But it's hard to work out the logic of where the control is coming from when the Iraqi "government" is just the middle eastern branch of the Republican party.
Na. The IRS is more like a wormhole. It takes money from the middle class and funnels it to corporations and to the military for creating mayhem and socialism in Iraq.
Labor unions wield similar clout and are similarly unaccountable to their members and to society as a whole. Are you prepared to impose the same prohibition on them?
Well, I'm not sure I proposed any prohibitions, but people must be free to form organizations of their own choosing. Those organizations shouldn't be granted personhood, however, and, as far as I know, labor unions don't have that status as humans and corporations currently do. I'm not that familiar with labor law so if I'm incorrect, that is if labor unions are considered as persons, then, yes, I am in favor of rescinding that provision.
Personally, I'm willing to enact the restriction that only natural persons (living humans) can contribute to a candidate, and only then to a candidate for whom they're eligible to vote (no contributions from outsiders), and only for a specific candidate/race (no transferring unused funds to other races or other candidates).
I haven't fully parsed the ramifications of all your provisions, but on first reading I don't disagree with any of them. The main way that corporations skew the election process, though, is through the use of so-called "issue" ads. These ads can use unlimited amounts of money to persuade the electorate that they need this or that issue addressed (which happens to coincide with their preferred candidate's stance.) That's why corporations with free speech rights are a menace to democracy. You can't limit their "right" to run these ads as long as they're considered "persons" because they're not endorsing a candidate *wink*wink*. The current propaganda campaign that you may have seen in your district is the attempt to put business-friendly politicians onto state supreme court and attorney general offices. They're using the specters of so-called "frivolous lawsuits" and poor economic conditions as boogie men to say we need change. If you ask them to produce a list of people who have won money frivolously and didn't deserve the compensation they were awarded they can't deliver. It's all just a bunch of PR bologna and if it's delivered loud enough and often enough they know that people will respond (it's normal psychology.) Can you point out any PR propaganda campaigns being conducted by labor unions? I'm unaware of any but would be interested to know. I don't think labor unions have anything near the amount of money that corporations are able to bring to the table.
If a corp. does something a sentient being, of which both corps and dogs are not, has to be accountable.
But see, this is something you're missing. Corporations are considered "sentient being(s)" under the law. This is how they're allowed to run roughshod over us. They commit crimes all the time but you can't put them in jail. That shows how dystopic the situation has become. I understand your point -- that individual actors within the corporation should be held accountable for the corporations' actions -- but it's often impossible to determine what actions those individuals undertook and they usually only contribute a small component to the greater crime committed by the corporation as a whole. It's just not as simple as you seem to believe.
If no one can be then it is something like an "act of God" or an animal with rabies who has to be killed.
Hmm... the death penalty for corporations... I can't say I disagree with you on that but it would be at the extreme of how to deal with corporations.
Similarly corps don't really own land or property. Extremely, beyond comprehensively, wrong. The shareholders do. That's just semantics. What is the corporation besides the collective of shareholders and the going concern they posses. It also only applies to publicly traded corporations. Private corporations don't have shareholders.
Unfortunately, perhaps, they can't get punished for what the directors do.
"I sentence each shareholder of Zik-Zak corporation to 30 seconds in prison per share for a cumulative total of 20 years." Yeah, that would work. Now, go back and read my post again and check out the link and see if revoking "personhood" isn't a more simple and straight-forward solution.
Corporations do not possess all rights individual citizens possess...
Could you be more wrong? If you're going to disagree with me it would be nice if you brought your arguments from a knowledgeable perspective. Corporations are considered "persons" under the law. The reason the word "person" is used is because that's the language the US Constitution uses to identify those that posses the rights being proscribed in the document. "Citizen" is used for US citizens and "person" is used for all persons, citizen or not. I think you need to study the issue a bit more.
Oh wait, that's what we already have. Corporations do not possess all rights individual citizens possess, the existance of corporations and their accountability to the shareholders, stakeholders and public at large are determined by the public through political channels.
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Only publicly traded corporations have all the features you outlined and they still have "human" rights despite your denial.
