I have a 10 year old NYT cookie, so reg'n ain't an issue for me:) but I was surprised to see only an abstract and not the article itself! (Interesting, but not the debate transcript.)
The abstract: "David Brooks Op-Ed column calls for Republican presidential candidates to break away from current categories and develop 'human capital agenda;' says it is important because America's modern-day success has been based on people developing their own capacities and this advantage is eroding; holds that human capital agenda leads to policies that cut across left and right and creates opportunities that lessen inequality."
I agree with this. We became a great country largely due to individual enterprise and the little guy being given a chance (not a handout). Handouts erode both opportunity by taking money (as taxes to pay for said handout) that could pay an entry-level worker, and reducing said worker's incentive to work.
That's precisely why Missoula was one of my examples. The parent poster is from Glasgow, way out in ranching country. Butte and Hardin happened to be the next contrary examples that came to mind -- a mining town and an Indian town. Four totally different environments within a single state, demostrating even that gov't unit as too large for blanket policies to be truly fair and workable.
Maybe the county or shire really IS the natural unit of government.
Which is the point I was making later in the same paragraph -- it's not about getting handouts. A hand-up when it's really needed, sure. But in general, it's your own responsibility to make money, and thereby help ensure your own freedom.
Not only that, but what's good for Missoula likely is not good for Glasgow, or Hardin, or Butte. In a big diverse state like Montana, even different counties might as well be on different planets.
Pretty much what I've said for decades. The Libertarian ideal has its merits, but goes too far, and flat doesn't work when you get more people than can reasonably reach agreement (I won't say "consensus" because that always means someone gets screwed).
I do contend that there is NO freedom without money. With money, you can *afford* freedom of the press, freedom of movement, etc. Without money, you're pretty much confined to the village where you were born, and to word of mouth. But this doesn't mean money should just be handed out, or take everyone's money and redistribute it evenly. It means everyone should have equal *opportunity* under the law. NOR does it mean anyone should have MORE opportunity because they're perceived as "downtrodden", nor that anyone (including gov't) should be forced to *provide* that opportunity.
========
Rez's quick guide to American political parties:
Democrat: Give us all your shovels, so we can dig those po'folks ditches, whether they need 'em or not.
Republican: Here's a shovel. Go dig your own damn ditch.
Libertarian: I ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Green: You ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Peace and Freedom: Hey man, spade me up a new patch for my pot.
American Independent: Covet not thy neighbour's shovel, and what is this 'ditch' of which thou speaks?
Do you know offhand where I might find a transcript of the debate? Wasn't able to see it.
And so far, Ron Paul is the only candidate that doesn't have some show-stopper that would prevent me from voting for him. He may not be perfect, but at least he's reasonably in line with what I believe and how I wish the country to be run.
According to the map at wikipedia (per the ancestral post's link), there are destroyed villages all the way across Chad and even into northern Nigeria. I was quite amazed by the span represented.
Fake or not, I think it's an important topic to discuss, to make ourselves more aware of the potential consequences of "selective ignorance" and of letting radicals pressure truth out of existence.
Someone once pointed out that the real problem is that Islam is still relatively young. It's at the same stage of maturity that Christianity was between the Crusades and the Inquisition. The average medieval Christian was as decent a fellow as the average Muslim of today, but medieval Christian leadership and radical sects were all gung-ho to kill the infidels and heretics. Islam is experiencing the same sort of growing pains, with the accompanying need to Assert Itself.
BTW -- when I was a kid, it was spelled "Moslem". When did "Muslim" become the dominant spelling?
I think you are correct. I had no real concept of what was going on in Africa til I followed the grandparent post's link, and looked at the map... damn, that's like a quarter of Africa involved. This thing is HUGE. But what little I'd heard about it sounded like Yet Another Tribal Spat affecting only southern Sudan.
And I don't think through deliberate downplaying, either (after all, news media likes to inflate such stories because they're good eyeball draws) but rather because MOST non-Africans don't really have any perspective on Africa. Just as I wouldn't expect a native African to have much perspective on, say, Siberia. They didn't come from Siberia, so it's just not part of their historical worldview -- any more than the Sahara is part of the average American's historical worldview.
I learned my Indian history from an old Indian (born in the late 1800s), who was a noted tribal leader and historian. He contended that the majority of Indian deaths were due not to slaughter by whites, but rather, to tribes practicing genocide on one another:
The Iroquois were slavers, and had a policy of killing anyone they regarded as surplus. Most of what we think of as "plains Indians" were originally refugees from Iroquois slaughter, dating from shortly before whites made a significant push past the Appalachians. My friend's grandmother (born about 1810) told him tales about the westward migration and its causes, as told to her by *her* grandmother, who was one of the refugees who fled the Iroquois.
