Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but we are not talking about legislation here. We are talking about regulation given the force of law without going through the legislative process. And the justification Congress always gives for abdicating their responisibilty to enact legislation in these cases is because the matters require far more technical expertise than Congresscritters can reasonably be expected to possess. This is not an unreasonable argument.
So, they create a bureaucracy which is supposedly composed of people with the technical expertise to craft regulations that will address those technical details specifically. And further, said bureaucrats can always change those rules to prevent obsolesence rather than waiting to see how the judicial system will rewrite them later.
I'd favor keeping the bureaucrats, but requiring their proposed regulations to be subject to a straight up/down vote in Congress (no committess, no amendments - Congress admits they can't be expected to be experts in these areas) and from there presented to the President like any other proposed bill.
So 29 bucks a month or so for DISH, plus an additional charge for streaming - with rather limited choices and even more limited choices on DVD by mail? Somehow my wallet just ain't feeling the love yet.
If you feel that CA is a clusterfuck, and you leave, then please re-examine you "pretty liberal" mindset and make sure it is not going to cause you to try and turn your new residence into the same kind of clusterfuck.
CA didn't get into its current sorry condition overnight - and I'm pretty sure the majority of Californians 20 years ago did not think they were voting for what they have now.
Umm.. But if they read the obits, then they would know who was dead. And if they subsequently went to their polling place to vote and happened to see the name of a person whose obit they had read on the voting rolls their heads might explode.
Unless the name on the voting roll was Samuel Clemens of course. Or maybe it would be OK if they were in Chicago.
First, I said "Leaf" as in Nissans new electirc car, not "Leap". Second, please run a level 3 diagnostic on your sarcasm detectors - they appear to be malfunctioning
Re: demoting CA.
I did say "almost every" not every. Of course in this I refer to the "law" of common sense which has an ever decreasing influence upon the political class. There is no precedent and no process for the federal government to "un-annex" a state after all. But there are serious questions to be answered about how to deal with CA and the other states that are not even trying to clean up their budgetary messes.
But if a person exhibited the sort of behavior the "state" of CA is demonstrating, it is highly likely that person would be declared incompetent and possibly institutionalized (or wind up living under a freeway begging from motorists). If CA is to become a ward of the federal government because it is unable to get its fiscal house in order, why should they continue to have any say in how the federal budget is allocated?
Or look at it this way - what legal right does CA invoke to require the rest of the nation's taxpayers to pay their debts for them?
If they have such a right, what is to stop them from continuing to rack up ever higher debts?
What will happen to a taxpayer in Kansas (for example) who declines to pay taxes to make the pension fund of the CA prison guard's union whole?
Re: About the Leaf (not Leap) leading to serfdom:
No I don't think the social engineering idiots in CA are really that devious - that was mostly tongue in cheek. The only serious question is how stupid are they to still be playing susbsidy games when they are reduced to issuing IOUs to pay their current bills. They should be looking at ways to cut their outlays not find more ways to spend money they do not have.
This would in almost every legal sense demote California from State to Territory or perhaps Protectorate. As such, they would at best qualify for a single non-voting representative in Congress (No Senators at all). Also no votes in the Electoral College. As this would disenfranchise around 10% of the entire population of th ecountry, expect trouble.
If chicanery is used to preserve CA as a state expect much more widespread trouble as the folks in the rest of the country have no particular desire to pay extra taxes to fund the bloated pensions of the parasites infesting California's public servant labor unions (teachers and prison guards for example). Nor will we be thrilled at paying the additional Leaf subsidy.
So, in keeping with a rather dismal view of CA's future, I would expect that the Leaf will get every benefit the political class in CA can heap upon them while anything with an internal combustion engine will wind up being further penalized to help pay for the subsidies being given to the Leaf.
But the real reason the pols are encouraging folks to buy the Leaf is because the politcal class recognizes that folks who drive a Leaf will not be able to pack up and leave - not with a max range of 100 miles followed by a very long recharge cycle. It could take them many days to make it from the coast to the eastern border of the state - assuming they can find charging stations at all. In short, if you buy a Leaf, you have just self-defined yourself as a serf - actually a slave - as you have renounced the "Right of Departure" all serfs enjoyed.
Back in th e90's Japan developed a process to extract uranium from seawater at a cost of around $90 a pound. The market price for uranium at that time was around $40-$50 a pound.
