Where did I imply that you or any other suburbanite is missing anything?
Right here:
There is data. Suburbs do not have the population density to support modern infrastructure without growth.
So, which "modern infrastructure" do you think I'm missing?
All else equal municipal budgets correlated to population density must be spread across 4 - 12, sometimes 15-20 times less people.
Nice theory, but that's not budget reality. City budgets overwhelmingly go for debt service, pensions, schools, police, and welfare. All things being equal, those are independent of population density, but in reality, they actually get a lot cheaper in the suburbs. Of the actual infrastructure spending (probably 5-10% of the budget), most of it is for stuff that suburbs just don't need: public transit, rail, etc.
The essential infrastructure, roads, gas, electric, water, sewer, and Internet, are usually paid for via special assessments, developers, and users. That kind of infrastructure is also dirt cheap, in particular in the suburbs. For example, annual maintenance for a mile of road is a couple of hundred dollars; even at very low densities, that's maybe $10-20 per home on that stretch of road.
Are you going to pay 400% higher taxes for the suburb? What about 1200% ?,One acre lots = 6000%.
In fact, I probably pay about 10% of the taxes I would pay in a city, for a better quality of life and better public services.
A number of companies have offered single use credit card numbers in the past. You could generate new credit card numbers online, set time and dollar limits, and then use those for purchases. That offers similar levels of protection but is backwards compatible. Unfortunately, it hasn't caught on much.
But they do support it now. Can you say the same for the GOP?
I don't think supporting gay marriage is a good thing, for the same reason I don't think supporting straight marriage is a good thing: the extensive government support of marriage that we have is actually hurting marriage.
In general, Democrats want to extend their lousy and destructive social policies to gay men and women; Republicans oppose this out of bigotry and prejudice. I don't care for either of them, frankly.
Regarding changing the term in common language, as an old fart I tend to not pay attention to political correctness efforts like that.
Apparently, you are not just an "old fart", you are going senile, since you don't seem to be able to keep one single sentence in your head. As I was saying: "I don't think there is a concerted effort".
Even if there were a "concerted effort", making an effort to point out that "liberals" and "progressives" are neither liberal nor progressive, and pointing out that Republicans are just as "democratic" as Democrats is not "political correctness". Political correctness is avoiding the use of language that offends or harms supposedly disadvantaged groups. Other efforts to change the terms used in a discussion would not be "political correctness".
According to Wikipedia, the term "Democratic Party" goes back to 1828. Are you saying it was Andrew Jackson who used it as a political strategy?
Yes, of course the Democratic party picked its name carefully. What do you think?
And to be honest, I didn't even know there was an effort to change the term to "Democrat Party". Is that a cable news/talk radio thing?
I don't think there is a concerted effort, but some people just find the use of the term "democratic" to be ambiguous and misleading; I mean if you have a "[Dd]emocratic convention", does that mean that the other convention is "undemocratic"? Therefore, some people use the noun in constructs like "Democrat-president", "Democrat-convention", etc. I think it's more an attempt at avoiding ambiguity. However, partisan Democrats are bothered by this, so it is usually an indication that the speaker is an independent or Republican.
Oh, stop bringing partisanship into this. The Democrats only supported gay marriage once it was safe for them according to the polls. And the way they are going about implementing gay marriage is causing a lot of unnecessary antagonism. And don't kid yourself: that's deliberate political calculation on their part.
You have a point, but I would argue that Democrats used to be these things in various times in the history of the party. I'm not sure what happened, but I would argue that the current platform doesn't really match what used to be the party's core values.
I used to think so too, but after looking into it, I concluded that the historical values of Democrats weren't all that great either. Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" talks at some length about the history if you're interested.
This move to tyranny is bipartisan. But it can help, especially, if those who advocate freedom, no matter the level of government, are elected.
I agree. I think it's particularly important to pay attention to local, state, and congressional elections, rather than focus on the presidency so much. The president can screw things up big time in the short run, but in the long run, the power lies with the legislative bodies.
Making 93k/year in an urban center doesn't make you wealthy, that makes you middle class. Wealthy starts at around $200-400k/year and/or $1-10M in liquid net worth.
To see all the people who have bought into the RNC talking point that "Democrat" is the adjective form of that word. What you're looking for is "Democratic."
The choice of "Democratic" by Democrats itself is a political strategy, as is the choice of "liberal" and "progressive". In terms of the objective, standard meanings of these terms, "Democrats" are arguably neither "democratic", nor "liberal", nor "progressive".
I don't see why people should just acquiesce to the erroneous self-characterization of a political party without objections.