It sounds to me like you want to complain about "evil corporations" but don't have enough information to produce and argument so you resort to emotional appeals about how "companies aren't people!"
That's funny. You quoted me twice on things I didn't say yet you accuse me of arguing dishonestly.
...that most likely is the result of some of documentary like "gangs of America."
Sorry...never saw that movie. Looked boring to me. Once again, you're argument has a very dull point.
Are you saying corporations shouldn't have the ability to advertise things that will make them better off? Are you really saying that corporations shouldn't have access to legal representation when they are sued by a real live human being? Are you saying corporations should not be allowed to own/buy/sell property?
I said one thing. Corporations are not "persons." What's so difficult or controversial about that. It seems like common sense.
It doesn't make any sense, to conduct business a legitimate individual or a corporation must be able to do these things with the implicit protection of government's legal code.
Who says they can't have protection under the law? I just said that they aren't "persons" and don't have human rights such as the right to free speech. Paid speech isn't free speech.
What slate of legal rights would you give corporations so that they are not "treated like people"?
That is something we can come together as a nation and debate and decide. That's what the political process is for. I believe as a nation of enterprising people (real people) that it's certainly something we're capable of figuring out.
To suggest that the organizational structure of a corporation is somehow inheriently evil means you believe there is some other type of organization which is not evil...
I never said a corporation is evil, just psychopathic if given personhood. That was the lesson of "No Face." Keep corporations in check and put them to work and they will be productive parts of society but don't let them participate in politics which is impossible as long as they are "persons" with free speech rights.
P.S. Very few corporations have the right to keep and bear arms (even fewer are able to legal maintain well regulated militias) which makes them very much unlike people (there are countless other examples too)
I don't know how you could prevent corporations from exercising these rights as long as they are considered "persons" under the law. I think you're underestimating the rights currently granted to corporations. I'd be extremely surprised if there are no (or even few) corporations that own guns. I think you need a reality check on that issue.
...and when the time comes that the Democrats pass a law that does infringe my speech, and it gets upheld, that is the day I use the 2nd Amendment to invoke that most primal right so well expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Ummm...is that John Ashcroft knocking at your door? Nah, he'll let this one go because you only threatened Democrats.
Free and unfettered speech means living with big money, and eliminating money from the equation necessarily means restricting free speech.
Except that corporations are considered "persons" under the law (with all the rights that entails), are psychopaths , and are vastly more wealthy than real persons. Their vast wealth is swamping the speech of real persons and elevating their agenda over the agenda of the people.
You either have free speech or your don't. Once you start limiting, there is no stopping how much you limit it.
The more money you have the more "free" speech you can buy. Corporations are inaccurately classified as "persons" under the law so they get the same rights as real persons. Corporations have way more money than real persons so they pretty much own "free" speech. These silly laws that nip at the edges of our free speech rights are necessary to preserve the fiction that corporations are "persons."
What's naive is granting free speech (and all other human rights) to corporations as if they were "persons" and then wondering why the whole system went to hell. We wouldn't need this kind of regulation if only corporations were treated as the legal fiction they are. Allowing corporations to roam our society with all the rights of a person exposes us to ultra-wealthy psychopaths.
A lot of money buys a lot of "free" speech. Real persons have no chance in hell of competing with corporations on the "free" speech playing field. It's time we recognized reality and revoked these misplaced rights and overturned the fallacy that corporations are persons.
Remember "No Face" from Spirited Away? Best to keep them out of the bath house.
I can only guess that they think they can pollute all they want because Jesus will either come and invoke the rapture or otherwise "fix" the environment via some miracle (yes, I've actually been told this by supposed conservatives).
Sorry for the late reply. Here's a couple of quotes from former Secretary of the Interior James Watt:
"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns"
"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand"
Now, don't you feel silly for having made such an inflammatory statement?:):):)
They work because they work. Not because "we trust Einstein, he's our kind of guy".