Fuel costs are a minor component of the total cost per kwh from a nuke plant.
Even if uranium from seawater costs twice as much as uranium from a hole in the ground, it could still be used without requiring either massive subsidies or massive rate hikes as happens if a coal or gas fired plant finds its fuel costs doubled.
Using the tax code to influence behavior is evil. Allow taxes only for revenue generation and you prune back government corruption considerably. When you allow the tax code to be used for "social engineering" (as it is in the US), you have to consider just who the "engineers" are.
I'll see your 537 politicians and raise you 9 SCOTUS justices and a half dozen Cabinet Secretaries. Or were you under the impression that these folks are not politicians as well?
No, it means that the response of the govenrment to a "cyber 9/11" will have about the same effect as their response to 9/11. Except that they are trying to be proactive and have their response sytem set up in advance.
Remember that the response of the government to 9/11 was to sieze control of airport security and turn it over to the Theatrical Society of America. To help prevent potential hijackings the government could have required flight deck personnel to be armed - instead they prohibited it. They could have tried educating people to respond differently in a hijacking situation - instead they made regulations about the size of a plastic baggie that could be used to hold small bottles of liquids. It also gave us the USA PATRIOT Act which has been 100% effective in stopping terrorist attacks using IEDs made with home-made methamphetamines.
Kind of like sending oil sucking barges back to the dock due to a potential lack of lifejackets and fire extinguishers. Or deciding that sand berms already under construction should be stopped until a "decider" could "decide" on a better place for them.
So, in short, the government will "protect" us from a cyber 9/11 by doing more damage than the attackers could ever dream of. Except this time, they will do it first and then the "cyber terrorists" will find some other way to cause damage. But we will never find out about it becasue the kill switch will stop us. It sure sounds like the "kill switch" will become the single point of failure.
Your car (lets call it a Toyota for fun) mysteriously accelerates causing you to crash into someone. The government says no new cars may be manufactured until the problem is fixed. Should Toyota have to pick up the payroll for Ford, GM, Volkswagen, SAAB, Honda, and Hyundai until the government lifts their moratorium? How about the employees of the subcontractors like Owens-Corning or Firestone?How about the employees of the car dealers? The repair shops? The auto insurance companies?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..
Note the wording here refers very specifically to a State - and not a Nation. Given that the Constitution defines and limits the powers of Federal Government, one should not get so hung up on the militia part that one ignores the State and People.
If Arizona had a well regulated militia, it would be free to use that militia to secure its southern border until relieved by Federal troops, and we would not be having this argument over their SB1070. The failure to use Federal troops for this purpose is what you get from a deliberate decision to treat border security as a law-enforcement issue rather than a national security issue. A distinction which is only applied to our land borders - the Coast Guard is a military organization and seems to somehow operate in spite of Posse Comiatus (sp).
"these people seem to be a bunch of morons.." Interesting phrasing there. Why do they "seem to be" as opposed to "are"?
Personally, I find that morons, idiots, and imbeciles are not restricted to any particluar political persuasion, rather they become affiliated with a political movement from exposure to a persuasive person with a desire to convince them. Given that morons, idiots, and imbeciles by definition are not very bright, they may not need much convincing.
"who want lower taxes and lower spending" That is not quite an accurate statement of the Tea Party goals. But from it,I assume that you are in favor of higher taxes and higher spending. If so, do you have an example of a country that has higher taxes and spending that you would consider a good role model? I'm not going to suggest that you move there, just fix that country in your mind and ask yourself what would be necessary to do the same sort of thing in the US. Does your model country have better social services? If so, what are the requirements for receiving them? Does your model country spend a significantly lower percentage of their GDP on their military? If so, are they dependent upon another nation for any portion of their own defense? Does your model country have a democratically elected government? If so, how many political parties and how do candidates get on the ballot?
And one other question: Assuming no changes to your model country, would you want to live there? If not, why do you want to change the US to be more like that country? If so, why change the US - shouldn't there be room for diversity among nations?.
And no, the Tea Party is not the same as the GOP. What the Tea party is, is a "good government" movement. Whether it will last long enough to be effective in attaining its goals is yet to be determined.
I remember the year when Slashdot set all manner of cookies with names like "mothersmaidenname", "creditcardnumbers" and "bankinginfo". That was a good April Fools joke.
