Sure then call "World League Baseball" "US League Baseball" while we are being honest.
People in Glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
I have never heard of "World League Baseball". I have heard of Major League Baseball, which holds the "World Series", but never something called World League Baseball.
And honestly, the winners of the World Series really are the best in the world. Baseball and Softball are basically American sports. That is why the Olympics have dropped them for the 2012 games. Having the US outscore its competition 51-1 goes to show how much Softball and Baseball are US Sports. Just think what would happen to Olympic Baseball if the MLB season didnt inhibit professionals from playing. It would be much worse than the 1992 Dream Team in basketball.
I am sure the rest of the world will catch up in a decade or two if they actually try (like they have started to do in basketball), but I dont think anyone can honestly contest naming the MLB finals the "World Series" at the moment.
When I look at those 1st level characters, I do not see them as basic. They are incredibly complex for 1st level characters. A 1st level wizard in 3e knows just a couple useful spells and can only cast them a few times per day. All of the prebuilt characters I have seen from 4e blow anything from 3e away in terms of complexity for a 1st level character.
Maybe that complexity will not scale as characters rise in levels, but I see no reason to believe that is the case.
The game demands that the party pack it in for the night. It's just bad game design, No it doesn't. "The game" does not demand anything. If you really think so, switch to something other than D&D that's more suited to your needs.
Saying that D&D doesn't force your party to sleep for the night after 4 fights/day (at your CR) is like saying that D&D doesn't force you to play in a fantasy setting. It is very possible to go 12 encounters without sleeping just like it is very possible to play a Star Trek like campaign with the D&D rules. But neither is easy and neither is what the game was designed to do.
All player characters have a limited amount of resources that they can use in a day of adventuring, and those resources are usually spent after just a few encounters. Wizards and Clerics have their spells, but even Warriors and Rogues are limited by their hit points. Once these resources are depleted the party simply cannot handle CR encounters of their level.
This can be partially solved by potions and scrolls. But then a disparity between XP and gold is developed. If fighters are constantly drinking healing potions and wizards are constantly using spells from scrolls, you will eventually have a 20th level party with only 100k gp in items. A 20th level fighter with only a +2 sword is pretty pathetic indeed. The wizard doesnt care as much, because most of his power comes from his character level and not his items.
All of these things can be solved by a good DM, but the point that crashfrog was trying to make is that if the game is designed well the DM shouldnt have to. Crashfrog has already found rules from the Book of the Nine Swords (and possibly other house rules) to solve alot of the problems, but some are so large that it is hard to solve.
For instance, if you give the party more gold so that they can buy more items (because they are drinking lots of potions and such), invariably something else will become imbalanced. The rogue might rarely get hit so he needs less healing potions; and of course he doesnt need scrolls. Eventually you have a 20th level rogue with +5 inherent to all of his abilities along with 2 +10 market modifier short swords. He will clearly outclass the rest of the party because he didnt need to spend money on one-use items. He wasnt bending the rules or exploiting them, but he did end up much more powerful.
This problem is of course fixable, but my point is that the next fix will probably cause another imbalance. The imbalances are created by the poor design inherent in D&D. It is still a fun game, and version 3 was an order of magnitude better than version 2, but there are still alot of improvements left to be made. And from what I hear about version 4, WotC is headed in the right direction.
don't fool yourself in believing him ignorant, while that may offer you solace in your belief he is far from it.
Actually I would say that the pope is very ignorant of many things. Just like you are. And just like I am. I majored in physics in college and I am even ignorant in many areas of modern physics. I am sure that you are ignorant of many things even in your chosen profession. Anyone who does not know just how ignorant they are on many things is not just ignorant; they are also stupid.
It is the ignorance of the pope that gives insight on why so many popes have been wrong in so many ways. I am sure that Pope Benedict XVI is ignorant in many aspects of even the Christian religion. It is because they are human just like everyone else. The idea of papal infallibility is just the kind of rediculous notion that turns so many people away from the Catholic Church.
Yes we can dig up history and throw that in his face and the followers of any religion. The important issue is how it goes forward.