You're either being stubborn or deliberately obtuse. You're still not getting my point and you're twisting the meaning of my words. My point was that modern scientific study is so esoteric that, for any particular experiment conducted, only a handful of insiders understand what the question is, let alone the answer. There's very little study done where even a highly trained scientist can just look at it and say, "Yep. That's obviously true. That stands on its own." Most science is done at the extremes of the disciplines because that's where discoveries are made. And science at the extremes is not easily penetrable by laymen such as ourselves. At that point, in order to evaluate the value of scientific thought, one must make a judgment about the credibility of the scientists or organizations who publish scientific findings. I find that the peoples' scientists, employed by or for our government (at lower pay than their counterparts), have eminently more credibility than corporate scientists, who are motivated by profit. Your claim that real science stands on its own is roughly equivalent to a juror claiming that they can spot a guilty person just by looking at them.
When the science is real, you don't have to take anyone's word. Real science stands on it's own.
That's a pretty ignorant statement. No one on earth, not even the most versatile scientists, can understand every scientific discipline well enough to draw valid conclusions from scientific publications. Hell, most people reading a scientific paper wouldn't even recognize the words in the paper let alone their meaning. If "real science" stood on its own there would never be any scientific dissent. Even Einstein had his detractors within the scientific community, yet here are all these nuclear power plants and weapons scattered around the world. Apparently that real science didn't stand on its own. It had to be tested and retested and retested again. Once again, you extract your facts from your lowest orifice.
I can mention (at least) one science that is so successful and complete that it has almost destroyed itself in terms of academic achievement: Particle physics.
And a hundred years from now (assuming we don't destroy ourselves with our certainty) particle physics will be completely unrecognizable to a current practitioner were they able to examine it. Drop your bluster and free yourself from your temporal bias.
Furthermore, you didn't address my point - is taking (political) action on basis of flawed data and models responsible ?
See what you did there? You used a loaded word ("flawed") to describe current science. By your use of the word, life itself would be considered "flawed" because it is filled with uncertainty. It's as impossible to remove all uncertainty from science as it is to remove it from life itself. Use some wisdom instead of twisted rhetoric.
Seriously, isn't it time people realised that environmental studies is still a discipline in its infancy, and political action taken on the basis of a young science is irresponsible ?
Get with the program, dude. ALL our science is in its infancy. Environmental science is no different than any other science. There is uncertainty involved and if you're not comfortable with uncertainty then you're not likely to be able to understand and evaluate the value of scientific study. What you're arguing is for the elimination of science as a basis for the deployment of policy. That leaves us with only faith to go by. I prefer to use uncertain science as a basis for policy rather than certain faith.
Because governments always tell the truth and never make mistakes.
And corporate-funded public relations "think tanks" have nothing to gain from manipulating public opinion to promote their employer's business interests? I'd take a government scientist's word over a corporate scientist's any day.
Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't have time to read all of his post. He's talking about with the throttle stuck open.
Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't read my post that he replied to in which I specifically referred to the throttle being stuck open.
If you think you can do it in under two minutes, I encourage you to upload the video of you trying.
I do, in fact, believe that a car under full throttle could be stopped in under two minutes. As deliberately performing this feat would constitute extreme abuse of a vehicle, only a fool would attempt it on their personal vehicle. For that reason, I believe you are much more qualified to perform this particular experiment.
breaking prolonged and at high speed will cause severe reduction in breaking power and even a LOSS of breaking power.
Well, there's the rub, though, isn't it? If a car goes full throttle and out of control, who's going to let that continue for a prolonged period? A sensible person would shove the brake pedal to the floor and immediately bring the car to a stop rather than continue tooling down the highway applying partial braking force until the brakes overheated.
If you can get bermuda grass to grow in the EKY climate at 2500', getting corn or tobacco to grow shouldn't be a problem.
So, no farms then. Just admit it -- you made that crap up. Just like the the valley fills in eastern KY "at 2500'." There might be some at 1000 ft. but I'd call that a pretty high altitude fill for that area. It's the mark of a truly enlightened person who can alter his beliefs when confronted with evidence that contradicts his closely-held assumptions. Your assumptions obviously aren't backed up with any knowledge of the reality of the effects of mountaintop removal/valley fill mining but appear to be based, instead, on Massey propaganda. Can't you please join with the good people of Kentucky (and states east and south) to help stop the abuse of the land and people of Appalachia by greedy out-of-state energy colonists who just want to enslave these people and places for their short-term benefit and then leave us to clean up the mess? It's important because it's permanent.