This is something everyone loves to clobber the US with, but it is a case of "statistics" - as in "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Before comparing the mortality rates of different countries, it is helpful to know just what the numbers actually represent. For example, in the US, an infant born at 28 weeks (two months premature) who then dies soon after birth is counted as an infant mortality. This is not the case in countries with "better" child mortality rates.
As to the bill itself, it might make some folks feel good, but it does not address the cturcural problems with the healthcare industry. I understand it will take 4 years before it really kicks in - for good or bad, but: 1> many docors have stated their intent to cease practicing under the new law for economic reasons 2> medical school takes 8 years and considerable money (and generally massive debt) 3> We already have a shortage of doctors (and nurses as well)
At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."
You fail to understand how govenrment works. They will not re-assign "US Tarde Reps" from their vital-to-national-security role in the ongoing ACTA negotiations. They will simply hire more "US Trade Reps" and raise taxes to pay for them. Since this will also mean at least the appearance of increased taxes on Disneywood, Disneywood will move more jobs offshore AND raise prices on their fine products. The increased local unemployment will require local govenrments to hire more workers to deal with the unemployment claims so they will also have to raise taxes.
I think these petty (WTO) squabbles would be better resolved via bikini jello rass'ln. It would certainly be a classier form of entertainment.
As I said, "by current standards" TJ would be considered cruel and brutal.
Rape also has a different definition now than it did back then. I suspect we may both be "traditionalists" in the definition we use, but it is not the one the law uses.
Now it is "rape" whenever the female decides it was rape - and that includes changing her mind after the act. There was a very recent case where a man was released after 8 years in prison for rape. The accuser falsified her story because the friends whe went clubbing with were angry that she ditched them when she picked up the guy. What is the appropriate penalty for perjury in such a case?
Child molestation? Consider Traci Lords. Every X-rated movie she made (except the very last one) she made while she was a minor. So should every one of her "co-stars" be castrated? After all, not only would all of those sexual acts be rape, they would also count as child molestation. Back in that time frame (she started at age 15) she was one of the most famous of the adult stars and made a great many films. And further, trailers for her films wound up on other films - this caused a major headache for video stores at the time.
Yes, he really said every 20 years, I did not drop a zero. But you have to remeber that TJ was a revolutionary fellow - and by current standards quite cruel and brutal. For example he advocated castration as the proper punishment for rape
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure
All we have to do is determine who is going to fill those roles...(It looks like Congress in general has been nominated for the role of tyrants)
Of course, old TJ also felt that armed rebellion was a good thing - something that should perhaps happen every 20 years or so. And he also felt that the Constitution should probably be changed at like intervals.
Since I personally am not trying out for the role of patriotic martyr, I'm going for voting against the incumbents first. Even though my rep and senators are supposed to be good guys, they have been there too long and the taint of DC is heavy upon em.
So, you would "double down" on consensus science? I am in agreement with you in general principle, but I expect that your "scientists" will still be comprised of mostly people. People have a distressing tendency to alter their interpetation of reality when money/power/celebrity is shoveled on them. I expect that far too many scientists have been corrupted (to either side) to ever achieve your 90% target.
But, I offer an alternative methodology to your blind trust in scientists:
Let one or more scientists develop a theory to explain the overall planetary climate: 1> This theory must not only predict what the climate is going to do, but must explain how it deals with the all the data used in reaching their conclusion. This includes any data that might suggest different outcomes. 2> The theory must be able to predict how a proposed change in the environment will affect their outcome.(ie reduce human GHG output by 10%, hold it steady, or triple it). 3> all data involved must be made available - anything excluded must be noted as such and why. 4> the theory must be capable of accounting for past climate changes as well. (able to "predict" the Medieval Warming Period for example) 5> The limits to the theory must be explained as well (interaction with other GHGs limit the maximum effect of CO2 on temperatures at "X" concentration) 6> The theory must be written in language that can be followed by a reader of the National Enquirer - or at least a reasonably educated fifth grader with an IQ of 100. (skipping past the actual equations, but there must be a clear and detailed prose explanation of what the equations show)That means that our non-scienttist reader will still be able to ask informed questions if they have developed the ability to engage in rational thought.
Evidence? I had the evidence, but I seem to have misplaced it. Hey if you think it works for Phil Jones then you must accept what I say as equally valid.
Climate science is about the long haul. 15 years is a drop in the bucket. The Earth has been continuously warming, there is no doubt about that.