Actually, the history of the Cathoic Church (and all religions) is very important to the matter at hand. It is the mistakes of generations of popes before him that "proves" that the current pope is not infallible either. Therefore his decrees need to be held up to the same scrutiny as any public official. Anyone would be foolish to just accept whatever the Pope says just as they would be foolish to trust any other politician without putting things in context.
In the case of the Pope, anything that he says must be looked at based on the current state of the church. The fact that what he says basically just touts the ideals of today's christian majority is what makes his statements fairly meaningless. It is no different than when a Republican says that we need to stay the course in Iraq or when a Democrat says that we need to leave.
If the Pope was saying something that differed with the current Christian ideology, that would be news worthy. It would be like Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with new laws for mankind. But I could go on TV and just repeat what every other Chrisitian is saying and it would mean the same thing as the pope saying it (it would mean nothing).
The Church will be here long after many of us.
Oh yeah, thats important.[/sarcasm] The KKK will be hear long after all of us, as will almost all other repressive organisations. Longevity means absolutely nothing as far as proving how insightful an ideal is.
He has opened a large door and taken a big step but here many are chastising him for not taking more steps.
I am sorry, who are you talking about now? I can go down to basically any church and the leaders there will most likely say that human cloning is an affront to human dignity. Maybe next George Bush could go on TV and say that North Korea's leaders are evil (again) and you would praise him for taking a big step forward. Repeating what everyone already wants to hear is not a big step, it is more of a side step.
So you're saying I _did_ get the magic copy of Vista.
How much d'you think I can get for it on ebay? There's gotta be a ton of folks who want Vista with the hidden "Work OK" setting enabled by default.
Yep, I guess so. But you will also probably have to sell your computer so they have the exact same hardware that worked well for you. You will also have to sell your computer usage tendencies since your computer needs must align perfectly with what actually works in Vista. You will probably have to make sure that the buyer has a similar level of patience as you do when all those pop ups start going off. (you might know what they are asking, but my dad thinks he has done something wrong every time it happens) Otherwise the person you sell it to might want their money back.
Seriously - did I get the magic copy of Vista that works just fine or something?
Well, only about a third of Europe died as a result of the Bubonic Plague. And only about 60%-75% of the Jews who lived in territories controlled by the Nazis died in the Holocaust.
So I guess no matter how horrifying something is, there are always going to be people who dont see what the big deal is.
(I am not saying that Vista is as horrible as the Holocaust, I am saying that just because a few hundred thousand people might like Vista doesnt mean it isnt a horrible operating system that is worth complaining about)
When the environmentalists want to change the way ArcherB lives, they're freedom-hating UnAmericans.
You say that as if it is a universal and undebated fact. You do not elaborate or try to prove your point, you just expect others to take it as the truth. I see no reason why these evironmentalists are either freedom hating or UnAmerican.
First off, it is the environmentalists that are looking after the freedom of humanity. They do not just look at a small section of humanity (people like ArcherB), they look at the freedoms of all mankind. Caring about the freedom of ArcherB over the freedom of natives in the Arctic Circle is no different than caring about the freedoms of slave owners over those of their slaves. The level of irresponsible and unaccountable freedom that ArcherB wants is not what our founding fathers wanted for our country.
In fact, it is VERY UnAmerican for us to treat poor people around the world as psuedo-colonies that we can control at our whim. That is exactly what our founding fathers fought against to create this country. The enviornmentalist's policy on this matter is therefore very "American".
How ridiculous is it that some people must be allowed to "live off the land" rather than getting into a 21st century economy and buying their food like everybody else?
How is that rediculous? Many people believe that many of our problems stem from the fact that we are over-consuming our planet's resources. Most likely in a few centuries our descendants will look back at how ridiculous we have been in the 20th and 21st centuries.
People have had to change how they live for centuries, and now its their turn.
No, people have CHOSEN to change how they have lived for centures. Saying that everyone else needs to live the way that we do is incredibly rediculous. It is no better than how the terrorist extremists want us to all live under Shariah Islamic Law.