Nature prescribes no bounds aside from the laws of physics.
Perhaps I should be more specific...Earth's natural ecosystem proscribes boundaries that we thumb our noses at when we choose to use massive quantities of resources to achieve some kind of imaginary utopia of technological isolation from the limits of our physical existence.
Every known living thing consumes energy and produces waste. Only as necessary for its survival. The fact that we do too is not inherently immoral. The degree to which we do it can be but only when it harms the survival of humans. It sounds like you're agreeing with me here. That's what I just said. We're choosing to go in a direction that turns our backs on nature (I'm sorry, Earth's ecosystem) and is, in a very real way, harming the survival of, not only humans, but many other species on the planet. How can that be natural? How can you justify that by waving your hand and saying it's all good, just humans being natural? Once we achieve the power to make life-and-death decisions over entire ecosystems and species we have a very high moral responsibility to bring great wisdom and deliberation to the use of that power. That's something we've been loath to do and that your argument gives a breezy pass to.
Tell me, what arbitrary boundaries do you place on human behavior?
I never claimed to apply any arbitrary boundaries. My point was that we have a responsibility to protect the environment now that we have such great power to affect it. The "it's all natural" argument is just an excuse to avoid that responsibility.
"Mountaintop removal" also known as "scrape and fill" produces useable land for farming and development in the most economically depressed area in the US.
I offer all due respect to you when I say that you are a liar. Show me a farm on a mountaintop removal site. These are barren, rocky landscapes that can barely grow grass, let alone a productive food crop. Mountaintop removal mining illegally destroys streams and good hardwood forestland. The reclaimed sites may look green from a distance but they are barren and infertile.
It always pisses me off when people live in some fantasyland where "nature" is always in perfect harmony and humans no nothing but upset it.
And it always pisses me off that the same people who make this argument use it to justify human greed-induced environmental degradation. Every time someone points out that we're crapping in our own nest someone else trots this line out to make the claim that we have the right because we're products of nature ourselves. It's a two-faced argument because we do everything we can to isolate ourselves from the realities of nature. We drive cars and travel in planes to overcome the physical limits of our natural speed. We build air-tight buildings and install air conditioning because we don't like the natural climate. We genetically engineer our food because we want greater profit from its production. We spew the waste of our unnatural lifestyle back into the natural environment that is the very source of our well-being. That's why your argument is morally bankrupt. Until you live within the bounds that nature has proscribed, you're not a natural force in the environment. You are a very unnatural force.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's hard to work out the logic of where the control is coming from when the Iraqi "government" is just the middle eastern branch of the Republican party.
Na. The IRS is more like a wormhole. It takes money from the middle class and funnels it to corporations and to the military for creating mayhem and socialism in Iraq.
Labor unions wield similar clout and are similarly unaccountable to their members and to society as a whole. Are you prepared to impose the same prohibition on them?
Well, I'm not sure I proposed any prohibitions, but people must be free to form organizations of their own choosing. Those organizations shouldn't be granted personhood, however, and, as far as I know, labor unions don't have that status as humans and corporations currently do. I'm not that familiar with labor law so if I'm incorrect, that is if labor unions are considered as persons, then, yes, I am in favor of rescinding that provision.
Personally, I'm willing to enact the restriction that only natural persons (living humans) can contribute to a candidate, and only then to a candidate for whom they're eligible to vote (no contributions from outsiders), and only for a specific candidate/race (no transferring unused funds to other races or other candidates).