Once we actually have climate science, it wil be about the long haul. Right now we have a bunch of power hungry nutjobs with political power dangling grant money in front of people claiming to be scientists. The Earth has not been continuosly warming. If it were even at 1 degree C per century, then the entire planet would have been a frozen snowball (- 30 C average temperature) a mere 6000 years ago. It would have been at near absolute zero less than 30K years ago. It would be kind of hard on T-Rex to get around and even if he did, he'd break his teeth on the hard frozen flesh of his prey.
So let's lose the "continuously warming" and "no doubt about it" nonsense. The reason Phil Jones et al have got to be considered discredited is becasue they ignored incovenient data. He and the folks at the CRU and Hansen at NASA set themselves out as theoreticians and promptly cherry picked the data they would use to support their "theory". A scientific theory is not like a legal/political theory. A scientific theory has to account for all the data - if it does not it is not much of a theory. It is certainly not sufficient to justify the political chicanery that is happening as a result.
Note that I consider the promoters of "climate change" aka global warming to be discredited. That is the people invloved have been corrupted and their opinions should not be considered in serious policy discussions. We need some real scientists that can come up with a useable (ie capable of predicting) theory - and not one that denies the Medival Warm Period in order to fit the data into a hickey stick curve. We will know we have such a theory when it can be tested by its ability to "predict" temperature/climate trends for any given 500 year period. I expect it to be able take into account the effects of cloud cover and solar activity as well as volcanic activity (all items beyond the capability of the current "models" that are being used by the corrupted climate charlatans. We have other "sciences" that ignore data because the theory says something else "should" happen. They are also generally heavily involved in politics and have degenerated into arguments about what data should be looked at much like lawyers try to get evidence disallowed in a court case.
Go read up on the history of Einstein's General Relativity. He didn't come up with a theory that said that graivity bends light. He came up with a theory that predicted how much light would bend and suggested experiments to gather data that would support or refute his theory. And when the first experimental data came back it did not match his predictions. He revised his theory accordingly - he did not revise the data.
IBM would certainly find productive uses for that amount of capital, but part of it would be paying for the mandatory retirement of their US R&D people who did not want to move to India.
"not just the outsourcing for cheap labor." (note to mods - before modding check for whoshing sounds)
Well, that was may have been a mistake on the Administration's part. I think that they may have let a crisis go to waste here:
As I see it, those development jobs would have been better handled by civil servants. I'm just pulling numbers out of my umm...hat here, but I figure 2 or 3 GS8-9s could be easily as productive as a single offshore contractor. And since the stated purpose of the project is to help with the US employment problems the Administration could point to actual jobs being created right here in the US - and even back them up with being located in real Congressional Districts with real zip codes. Not only would these be US jobs, but the taxes those employees would pay would exceed the cost of the offshore programmer so it would help to reduce the deficit.
To really get things moving, the project could even set up a pilot training program to turn dipslaced auto workers and investment bankers into web developers (perhaps even becoming certified Front Page developers) so there would be more civil service positions in an embryonic Department of Re-training - who would in turn pay even more taxes. The instructors could be hired from the displaced programmers in Michigan(?) who were left high and dry when that state offshored development work on their unemployment system.
And if Obama had a political strategist even half as good as Karl Rove, there would already be emergency relocations of the re-trainers and the displaced workers to politically "sensitive" areas where they could be counted on to vote properly. These relocations would have to be carried out using union labor which would mean more teamsters paying more taxes.
And in a worst case scenario, the project could always quietly (for reasons of national security) hire offshore contractors to do the actual work - after all the civil servants are paying more than enough in taxes to offset the cost of hiring them.
So, in conclusion, it looks pretty bad, but I think some actual data is needed. I further believe we have an actual way of determining if this is a real problem or not. If Bo (the WH dog) is walking funny, then yes it is indeed worse than anyone could imagine. Otherwise it's one of those "move along - nothing to see here" things.
with apologies to your nick.. it appears we have a spazzed out moderator or more. OP was not a troll, TFA was rather lacking in information that might be of concern to anyone other than possibly a daytrader (the change in stock price).
Of course, your complaint about the troll mod was nothing more than flamebait - if you were trying to flame a spazzed out moderator. I expect the metamods will correct the issue even if it slips by the mods.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...
Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but we are not talking about legislation here. We are talking about regulation given the force of law without going through the legislative process. And the justification Congress always gives for abdicating their responisibilty to enact legislation in these cases is because the matters require far more technical expertise than Congresscritters can reasonably be expected to possess. This is not an unreasonable argument.
So, they create a bureaucracy which is supposedly composed of people with the technical expertise to craft regulations that will address those technical details specifically. And further, said bureaucrats can always change those rules to prevent obsolesence rather than waiting to see how the judicial system will rewrite them later.
I'd favor keeping the bureaucrats, but requiring their proposed regulations to be subject to a straight up/down vote in Congress (no committess, no amendments - Congress admits they can't be expected to be experts in these areas) and from there presented to the President like any other proposed bill.
So 29 bucks a month or so for DISH, plus an additional charge for streaming - with rather limited choices and even more limited choices on DVD by mail? Somehow my wallet just ain't feeling the love yet.
If you feel that CA is a clusterfuck, and you leave, then please re-examine you "pretty liberal" mindset and make sure it is not going to cause you to try and turn your new residence into the same kind of clusterfuck.
CA didn't get into its current sorry condition overnight - and I'm pretty sure the majority of Californians 20 years ago did not think they were voting for what they have now.
Umm.. But if they read the obits, then they would know who was dead. And if they subsequently went to their polling place to vote and happened to see the name of a person whose obit they had read on the voting rolls their heads might explode.
Unless the name on the voting roll was Samuel Clemens of course.
Or maybe it would be OK if they were in Chicago.
First, I said "Leaf" as in Nissans new electirc car, not "Leap".
Second, please run a level 3 diagnostic on your sarcasm detectors - they appear to be malfunctioning
Re: demoting CA.
I did say "almost every" not every. Of course in this I refer to the "law" of common sense which has an ever decreasing influence upon the political class. There is no precedent and no process for the federal government to "un-annex" a state after all. But there are serious questions to be answered about how to deal with CA and the other states that are not even trying to clean up their budgetary messes.
But if a person exhibited the sort of behavior the "state" of CA is demonstrating, it is highly likely that person would be declared incompetent and possibly institutionalized (or wind up living under a freeway begging from motorists). If CA is to become a ward of the federal government because it is unable to get its fiscal house in order, why should they continue to have any say in how the federal budget is allocated?
Or look at it this way - what legal right does CA invoke to require the rest of the nation's taxpayers to pay their debts for them?
If they have such a right, what is to stop them from continuing to rack up ever higher debts?
What will happen to a taxpayer in Kansas (for example) who declines to pay taxes to make the pension fund of the CA prison guard's union whole?
Re: About the Leaf (not Leap) leading to serfdom:
No I don't think the social engineering idiots in CA are really that devious - that was mostly tongue in cheek. The only serious question is how stupid are they to still be playing susbsidy games when they are reduced to issuing IOUs to pay their current bills. They should be looking at ways to cut their outlays not find more ways to spend money they do not have.
CA is too big to fail so the Feds step in?
This would in almost every legal sense demote California from State to Territory or perhaps Protectorate. As such, they would at best qualify for a single non-voting representative in Congress (No Senators at all). Also no votes in the Electoral College. As this would disenfranchise around 10% of the entire population of th ecountry, expect trouble.
If chicanery is used to preserve CA as a state expect much more widespread trouble as the folks in the rest of the country have no particular desire to pay extra taxes to fund the bloated pensions of the parasites infesting California's public servant labor unions (teachers and prison guards for example). Nor will we be thrilled at paying the additional Leaf subsidy.
So, in keeping with a rather dismal view of CA's future, I would expect that the Leaf will get every benefit the political class in CA can heap upon them while anything with an internal combustion engine will wind up being further penalized to help pay for the subsidies being given to the Leaf.
But the real reason the pols are encouraging folks to buy the Leaf is because the politcal class recognizes that folks who drive a Leaf will not be able to pack up and leave - not with a max range of 100 miles followed by a very long recharge cycle. It could take them many days to make it from the coast to the eastern border of the state - assuming they can find charging stations at all. In short, if you buy a Leaf, you have just self-defined yourself as a serf - actually a slave - as you have renounced the "Right of Departure" all serfs enjoyed.
Back in th e90's Japan developed a process to extract uranium from seawater at a cost of around $90 a pound. The market price for uranium at that time was around $40-$50 a pound.