He wasnt referring to your wanting to live the way you choose. He was referring to the attitude that you should be able to do what ever you want regardless of how it hurts others. Just because killing off 100,000 caribou doesnt hurt you, that does not mean that it doesnt hurt others. There are people in this world that live off of caribou meat. Caribou meat makes up 75% of the diet of the Gwich'in tribe for instance. How does your desire for cheaper oil trump their desire to eat? Because the people in power have more guns?
Doing whatever you want just for your own needs without thinking of others is pretty much the exact definition of selfish behavior. You want to force people to bend to your will just because you want some cheaper oil.
Liberty requires personal responsibility. Responsibility to both yourself and others. Liberty means freedom from compulsion, but without personal responsibility all you are left with is a chaotic void.
And cheap oil has absolutely nothing to do with what the founding fathers wanted for their descendents.
First off, I honestly dont believe that removing evil dictators from power is an unethical act. But I do agree that the war was grossly mismanaged. But even though the current government has made mistakes on Iraq, I honestly do not trust public opinion polls to run a war as much as even a slightly misguided administration.
And in your example, public opinion actually was for the war. So in this case you would still have the Iraq war even if our government's decisions were made with public opinion polls. Then we would have soon left without even trying to do our best to rebuild the country (even if our best doesnt seam to be good enough).
But after saying that, it is obvious that any government is going to make mistakes. It is still run by human beings. But for every example of unethical behavior from government officials, I bet you could come up with a dozen unethical behaviors in the private sector.
For example, I dont think that the government ran the slave trade in the 1800s. I am pretty sure that it was the people that ran it. Too bad that the evil government tried to tell the people what was good for them and outlawed it.
Why should the public be consulted? Because the public are the ultimate arbitrator of ethical issues
I disagree. Are you saying that your average southern plantation owner should have been consulted in 1800 about the ethics of slavery?
I personally think that the public should be the absolute last result as an arbitrator of ethical issues. The public is often vastly uninformed on most topics. I honestly think that an ethicist, or at least someone with enormous experience and training in dealing with ethical issues, is a much better arbitrator of ethical issues than joe six pack.
So you are advocating letting the government decide what is "the good of the people",
Actually yes, I agree with our founding fathers that the purpose of our government is to take care of its people. I also agree with our founding fathers that the average person often does not know what is the best course of action. Deciding what is for "the good of the people" is the domain of the government. Voting is the mechanism by which the average people try to insure that the people running the government have similar values and beliefs.
It is the job of governmental officials to inform themselves on the issues better than the average person. And because some issues are too important or too complicated for your average politician, sometimes they create "panels" or "think tanks" to make these decisions. I believe that is a good thing.
P.S. I also realize this story is about the UK government, so my comments about the founding fathers of the US are a bit off topic. But since you mentioned what I personally advocate regarding governmental powers and duties, I used my government in my post.
Maybe because the peasants are helping to pay for it?
Public money spent on things the public wants is what charity organizations are for. Spending money on things for the good of the people, but that is something the average person wouldnt want to pay for himself, is what the government is for.
I wasnt talking about having no regulation. But if you RTFA, and then read more about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at their website: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/, you will find that it is a panel consistant of doctors, scientists, and ethicists. In my post I was saying that it is people like this that I would like making these decisions, not joe six pack.
Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not? I can at least understand why a panel such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would want to have their opinion heard, but why would they waste their time consulting the public?
Why even create such a government body if they were just going to conduct opinion polls to make their decisions? If you are going to assemble a panel of scientists and ethicists to regulate the scientific community (well at least in the UK), at least you would hope they would use their expertise instead of referring to the public.
Because there would be alot of bad press if an airline started giving procrastinators lowers prices just because they are lazy and waited until the last minute.
Conclusion: Corn production is the most heavily subsidized commodity in the United States today. Payments are extremely concentrated and benefits flow overwhelmingly to corporate agribusiness. Current government policy is pumping up the bottom line of modern, profitable corporations and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Maybe the corn industry actually needs those subsidies. Try to run a profitable farm without those subsidies at 2002 crop prices. Maybe some big corporations were doing it, but small farmers were definetly struggling. Whenever you help out the little guy you will invariably help out some rich person, thats just life.
Subsidies are there to make sure that the price of corn does not shoot through the roof. If farmers did not get that money from the government, then the price would show up in the price of our food. Because federal taxes come mostly from the rich in our society, this money is used to help the poor/middle class more easily afford their food.