I haven't fully parsed the ramifications of all your provisions, but on first reading I don't disagree with any of them. The main way that corporations skew the election process, though, is through the use of so-called "issue" ads. These ads can use unlimited amounts of money to persuade the electorate that they need this or that issue addressed (which happens to coincide with their preferred candidate's stance.) That's why corporations with free speech rights are a menace to democracy. You can't limit their "right" to run these ads as long as they're considered "persons" because they're not endorsing a candidate *wink*wink*. The current propaganda campaign that you may have seen in your district is the attempt to put business-friendly politicians onto state supreme court and attorney general offices. They're using the specters of so-called "frivolous lawsuits" and poor economic conditions as boogie men to say we need change. If you ask them to produce a list of people who have won money frivolously and didn't deserve the compensation they were awarded they can't deliver. It's all just a bunch of PR bologna and if it's delivered loud enough and often enough they know that people will respond (it's normal psychology.) Can you point out any PR propaganda campaigns being conducted by labor unions? I'm unaware of any but would be interested to know. I don't think labor unions have anything near the amount of money that corporations are able to bring to the table.
If a corp. does something a sentient being, of which both corps and dogs are not, has to be accountable.
But see, this is something you're missing. Corporations are considered "sentient being(s)" under the law. This is how they're allowed to run roughshod over us. They commit crimes all the time but you can't put them in jail. That shows how dystopic the situation has become. I understand your point -- that individual actors within the corporation should be held accountable for the corporations' actions -- but it's often impossible to determine what actions those individuals undertook and they usually only contribute a small component to the greater crime committed by the corporation as a whole. It's just not as simple as you seem to believe.
If no one can be then it is something like an "act of God" or an animal with rabies who has to be killed.
Hmm... the death penalty for corporations... I can't say I disagree with you on that but it would be at the extreme of how to deal with corporations.
Similarly corps don't really own land or property.
Extremely, beyond comprehensively, wrong.
The shareholders do.
That's just semantics. What is the corporation besides the collective of shareholders and the going concern they posses. It also only applies to publicly traded corporations. Private corporations don't have shareholders.
Unfortunately, perhaps, they can't get punished for what the directors do.
"I sentence each shareholder of Zik-Zak corporation to 30 seconds in prison per share for a cumulative total of 20 years." Yeah, that would work. Now, go back and read my post again and check out the link and see if revoking "personhood" isn't a more simple and straight-forward solution.
...make that "your argument".
Corporations do not possess all rights individual citizens possess...
Could you be more wrong? If you're going to disagree with me it would be nice if you brought your arguments from a knowledgeable perspective. Corporations are considered "persons" under the law. The reason the word "person" is used is because that's the language the US Constitution uses to identify those that posses the rights being proscribed in the document. "Citizen" is used for US citizens and "person" is used for all persons, citizen or not. I think you need to study the issue a bit more.
Oh wait, that's what we already have. Corporations do not possess all rights individual citizens possess, the existance of corporations and their accountability to the shareholders, stakeholders and public at large are determined by the public through political channels.
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Only publicly traded corporations have all the features you outlined and they still have "human" rights despite your denial.
It sounds to me like you want to complain about "evil corporations" but don't have enough information to produce and argument so you resort to emotional appeals about how "companies aren't people!"
That's funny. You quoted me twice on things I didn't say yet you accuse me of arguing dishonestly.
Sorry...never saw that movie. Looked boring to me. Once again, you're argument has a very dull point.
Are you saying corporations shouldn't have the ability to advertise things that will make them better off? Are you really saying that corporations shouldn't have access to legal representation when they are sued by a real live human being? Are you saying corporations should not be allowed to own/buy/sell property?
I said one thing. Corporations are not "persons." What's so difficult or controversial about that. It seems like common sense.
It doesn't make any sense, to conduct business a legitimate individual or a corporation must be able to do these things with the implicit protection of government's legal code.
Who says they can't have protection under the law? I just said that they aren't "persons" and don't have human rights such as the right to free speech. Paid speech isn't free speech.
What slate of legal rights would you give corporations so that they are not "treated like people"?
That is something we can come together as a nation and debate and decide. That's what the political process is for. I believe as a nation of enterprising people (real people) that it's certainly something we're capable of figuring out.
To suggest that the organizational structure of a corporation is somehow inheriently evil means you believe there is some other type of organization which is not evil...
I never said a corporation is evil, just psychopathic if given personhood. That was the lesson of "No Face." Keep corporations in check and put them to work and they will be productive parts of society but don't let them participate in politics which is impossible as long as they are "persons" with free speech rights.