Fuel costs are a minor component of the total cost per kwh from a nuke plant.
Even if uranium from seawater costs twice as much as uranium from a hole in the ground, it could still be used without requiring either massive subsidies or massive rate hikes as happens if a coal or gas fired plant finds its fuel costs doubled.
Using the tax code to influence behavior is evil. Allow taxes only for revenue generation and you prune back government corruption considerably. When you allow the tax code to be used for "social engineering" (as it is in the US), you have to consider just who the "engineers" are.
I'll see your 537 politicians and raise you 9 SCOTUS justices and a half dozen Cabinet Secretaries. Or were you under the impression that these folks are not politicians as well?
No, it means that the response of the govenrment to a "cyber 9/11" will have about the same effect as their response to 9/11. Except that they are trying to be proactive and have their response sytem set up in advance.
Remember that the response of the government to 9/11 was to sieze control of airport security and turn it over to the Theatrical Society of America. To help prevent potential hijackings the government could have required flight deck personnel to be armed - instead they prohibited it. They could have tried educating people to respond differently in a hijacking situation - instead they made regulations about the size of a plastic baggie that could be used to hold small bottles of liquids. It also gave us the USA PATRIOT Act which has been 100% effective in stopping terrorist attacks using IEDs made with home-made methamphetamines.
Kind of like sending oil sucking barges back to the dock due to a potential lack of lifejackets and fire extinguishers. Or deciding that sand berms already under construction should be stopped until a "decider" could "decide" on a better place for them.
So, in short, the government will "protect" us from a cyber 9/11 by doing more damage than the attackers could ever dream of. Except this time, they will do it first and then the "cyber terrorists" will find some other way to cause damage. But we will never find out about it becasue the kill switch will stop us. It sure sounds like the "kill switch" will become the single point of failure.
Your car (lets call it a Toyota for fun) mysteriously accelerates causing you to crash into someone. The government says no new cars may be manufactured until the problem is fixed. Should Toyota have to pick up the payroll for Ford, GM, Volkswagen, SAAB, Honda, and Hyundai until the government lifts their moratorium? How about the employees of the subcontractors like Owens-Corning or Firestone?How about the employees of the car dealers? The repair shops? The auto insurance companies?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..
Note the wording here refers very specifically to a State - and not a Nation. Given that the Constitution defines and limits the powers of Federal Government, one should not get so hung up on the militia part that one ignores the State and People.
If Arizona had a well regulated militia, it would be free to use that militia to secure its southern border until relieved by Federal troops, and we would not be having this argument over their SB1070. The failure to use Federal troops for this purpose is what you get from a deliberate decision to treat border security as a law-enforcement issue rather than a national security issue. A distinction which is only applied to our land borders - the Coast Guard is a military organization and seems to somehow operate in spite of Posse Comiatus (sp).
"these people seem to be a bunch of morons.."
Interesting phrasing there. Why do they "seem to be" as opposed to "are"?
Personally, I find that morons, idiots, and imbeciles are not restricted to any particluar political persuasion, rather they become affiliated with a political movement from exposure to a persuasive person with a desire to convince them. Given that morons, idiots, and imbeciles by definition are not very bright, they may not need much convincing.
"who want lower taxes and lower spending"
That is not quite an accurate statement of the Tea Party goals. But from it,I assume that you are in favor of higher taxes and higher spending. If so, do you have an example of a country that has higher taxes and spending that you would consider a good role model? I'm not going to suggest that you move there, just fix that country in your mind and ask yourself what would be necessary to do the same sort of thing in the US.
Does your model country have better social services?
If so, what are the requirements for receiving them?
Does your model country spend a significantly lower percentage of their GDP on their military?
If so, are they dependent upon another nation for any portion of their own defense?
Does your model country have a democratically elected government?
If so, how many political parties and how do candidates get on the ballot?
And one other question:
Assuming no changes to your model country, would you want to live there?
If not, why do you want to change the US to be more like that country?
If so, why change the US - shouldn't there be room for diversity among nations?.
And no, the Tea Party is not the same as the GOP. What the Tea party is, is a "good government" movement. Whether it will last long enough to be effective in attaining its goals is yet to be determined.
I remember the year when Slashdot set all manner of cookies with names like "mothersmaidenname", "creditcardnumbers" and "bankinginfo". That was a good April Fools joke.
now get off my lawn.