The other major reason is to offset how cheap labor is throughout the world. In Mexico a farmer doesnt have to spend $4000/acre for his land, or pay his workers nearly what a US farmer makes for a living. The theory is that these subsidies are needed to help US farmers against this fact, to help combat the agricultural equivelent of "outsourcing" our farming jobs.
So I guess the truth is that prices would not really skyrocket. We would just start importing more food. But I dont really think that anyone (inside the US) wants that to happen.
The fact that the agribusiness industry has to spend that much money and they barely have anything to show for it just shows how little influence they have. Corn-based ethanol subsidies are basically the only thing I can think of that they have ever done to help the corn market. Looking at one recent success and saying it means they are powerful is not a very good call.
Sorry, that is not true. Evolutionary theory is not a fact, it is a theory. But evolution itself is an observable fact. Species do evolve, it is an observable phenomenon. It is no different than gravity.
The idea that one species can evolve into a completely seperate species (such as our more ape-like ancestors turning into us) is what is a theory.
That is so funny that I almost fell out of my seat. Corn prices have stayed fairly constant for the past three decades. I am not talking about being adjusted for inflation. If the corn farmers have a powerful lobby then that must mean that lobbiest truly have no power at all. (not the case)
If you take the price that corn sold for in the 1970s and adjusted for inflation, corn should be selling for above $10/bushel today. The prices of corn and other commodities have been kept low for years because there are more voters who eat food than there are who grow food.
Sure corn farmers have lobbiests, but I cannot even fathom the idea that they are powerful. The only reason corn is being used now is because it is plentiful and doesnt take any major changes to the current agricultural industry to start using for ethanol. Politicians love making changes that sound good but dont actually take any work.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure then call "World League Baseball" "US League Baseball" while we are being honest.
People in Glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
I have never heard of "World League Baseball". I have heard of Major League Baseball, which holds the "World Series", but never something called World League Baseball.
And honestly, the winners of the World Series really are the best in the world. Baseball and Softball are basically American sports. That is why the Olympics have dropped them for the 2012 games. Having the US outscore its competition 51-1 goes to show how much Softball and Baseball are US Sports. Just think what would happen to Olympic Baseball if the MLB season didnt inhibit professionals from playing. It would be much worse than the 1992 Dream Team in basketball.
I am sure the rest of the world will catch up in a decade or two if they actually try (like they have started to do in basketball), but I dont think anyone can honestly contest naming the MLB finals the "World Series" at the moment.
Save that, y'know, the rich would be able to afford not to have kids with crippling disabilities, and the poor wouldn't.
Uh, what is the problem with that? Is it better for no one to benefit just because some people cannot afford it?
When I look at those 1st level characters, I do not see them as basic. They are incredibly complex for 1st level characters. A 1st level wizard in 3e knows just a couple useful spells and can only cast them a few times per day. All of the prebuilt characters I have seen from 4e blow anything from 3e away in terms of complexity for a 1st level character.
Maybe that complexity will not scale as characters rise in levels, but I see no reason to believe that is the case.
Good luck with that. I am still trying to get my wife to name my first born son Max Powers.
The game demands that the party pack it in for the night. It's just bad game design,
No it doesn't. "The game" does not demand anything. If you really think so, switch to something other than D&D that's more suited to your needs.
Saying that D&D doesn't force your party to sleep for the night after 4 fights/day (at your CR) is like saying that D&D doesn't force you to play in a fantasy setting. It is very possible to go 12 encounters without sleeping just like it is very possible to play a Star Trek like campaign with the D&D rules. But neither is easy and neither is what the game was designed to do.
All player characters have a limited amount of resources that they can use in a day of adventuring, and those resources are usually spent after just a few encounters. Wizards and Clerics have their spells, but even Warriors and Rogues are limited by their hit points. Once these resources are depleted the party simply cannot handle CR encounters of their level.
This can be partially solved by potions and scrolls. But then a disparity between XP and gold is developed. If fighters are constantly drinking healing potions and wizards are constantly using spells from scrolls, you will eventually have a 20th level party with only 100k gp in items. A 20th level fighter with only a +2 sword is pretty pathetic indeed. The wizard doesnt care as much, because most of his power comes from his character level and not his items.