I agree with you absolutely. Political Correctness is the paving on the road to 1984, where only Correct-Think is allowed.
As I was RTFA'ing, I had the thought that those whose beliefs are no longer challenged have WON in the public mindspace. THEIR belief becomes "Truth" by default, whether it has any basis in actual history or not.
Which is why I keep saying, registrars should be prohibited from being squatters, domain brokers, or anything BUT purely registrars. They should not be allowed to own any domains not directly connected to the registrar business, nor have any shady business connections. Any registrar caught brokering domains under a side business, or in any way being less than squeaky-clean, should have their ICANN status revoked.
Yeah, I know that's not gonna fly.. they're too used to making too much money with it.
A person does learn to be VERY cautious about checking whether a domain is registered or not, because some registrars are suspect for snapping up any domain name that gets checked more than a few times.
That's how some of the affiliate programs now work -- if the cookie shows that a purchase resulted from the click/download/whatever, then you get paid. If not, you don't.
And yes, I think this is a lot more rational than PPC ads that don't do anything but let advertising agencies suck money out of a business.
Remember, ad agencies sell =ads= to *businesses*; they don't sell product to customers, and don't really care if the business does either.
Actually, it's a template: I've run into the same linkfarm page several times, for completely different topics, with the wording exactly the same except for the few topic-specific terms.
Other outfits, like CDBaby, seem quite able to compete... so if the **AA isn't sure what to do about these new market conditions, why not just copy CDBaby and the like?
A: Because the **AA isn't happy with just a fair cut of the pie. They want the WHOLE pie, and don't want ANYONE else to have a piece.
I wasn't aware of the rounding and "only the top-played get paid" aspects, thanks for the enlightenment (ugly as it is). It certainly explains why the big stations play the same few songs over and over.
As you say, the whole system needs to be scrapped and started over without any for-profit entities being involved.
A statutory tax could be applied. Could be on a basis of per word for written works and per minute for audio/video works. Whereas its "value" for income tax purposes would be determined separately by the market. If a work is sold, the statutory tax could be deductable, this avoiding double taxation.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a 10 year old NYT cookie, so reg'n ain't an issue for me :) but I was surprised to see only an abstract and not the article itself! (Interesting, but not the debate transcript.)
The abstract: "David Brooks Op-Ed column calls for Republican presidential candidates to break away
from current categories and develop 'human capital agenda;' says it is important because America's modern-day success has been based on people developing their own capacities and this advantage is eroding; holds that human capital agenda
leads to policies that cut across left and right and creates opportunities that lessen inequality."
I agree with this. We became a great country largely due to individual enterprise and the little guy being given a chance (not a handout). Handouts erode both opportunity by taking money (as taxes to pay for said handout) that could pay an entry-level worker, and reducing said worker's incentive to work.
That's precisely why Missoula was one of my examples. The parent poster is from Glasgow, way out in ranching country. Butte and Hardin happened to be the next contrary examples that came to mind -- a mining town and an Indian town. Four totally different environments within a single state, demostrating even that gov't unit as too large for blanket policies to be truly fair and workable.
Maybe the county or shire really IS the natural unit of government.
Which is the point I was making later in the same paragraph -- it's not about getting handouts. A hand-up when it's really needed, sure. But in general, it's your own responsibility to make money, and thereby help ensure your own freedom.
Not only that, but what's good for Missoula likely is not good for Glasgow, or Hardin, or Butte. In a big diverse state like Montana, even different counties might as well be on different planets.
Pretty much what I've said for decades. The Libertarian ideal has its merits, but goes too far, and flat doesn't work when you get more people than can reasonably reach agreement (I won't say "consensus" because that always means someone gets screwed).
I do contend that there is NO freedom without money. With money, you can *afford* freedom of the press, freedom of movement, etc. Without money, you're pretty much confined to the village where you were born, and to word of mouth. But this doesn't mean money should just be handed out, or take everyone's money and redistribute it evenly. It means everyone should have equal *opportunity* under the law. NOR does it mean anyone should have MORE opportunity because they're perceived as "downtrodden", nor that anyone (including gov't) should be forced to *provide* that opportunity.
========
Rez's quick guide to American political parties:
Democrat: Give us all your shovels, so we can dig those po'folks ditches, whether they need 'em or not.
Republican: Here's a shovel. Go dig your own damn ditch.
Libertarian: I ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Green: You ain't diggin' no damn ditch!
Peace and Freedom: Hey man, spade me up a new patch for my pot.
American Independent: Covet not thy neighbour's shovel, and what is this 'ditch' of which thou speaks?
========
Do you know offhand where I might find a transcript of the debate? Wasn't able to see it.
And so far, Ron Paul is the only candidate that doesn't have some show-stopper that would prevent me from voting for him. He may not be perfect, but at least he's reasonably in line with what I believe and how I wish the country to be run.