This is something everyone loves to clobber the US with, but it is a case of "statistics" - as in "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Before comparing the mortality rates of different countries, it is helpful to know just what the numbers actually represent. For example, in the US, an infant born at 28 weeks (two months premature) who then dies soon after birth is counted as an infant mortality. This is not the case in countries with "better" child mortality rates.
As to the bill itself, it might make some folks feel good, but it does not address the cturcural problems with the healthcare industry. I understand it will take 4 years before it really kicks in - for good or bad, but:
1> many docors have stated their intent to cease practicing under the new law for economic reasons
2> medical school takes 8 years and considerable money (and generally massive debt)
3> We already have a shortage of doctors (and nurses as well)
That is an example of a stuctural problem.
At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."
You fail to understand how govenrment works. They will not re-assign "US Tarde Reps" from their vital-to-national-security role in the ongoing ACTA negotiations. They will simply hire more "US Trade Reps" and raise taxes to pay for them. Since this will also mean at least the appearance of increased taxes on Disneywood, Disneywood will move more jobs offshore AND raise prices on their fine products. The increased local unemployment will require local govenrments to hire more workers to deal with the unemployment claims so they will also have to raise taxes.
I think these petty (WTO) squabbles would be better resolved via bikini jello rass'ln. It would certainly be a classier form of entertainment.
As I said, "by current standards" TJ would be considered cruel and brutal.
Rape also has a different definition now than it did back then. I suspect we may both be "traditionalists" in the definition we use, but it is not the one the law uses.
Now it is "rape" whenever the female decides it was rape - and that includes changing her mind after the act. There was a very recent case where a man was released after 8 years in prison for rape. The accuser falsified her story because the friends whe went clubbing with were angry that she ditched them when she picked up the guy. What is the appropriate penalty for perjury in such a case?
Child molestation? Consider Traci Lords. Every X-rated movie she made (except the very last one) she made while she was a minor. So should every one of her "co-stars" be castrated? After all, not only would all of those sexual acts be rape, they would also count as child molestation. Back in that time frame (she started at age 15) she was one of the most famous of the adult stars and made a great many films. And further, trailers for her films wound up on other films - this caused a major headache for video stores at the time.
Yes, he really said every 20 years, I did not drop a zero.
But you have to remeber that TJ was a revolutionary fellow - and by current standards quite cruel and brutal. For example he advocated castration as the proper punishment for rape
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure
All we have to do is determine who is going to fill those roles...(It looks like Congress in general has been nominated for the role of tyrants)
Of course, old TJ also felt that armed rebellion was a good thing - something that should perhaps happen every 20 years or so. And he also felt that the Constitution should probably be changed at like intervals.
Since I personally am not trying out for the role of patriotic martyr, I'm going for voting against the incumbents first. Even though my rep and senators are supposed to be good guys, they have been there too long and the taint of DC is heavy upon em.
So, you would "double down" on consensus science?
I am in agreement with you in general principle, but I expect that your "scientists" will still be comprised of mostly people. People have a distressing tendency to alter their interpetation of reality when money/power/celebrity is shoveled on them. I expect that far too many scientists have been corrupted (to either side) to ever achieve your 90% target.
But, I offer an alternative methodology to your blind trust in scientists:
Let one or more scientists develop a theory to explain the overall planetary climate:
1> This theory must not only predict what the climate is going to do, but must explain how it deals with the all the data used in reaching their conclusion. This includes any data that might suggest different outcomes.
2> The theory must be able to predict how a proposed change in the environment will affect their outcome.(ie reduce human GHG output by 10%, hold it steady, or triple it).
3> all data involved must be made available - anything excluded must be noted as such and why.
4> the theory must be capable of accounting for past climate changes as well. (able to "predict" the Medieval Warming Period for example)
5> The limits to the theory must be explained as well (interaction with other GHGs limit the maximum effect of CO2 on temperatures at "X" concentration)
6> The theory must be written in language that can be followed by a reader of the National Enquirer - or at least a reasonably educated fifth grader with an IQ of 100. (skipping past the actual equations, but there must be a clear and detailed prose explanation of what the equations show)That means that our non-scienttist reader will still be able to ask informed questions if they have developed the ability to engage in rational thought.
Evidence? I had the evidence, but I seem to have misplaced it.
Hey if you think it works for Phil Jones then you must accept what I say as equally valid.