All of these things can be solved by a good DM, but the point that crashfrog was trying to make is that if the game is designed well the DM shouldnt have to. Crashfrog has already found rules from the Book of the Nine Swords (and possibly other house rules) to solve alot of the problems, but some are so large that it is hard to solve.
For instance, if you give the party more gold so that they can buy more items (because they are drinking lots of potions and such), invariably something else will become imbalanced. The rogue might rarely get hit so he needs less healing potions; and of course he doesnt need scrolls. Eventually you have a 20th level rogue with +5 inherent to all of his abilities along with 2 +10 market modifier short swords. He will clearly outclass the rest of the party because he didnt need to spend money on one-use items. He wasnt bending the rules or exploiting them, but he did end up much more powerful.
This problem is of course fixable, but my point is that the next fix will probably cause another imbalance. The imbalances are created by the poor design inherent in D&D. It is still a fun game, and version 3 was an order of magnitude better than version 2, but there are still alot of improvements left to be made. And from what I hear about version 4, WotC is headed in the right direction.
don't fool yourself in believing him ignorant, while that may offer you solace in your belief he is far from it.
Actually I would say that the pope is very ignorant of many things. Just like you are. And just like I am. I majored in physics in college and I am even ignorant in many areas of modern physics. I am sure that you are ignorant of many things even in your chosen profession. Anyone who does not know just how ignorant they are on many things is not just ignorant; they are also stupid.
It is the ignorance of the pope that gives insight on why so many popes have been wrong in so many ways. I am sure that Pope Benedict XVI is ignorant in many aspects of even the Christian religion. It is because they are human just like everyone else. The idea of papal infallibility is just the kind of rediculous notion that turns so many people away from the Catholic Church.
Yes we can dig up history and throw that in his face and the followers of any religion. The important issue is how it goes forward.
Actually, the history of the Cathoic Church (and all religions) is very important to the matter at hand. It is the mistakes of generations of popes before him that "proves" that the current pope is not infallible either. Therefore his decrees need to be held up to the same scrutiny as any public official. Anyone would be foolish to just accept whatever the Pope says just as they would be foolish to trust any other politician without putting things in context.
In the case of the Pope, anything that he says must be looked at based on the current state of the church. The fact that what he says basically just touts the ideals of today's christian majority is what makes his statements fairly meaningless. It is no different than when a Republican says that we need to stay the course in Iraq or when a Democrat says that we need to leave.
If the Pope was saying something that differed with the current Christian ideology, that would be news worthy. It would be like Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with new laws for mankind. But I could go on TV and just repeat what every other Chrisitian is saying and it would mean the same thing as the pope saying it (it would mean nothing).
The Church will be here long after many of us.
Oh yeah, thats important.[/sarcasm] The KKK will be hear long after all of us, as will almost all other repressive organisations. Longevity means absolutely nothing as far as proving how insightful an ideal is.
He has opened a large door and taken a big step but here many are chastising him for not taking more steps.
I am sorry, who are you talking about now? I can go down to basically any church and the leaders there will most likely say that human cloning is an affront to human dignity. Maybe next George Bush could go on TV and say that North Korea's leaders are evil (again) and you would praise him for taking a big step forward. Repeating what everyone already wants to hear is not a big step, it is more of a side step.
Vista is as horrible as the Holocaust
:-)
You jerk!
Damn, for some reason that little joke actually had me laughing out loud. Nice one.
So you're saying I _did_ get the magic copy of Vista.
How much d'you think I can get for it on ebay? There's gotta be a ton of folks who want Vista with the hidden "Work OK" setting enabled by default.
Yep, I guess so. But you will also probably have to sell your computer so they have the exact same hardware that worked well for you. You will also have to sell your computer usage tendencies since your computer needs must align perfectly with what actually works in Vista. You will probably have to make sure that the buyer has a similar level of patience as you do when all those pop ups start going off. (you might know what they are asking, but my dad thinks he has done something wrong every time it happens) Otherwise the person you sell it to might want their money back.