#11: Compiling BSD. ;)
According to the map at wikipedia (per the ancestral post's link), there are destroyed villages all the way across Chad and even into northern Nigeria. I was quite amazed by the span represented.
Someone once put it a lot more simply:
History is written by the victors.
Fake or not, I think it's an important topic to discuss, to make ourselves more aware of the potential consequences of "selective ignorance" and of letting radicals pressure truth out of existence.
Someone once pointed out that the real problem is that Islam is still relatively young. It's at the same stage of maturity that Christianity was between the Crusades and the Inquisition. The average medieval Christian was as decent a fellow as the average Muslim of today, but medieval Christian leadership and radical sects were all gung-ho to kill the infidels and heretics. Islam is experiencing the same sort of growing pains, with the accompanying need to Assert Itself.
BTW -- when I was a kid, it was spelled "Moslem". When did "Muslim" become the dominant spelling?
Nonsense. According to Jerry Falwell, he'll be back to denounce 'em. Just you wait and see! ;)
I think you are correct. I had no real concept of what was going on in Africa til I followed the grandparent post's link, and looked at the map... damn, that's like a quarter of Africa involved. This thing is HUGE. But what little I'd heard about it sounded like Yet Another Tribal Spat affecting only southern Sudan.
And I don't think through deliberate downplaying, either (after all, news media likes to inflate such stories because they're good eyeball draws) but rather because MOST non-Africans don't really have any perspective on Africa. Just as I wouldn't expect a native African to have much perspective on, say, Siberia. They didn't come from Siberia, so it's just not part of their historical worldview -- any more than the Sahara is part of the average American's historical worldview.
I learned my Indian history from an old Indian (born in the late 1800s), who was a noted tribal leader and historian. He contended that the majority of Indian deaths were due not to slaughter by whites, but rather, to tribes practicing genocide on one another:
The Iroquois were slavers, and had a policy of killing anyone they regarded as surplus. Most of what we think of as "plains Indians" were originally refugees from Iroquois slaughter, dating from shortly before whites made a significant push past the Appalachians. My friend's grandmother (born about 1810) told him tales about the westward migration and its causes, as told to her by *her* grandmother, who was one of the refugees who fled the Iroquois.
I agree with you absolutely. Political Correctness is the paving on the road to 1984, where only Correct-Think is allowed.
As I was RTFA'ing, I had the thought that those whose beliefs are no longer challenged have WON in the public mindspace. THEIR belief becomes "Truth" by default, whether it has any basis in actual history or not.
[blink] Oh, okay, thanks! Whodathunk it'd be that obvious? :)
Which is why I keep saying, registrars should be prohibited from being squatters, domain brokers, or anything BUT purely registrars. They should not be allowed to own any domains not directly connected to the registrar business, nor have any shady business connections. Any registrar caught brokering domains under a side business, or in any way being less than squeaky-clean, should have their ICANN status revoked.
Yeah, I know that's not gonna fly.. they're too used to making too much money with it.
A person does learn to be VERY cautious about checking whether a domain is registered or not, because some registrars are suspect for snapping up any domain name that gets checked more than a few times.
Good thoughts. I've also had the thought that domain registrars should not be allowed to squat, as that just adds to the problem.
As to "They'd just create a new legal entity. It's free and takes about 10 seconds in the US... in fact, you can do it online." -- we can? Where??
That's how some of the affiliate programs now work -- if the cookie shows that a purchase resulted from the click/download/whatever, then you get paid. If not, you don't.
And yes, I think this is a lot more rational than PPC ads that don't do anything but let advertising agencies suck money out of a business.
Remember, ad agencies sell =ads= to *businesses*; they don't sell product to customers, and don't really care if the business does either.
Actually, it's a template: I've run into the same linkfarm page several times, for completely different topics, with the wording exactly the same except for the few topic-specific terms.
Other outfits, like CDBaby, seem quite able to compete... so if the **AA isn't sure what to do about these new market conditions, why not just copy CDBaby and the like?
A: Because the **AA isn't happy with just a fair cut of the pie. They want the WHOLE pie, and don't want ANYONE else to have a piece.
WTF is Cray Torrent? went googling for it and all I got was a bunch of damned linkfarms :(
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
-- Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764)
I wasn't aware of the rounding and "only the top-played get paid" aspects, thanks for the enlightenment (ugly as it is). It certainly explains why the big stations play the same few songs over and over.
As you say, the whole system needs to be scrapped and started over without any for-profit entities being involved.
A statutory tax could be applied. Could be on a basis of per word for written works and per minute for audio/video works. Whereas its "value" for income tax purposes would be determined separately by the market. If a work is sold, the statutory tax could be deductable, this avoiding double taxation.