and supplies basically all the irrigation for the agriculture covering half the continent. basically the single worst place to route a pipeline through, where if something happened it would cause the absolute most harm.
just like proponents keep forgetting that the XL isn't even needed, the existing pipelines from canada still aren't flowing at capacity, and the XL simply represents the attempts of one Canadian oil company to get the US to foot the cost of getting its own pipeline so it no longer has to use one owned by its competition?
all that aside...tell me, is the plan still to route it through the main acquifer of the continent, that supplies the water for half the nation and the majority of its agricultural crop (literally, the entire plains and midwest)? i seem to rememer that being one of the other major negatives of the proposal.
basically you dont know what you're talking about, and the only one boldly lying, is you.
the coral exists because the local rivers around there have these things called mangroves, that are one of the best natural filters on earth, such that they actually spew very little spoil into the open sea, especially compared to other river systems which dont have mangroves or similar natural filters.
the coral exists because the local rivers around there have these things called mangroves, that are one of the best natural filters on earth, such that they actually spew very little spoil into the open sea, especially compared to other river systems which dont have mangroves or similar natural filters.
and?
its a bloody big ocean.
they arent hurting for space or options.
so naturally they pick the most ecologically sensitive location?!
it really does seem malicious in a sense.
people forget that coral is a very low energy animal, being one that's evolved to exist in what is essentially an aquatic desert as far as filter feeders are concerned: low caloric content, low nutrient content, etc etc. coral leads an existence very similar to that of desert dwelling plants that can take hundred and thousands of years to grow in very marginal conditions that can be upset quite easily.
this thread is not over 200 comments in size, many of which have already dealth with the exact things you mentioned, and why they are WRONG.
you are wrong, and worse you are lazy for not even bothering to read before chiming in with the SAME wrong fact and illogic that have already been dismissed as ignorant. you are willfully ignorant.
you need to stop talking.
you are compeltely and totally ignorant without the first hint of a clue of what you are spouting.
if BS were worth money, you would be the Comstock Lode of BS.
dredging is commercially required for many things. ok fine. no problem there.
But then WHY must it be dumped on the most ecologically sensitive spot in the big wide open ocean?
go another several miles out and dump it in the deep ocean, where there is no coral, and the currents lead away from the tidal pull. process it with clinker and cement into brinks that wont stay suspended. it's not like they're hurtin for space or options.
so why THAT particular spot, where it can do the most harm?
its almost as if its willful intent.
mod this guy up