Seriously - did I get the magic copy of Vista that works just fine or something?
Well, only about a third of Europe died as a result of the Bubonic Plague. And only about 60%-75% of the Jews who lived in territories controlled by the Nazis died in the Holocaust.
So I guess no matter how horrifying something is, there are always going to be people who dont see what the big deal is.
(I am not saying that Vista is as horrible as the Holocaust, I am saying that just because a few hundred thousand people might like Vista doesnt mean it isnt a horrible operating system that is worth complaining about)
When the environmentalists want to change the way ArcherB lives, they're freedom-hating UnAmericans.
You say that as if it is a universal and undebated fact. You do not elaborate or try to prove your point, you just expect others to take it as the truth. I see no reason why these evironmentalists are either freedom hating or UnAmerican.
First off, it is the environmentalists that are looking after the freedom of humanity. They do not just look at a small section of humanity (people like ArcherB), they look at the freedoms of all mankind. Caring about the freedom of ArcherB over the freedom of natives in the Arctic Circle is no different than caring about the freedoms of slave owners over those of their slaves. The level of irresponsible and unaccountable freedom that ArcherB wants is not what our founding fathers wanted for our country.
In fact, it is VERY UnAmerican for us to treat poor people around the world as psuedo-colonies that we can control at our whim. That is exactly what our founding fathers fought against to create this country. The enviornmentalist's policy on this matter is therefore very "American".
How ridiculous is it that some people must be allowed to "live off the land" rather than getting into a 21st century economy and buying their food like everybody else?
How is that rediculous? Many people believe that many of our problems stem from the fact that we are over-consuming our planet's resources. Most likely in a few centuries our descendants will look back at how ridiculous we have been in the 20th and 21st centuries.
People have had to change how they live for centuries, and now its their turn.
No, people have CHOSEN to change how they have lived for centures. Saying that everyone else needs to live the way that we do is incredibly rediculous. It is no better than how the terrorist extremists want us to all live under Shariah Islamic Law.
He wasnt referring to your wanting to live the way you choose. He was referring to the attitude that you should be able to do what ever you want regardless of how it hurts others. Just because killing off 100,000 caribou doesnt hurt you, that does not mean that it doesnt hurt others. There are people in this world that live off of caribou meat. Caribou meat makes up 75% of the diet of the Gwich'in tribe for instance. How does your desire for cheaper oil trump their desire to eat? Because the people in power have more guns?
Doing whatever you want just for your own needs without thinking of others is pretty much the exact definition of selfish behavior. You want to force people to bend to your will just because you want some cheaper oil.
Liberty requires personal responsibility. Responsibility to both yourself and others. Liberty means freedom from compulsion, but without personal responsibility all you are left with is a chaotic void.
And cheap oil has absolutely nothing to do with what the founding fathers wanted for their descendents.
First off, I honestly dont believe that removing evil dictators from power is an unethical act. But I do agree that the war was grossly mismanaged. But even though the current government has made mistakes on Iraq, I honestly do not trust public opinion polls to run a war as much as even a slightly misguided administration.
And in your example, public opinion actually was for the war. So in this case you would still have the Iraq war even if our government's decisions were made with public opinion polls. Then we would have soon left without even trying to do our best to rebuild the country (even if our best doesnt seam to be good enough).
But after saying that, it is obvious that any government is going to make mistakes. It is still run by human beings. But for every example of unethical behavior from government officials, I bet you could come up with a dozen unethical behaviors in the private sector.
For example, I dont think that the government ran the slave trade in the 1800s. I am pretty sure that it was the people that ran it. Too bad that the evil government tried to tell the people what was good for them and outlawed it.
Why should the public be consulted? Because the public are the ultimate arbitrator of ethical issues
I disagree. Are you saying that your average southern plantation owner should have been consulted in 1800 about the ethics of slavery?
I personally think that the public should be the absolute last result as an arbitrator of ethical issues. The public is often vastly uninformed on most topics. I honestly think that an ethicist, or at least someone with enormous experience and training in dealing with ethical issues, is a much better arbitrator of ethical issues than joe six pack.