Climate science is about the long haul. 15 years is a drop in the bucket. The Earth has been continuously warming, there is no doubt about that.
Once we actually have climate science, it wil be about the long haul. Right now we have a bunch of power hungry nutjobs with political power dangling grant money in front of people claiming to be scientists. The Earth has not been continuosly warming. If it were even at 1 degree C per century, then the entire planet would have been a frozen snowball (- 30 C average temperature) a mere 6000 years ago. It would have been at near absolute zero less than 30K years ago. It would be kind of hard on T-Rex to get around and even if he did, he'd break his teeth on the hard frozen flesh of his prey.
So let's lose the "continuously warming" and "no doubt about it" nonsense. The reason Phil Jones et al have got to be considered discredited is becasue they ignored incovenient data. He and the folks at the CRU and Hansen at NASA set themselves out as theoreticians and promptly cherry picked the data they would use to support their "theory". A scientific theory is not like a legal/political theory. A scientific theory has to account for all the data - if it does not it is not much of a theory. It is certainly not sufficient to justify the political chicanery that is happening as a result.
Note that I consider the promoters of "climate change" aka global warming to be discredited. That is the people invloved have been corrupted and their opinions should not be considered in serious policy discussions. We need some real scientists that can come up with a useable (ie capable of predicting) theory - and not one that denies the Medival Warm Period in order to fit the data into a hickey stick curve. We will know we have such a theory when it can be tested by its ability to "predict" temperature/climate trends for any given 500 year period. I expect it to be able take into account the effects of cloud cover and solar activity as well as volcanic activity (all items beyond the capability of the current "models" that are being used by the corrupted climate charlatans. We have other "sciences" that ignore data because the theory says something else "should" happen. They are also generally heavily involved in politics and have degenerated into arguments about what data should be looked at much like lawyers try to get evidence disallowed in a court case.
Go read up on the history of Einstein's General Relativity. He didn't come up with a theory that said that graivity bends light. He came up with a theory that predicted how much light would bend and suggested experiments to gather data that would support or refute his theory. And when the first experimental data came back it did not match his predictions. He revised his theory accordingly - he did not revise the data.
IBM would certainly find productive uses for that amount of capital, but part of it would be paying for the mandatory retirement of their US R&D people who did not want to move to India.
"not just the outsourcing for cheap labor." (note to mods - before modding check for whoshing sounds)
Well, that was may have been a mistake on the Administration's part. I think that they may have let a crisis go to waste here:
As I see it, those development jobs would have been better handled by civil servants. I'm just pulling numbers out of my umm...hat here, but I figure 2 or 3 GS8-9s could be easily as productive as a single offshore contractor. And since the stated purpose of the project is to help with the US employment problems the Administration could point to actual jobs being created right here in the US - and even back them up with being located in real Congressional Districts with real zip codes. Not only would these be US jobs, but the taxes those employees would pay would exceed the cost of the offshore programmer so it would help to reduce the deficit.
To really get things moving, the project could even set up a pilot training program to turn dipslaced auto workers and investment bankers into web developers (perhaps even becoming certified Front Page developers) so there would be more civil service positions in an embryonic Department of Re-training - who would in turn pay even more taxes. The instructors could be hired from the displaced programmers in Michigan(?) who were left high and dry when that state offshored development work on their unemployment system.
And if Obama had a political strategist even half as good as Karl Rove, there would already be emergency relocations of the re-trainers and the displaced workers to politically "sensitive" areas where they could be counted on to vote properly. These relocations would have to be carried out using union labor which would mean more teamsters paying more taxes.
And in a worst case scenario, the project could always quietly (for reasons of national security) hire offshore contractors to do the actual work - after all the civil servants are paying more than enough in taxes to offset the cost of hiring them.
So, in conclusion, it looks pretty bad, but I think some actual data is needed. I further believe we have an actual way of determining if this is a real problem or not. If Bo (the WH dog) is walking funny, then yes it is indeed worse than anyone could imagine. Otherwise it's one of those "move along - nothing to see here" things.
with apologies to your nick..
it appears we have a spazzed out moderator or more.
OP was not a troll, TFA was rather lacking in information that might be of concern to anyone other than possibly a daytrader (the change in stock price).
Of course, your complaint about the troll mod was nothing more than flamebait - if you were trying to flame a spazzed out moderator. I expect the metamods will correct the issue even if it slips by the mods.