Obama is in charge of the NSA, DHS, the IRS, and the other government agencies that have been screwing up again and again under his presidency. Obama could have ended illegal NSA activities overnight if he had wanted to. Not only does he have the ability to do, and not only is it his job and sworn duty, he actually ran on that was actually elected to do just that.
For Congress to fix this takes years. It will eventually get around to it, long after Obama is gone.
I don't know whether a Republican president or Congress would be any better, but I think they can hardly be worse; I used to vote Democratic, but at this point, Democrats have nothing to offer anymore.
Not in the US. Free speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Judges don't get to weigh the costs or benefits of speech.
There is the right of the public to be informed, the right of free speech, the right not to be slandered, and they have to be weighed up against each other.
In the US, the public doesn't have a "right to be informed". And slander has little to do legally to do with "free speech".
(Slashdot objection: But who decides? Answer: A judge who probably has a few more braincells than you).
Before you accuse other people of stupidity, you should learn and understand at least some elementary facts about US law.
It is important to find cases where this ruling does cause problems, so we can amend or reverse it. Pointing out cases where it could result in legally enforced removal of information that is in the public interest, but almost certainly won't, is crying wolf and is harmful to the goal of reforming the ruling.
Whether something "is in the public interest" is not a valid criterion for restricting free speech.
Such a statement is ridiculous on its face and is both unrealistic (as you pointed out), but if by some bizarre series of events it were to happen, there would be enormous dislocations around the world with huge numbers of refugees in the low lying areas around continents and much more so in the island nations around the world.
There is no bizarre series of events that could cause this; it is physically impossible for this to happen. That's the part you simply seem unable to grasp.
Just to make sure I'm clear on this: you feel that it's not a big deal that 3.5 *billion* (probably a couple billion more in the next 50 years) will become homeless refugees, along with the loss of arable land, infrastructure and all manner of other things.
This is not supported by the IPCC conclusions or anything else. There is no plausible scenario under which this can happen. Your fears are utterly irrational. Either you are a liar or a moron, take your pick.
The problem is even with global warming, the shit will never really hit the fan in a way that fault can be directly tied back to the polluters, and even if it was, good luck getting them to pay for the damages. Higher pollution will erode our health slightly.
(1) "The polluters" is all of us; every time you turn on a light switch or drive a car.
(2) CO2 at atmospheric concentrations doesn't erode our health.
Sure lots of low-lying population centers will be wiped out, but those events will occur after hurricanes or tsunamis, and migrating the refugees will be part of some humanitarian rescue operation. I bet that even around that time, there will be more government intervention passed to stop the influx of refugees migrating to higher ground than there will be for government intervention to limit pollution.
Even if sea levels rise high enough to submerge Bangkok and New York, none of that would happen; climate change is just too gradual. People would simply migrate away slowly as flooding gradually becomes more frequent. A century ago, Bangkok's population was 450k, now it's 8M; if 8M could migrate to Bangkok in a century, they can easily migrate away again in another century.
(Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and pretty much unrelated to sea level rise.)
Having lived in Bangkok for a few years, the effects of pollution witnessed by average americans here in the US is a joke. We have a loooonng way to fall before we might have to even consider implementing things like China's One Child Policy.
Americans used to experience horrific pollution and rapid population growth, like Asia. It's economic development that put a stop to that. And that's the best path for Asia as well: rapid economic development.
Slashdot Mirror
Al Gore invented the Internet!
And our Nobel prize wining president invents particle accelerators in his spare time!
Those Democrats are just amazing, aren't they?
Right here:
So, which "modern infrastructure" do you think I'm missing?
Nice theory, but that's not budget reality. City budgets overwhelmingly go for debt service, pensions, schools, police, and welfare. All things being equal, those are independent of population density, but in reality, they actually get a lot cheaper in the suburbs. Of the actual infrastructure spending (probably 5-10% of the budget), most of it is for stuff that suburbs just don't need: public transit, rail, etc.
The essential infrastructure, roads, gas, electric, water, sewer, and Internet, are usually paid for via special assessments, developers, and users. That kind of infrastructure is also dirt cheap, in particular in the suburbs. For example, annual maintenance for a mile of road is a couple of hundred dollars; even at very low densities, that's maybe $10-20 per home on that stretch of road.
In fact, I probably pay about 10% of the taxes I would pay in a city, for a better quality of life and better public services.
I very much think that causality implies causation!
Yes. That would be government policy, part of the package by which government attempts to support marriage. My point exactly.
A number of companies have offered single use credit card numbers in the past. You could generate new credit card numbers online, set time and dollar limits, and then use those for purchases. That offers similar levels of protection but is backwards compatible. Unfortunately, it hasn't caught on much.
So what's your explanation for these trends?
http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/so...
http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/so...
http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/so...
Well, I'm glad that you agree that these statements are tautologies.