So you are advocating letting the government decide what is "the good of the people",
Actually yes, I agree with our founding fathers that the purpose of our government is to take care of its people. I also agree with our founding fathers that the average person often does not know what is the best course of action. Deciding what is for "the good of the people" is the domain of the government. Voting is the mechanism by which the average people try to insure that the people running the government have similar values and beliefs.
It is the job of governmental officials to inform themselves on the issues better than the average person. And because some issues are too important or too complicated for your average politician, sometimes they create "panels" or "think tanks" to make these decisions. I believe that is a good thing.
P.S. I also realize this story is about the UK government, so my comments about the founding fathers of the US are a bit off topic. But since you mentioned what I personally advocate regarding governmental powers and duties, I used my government in my post.
Maybe because the peasants are helping to pay for it?
Public money spent on things the public wants is what charity organizations are for. Spending money on things for the good of the people, but that is something the average person wouldnt want to pay for himself, is what the government is for.
I wasnt talking about having no regulation. But if you RTFA, and then read more about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at their website: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/, you will find that it is a panel consistant of doctors, scientists, and ethicists. In my post I was saying that it is people like this that I would like making these decisions, not joe six pack.
Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not? I can at least understand why a panel such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would want to have their opinion heard, but why would they waste their time consulting the public?
Why even create such a government body if they were just going to conduct opinion polls to make their decisions? If you are going to assemble a panel of scientists and ethicists to regulate the scientific community (well at least in the UK), at least you would hope they would use their expertise instead of referring to the public.
Because there would be alot of bad press if an airline started giving procrastinators lowers prices just because they are lazy and waited until the last minute.
Yeah, even when I was typing it I realized that, but I hope that I was still able to get my point across without making my post too long.
Conclusion:
Corn production is the most heavily subsidized commodity in the United States today. Payments are extremely concentrated and benefits flow overwhelmingly to corporate agribusiness. Current government policy is pumping up the bottom line of modern, profitable corporations and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Maybe the corn industry actually needs those subsidies. Try to run a profitable farm without those subsidies at 2002 crop prices. Maybe some big corporations were doing it, but small farmers were definetly struggling. Whenever you help out the little guy you will invariably help out some rich person, thats just life.
Subsidies are there to make sure that the price of corn does not shoot through the roof. If farmers did not get that money from the government, then the price would show up in the price of our food. Because federal taxes come mostly from the rich in our society, this money is used to help the poor/middle class more easily afford their food.
The other major reason is to offset how cheap labor is throughout the world. In Mexico a farmer doesnt have to spend $4000/acre for his land, or pay his workers nearly what a US farmer makes for a living. The theory is that these subsidies are needed to help US farmers against this fact, to help combat the agricultural equivelent of "outsourcing" our farming jobs.
So I guess the truth is that prices would not really skyrocket. We would just start importing more food. But I dont really think that anyone (inside the US) wants that to happen.
--
Money spent != Powerful
The fact that the agribusiness industry has to spend that much money and they barely have anything to show for it just shows how little influence they have. Corn-based ethanol subsidies are basically the only thing I can think of that they have ever done to help the corn market. Looking at one recent success and saying it means they are powerful is not a very good call.
Evolution is not a fact
Sorry, that is not true. Evolutionary theory is not a fact, it is a theory. But evolution itself is an observable fact. Species do evolve, it is an observable phenomenon. It is no different than gravity.
The idea that one species can evolve into a completely seperate species (such as our more ape-like ancestors turning into us) is what is a theory.
because corn farming has a powerful lobby
That is so funny that I almost fell out of my seat. Corn prices have stayed fairly constant for the past three decades. I am not talking about being adjusted for inflation. If the corn farmers have a powerful lobby then that must mean that lobbiest truly have no power at all. (not the case)
If you take the price that corn sold for in the 1970s and adjusted for inflation, corn should be selling for above $10/bushel today. The prices of corn and other commodities have been kept low for years because there are more voters who eat food than there are who grow food.
Sure corn farmers have lobbiests, but I cannot even fathom the idea that they are powerful. The only reason corn is being used now is because it is plentiful and doesnt take any major changes to the current agricultural industry to start using for ethanol. Politicians love making changes that sound good but dont actually take any work.
--