I don't think supporting gay marriage is a good thing, for the same reason I don't think supporting straight marriage is a good thing: the extensive government support of marriage that we have is actually hurting marriage.
In general, Democrats want to extend their lousy and destructive social policies to gay men and women; Republicans oppose this out of bigotry and prejudice. I don't care for either of them, frankly.
Apparently, you are not just an "old fart", you are going senile, since you don't seem to be able to keep one single sentence in your head. As I was saying: "I don't think there is a concerted effort".
Even if there were a "concerted effort", making an effort to point out that "liberals" and "progressives" are neither liberal nor progressive, and pointing out that Republicans are just as "democratic" as Democrats is not "political correctness". Political correctness is avoiding the use of language that offends or harms supposedly disadvantaged groups. Other efforts to change the terms used in a discussion would not be "political correctness".
Yes, of course the Democratic party picked its name carefully. What do you think?
I don't think there is a concerted effort, but some people just find the use of the term "democratic" to be ambiguous and misleading; I mean if you have a "[Dd]emocratic convention", does that mean that the other convention is "undemocratic"? Therefore, some people use the noun in constructs like "Democrat-president", "Democrat-convention", etc. I think it's more an attempt at avoiding ambiguity. However, partisan Democrats are bothered by this, so it is usually an indication that the speaker is an independent or Republican.
Oh, stop bringing partisanship into this. The Democrats only supported gay marriage once it was safe for them according to the polls. And the way they are going about implementing gay marriage is causing a lot of unnecessary antagonism. And don't kid yourself: that's deliberate political calculation on their part.
I used to think so too, but after looking into it, I concluded that the historical values of Democrats weren't all that great either. Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" talks at some length about the history if you're interested.
I agree. I think it's particularly important to pay attention to local, state, and congressional elections, rather than focus on the presidency so much. The president can screw things up big time in the short run, but in the long run, the power lies with the legislative bodies.
In fact, that phrase comes from a supreme court case in 1917 that was later overturned, precisely because it limited free speech.
Sure you can. There is no law against it.
Oh, this is interesting. What "modern infrastructure" do you think I'm missing?
Making 93k/year in an urban center doesn't make you wealthy, that makes you middle class. Wealthy starts at around $200-400k/year and/or $1-10M in liquid net worth.
That's what Crovitz suggests, but that doesn't make it fact.
As a former Democrat, I can tell you that patent reform is only a tiny part of why people have been abandoning the Democrats.
The choice of "Democratic" by Democrats itself is a political strategy, as is the choice of "liberal" and "progressive". In terms of the objective, standard meanings of these terms, "Democrats" are arguably neither "democratic", nor "liberal", nor "progressive".
I don't see why people should just acquiesce to the erroneous self-characterization of a political party without objections.
Obama is in charge of the NSA, DHS, the IRS, and the other government agencies that have been screwing up again and again under his presidency. Obama could have ended illegal NSA activities overnight if he had wanted to. Not only does he have the ability to do, and not only is it his job and sworn duty, he actually ran on that was actually elected to do just that.
For Congress to fix this takes years. It will eventually get around to it, long after Obama is gone.
I don't know whether a Republican president or Congress would be any better, but I think they can hardly be worse; I used to vote Democratic, but at this point, Democrats have nothing to offer anymore.
Not in the US. Free speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Judges don't get to weigh the costs or benefits of speech.
In the US, the public doesn't have a "right to be informed". And slander has little to do legally to do with "free speech".
Before you accuse other people of stupidity, you should learn and understand at least some elementary facts about US law.
He has a British agent; I assume they wrote most of it, and I assume they speak English (of sorts).
It's the pompous writing about the self-important.
Whether something "is in the public interest" is not a valid criterion for restricting free speech.
There is no bizarre series of events that could cause this; it is physically impossible for this to happen. That's the part you simply seem unable to grasp.
This is what you said:
This is not supported by the IPCC conclusions or anything else. There is no plausible scenario under which this can happen. Your fears are utterly irrational. Either you are a liar or a moron, take your pick.
(1) "The polluters" is all of us; every time you turn on a light switch or drive a car.
(2) CO2 at atmospheric concentrations doesn't erode our health.
Even if sea levels rise high enough to submerge Bangkok and New York, none of that would happen; climate change is just too gradual. People would simply migrate away slowly as flooding gradually becomes more frequent. A century ago, Bangkok's population was 450k, now it's 8M; if 8M could migrate to Bangkok in a century, they can easily migrate away again in another century.
(Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and pretty much unrelated to sea level rise.)
Americans used to experience horrific pollution and rapid population growth, like Asia. It's economic development that put a stop to that. And that's the best path for Asia as well: rapid economic development.