P.S. Very few corporations have the right to keep and bear arms (even fewer are able to legal maintain well regulated militias) which makes them very much unlike people (there are countless other examples too)
I don't know how you could prevent corporations from exercising these rights as long as they are considered "persons" under the law. I think you're underestimating the rights currently granted to corporations. I'd be extremely surprised if there are no (or even few) corporations that own guns. I think you need a reality check on that issue.
Ummm...is that John Ashcroft knocking at your door? Nah, he'll let this one go because you only threatened Democrats.
Free and unfettered speech means living with big money, and eliminating money from the equation necessarily means restricting free speech.
Except that corporations are considered "persons" under the law (with all the rights that entails), are psychopaths , and are vastly more wealthy than real persons. Their vast wealth is swamping the speech of real persons and elevating their agenda over the agenda of the people.
Corporations are not persons.
You either have free speech or your don't. Once you start limiting, there is no stopping how much you limit it.
The more money you have the more "free" speech you can buy. Corporations are inaccurately classified as "persons" under the law so they get the same rights as real persons. Corporations have way more money than real persons so they pretty much own "free" speech. These silly laws that nip at the edges of our free speech rights are necessary to preserve the fiction that corporations are "persons."
I guess I was being naive...
What's naive is granting free speech (and all other human rights) to corporations as if they were "persons" and then wondering why the whole system went to hell. We wouldn't need this kind of regulation if only corporations were treated as the legal fiction they are. Allowing corporations to roam our society with all the rights of a person exposes us to ultra-wealthy psychopaths.
A lot of money buys a lot of "free" speech. Real persons have no chance in hell of competing with corporations on the "free" speech playing field. It's time we recognized reality and revoked these misplaced rights and overturned the fallacy that corporations are persons.
Remember "No Face" from Spirited Away? Best to keep them out of the bath house.
I can only guess that they think they can pollute all they want because Jesus will either come and invoke the rapture or otherwise "fix" the environment via some miracle (yes, I've actually been told this by supposed conservatives).
Sorry for the late reply. Here's a couple of quotes from former Secretary of the Interior James Watt:
"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns"
"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand"
Now, don't you feel silly for having made such an inflammatory statement?
They work because they work. Not because "we trust Einstein, he's our kind of guy".
You're either being stubborn or deliberately obtuse. You're still not getting my point and you're twisting the meaning of my words.
My point was that modern scientific study is so esoteric that, for any particular experiment conducted, only a handful of insiders understand what the question is, let alone the answer . There's very little study done where even a highly trained scientist can just look at it and say, "Yep. That's obviously true. That stands on its own." Most science is done at the extremes of the disciplines because that's where discoveries are made. And science at the extremes is not easily penetrable by laymen such as ourselves. At that point, in order to evaluate the value of scientific thought, one must make a judgment about the credibility of the scientists or organizations who publish scientific findings. I find that the peoples' scientists, employed by or for our government (at lower pay than their counterparts), have eminently more credibility than corporate scientists, who are motivated by profit. Your claim that real science stands on its own is roughly equivalent to a juror claiming that they can spot a guilty person just by looking at them.
When the science is real, you don't have to take anyone's word. Real science stands on it's own.
That's a pretty ignorant statement. No one on earth, not even the most versatile scientists, can understand every scientific discipline well enough to draw valid conclusions from scientific publications. Hell, most people reading a scientific paper wouldn't even recognize the words in the paper let alone their meaning. If "real science" stood on its own there would never be any scientific dissent. Even Einstein had his detractors within the scientific community, yet here are all these nuclear power plants and weapons scattered around the world. Apparently that real science didn't stand on its own. It had to be tested and retested and retested again.
Once again, you extract your facts from your lowest orifice.
I can mention (at least) one science that is so successful and complete that it has almost destroyed itself in terms of academic achievement: Particle physics.
And a hundred years from now (assuming we don't destroy ourselves with our certainty) particle physics will be completely unrecognizable to a current practitioner were they able to examine it. Drop your bluster and free yourself from your temporal bias.
Furthermore, you didn't address my point - is taking (political) action on basis of flawed data and models responsible ?
See what you did there? You used a loaded word ("flawed") to describe current science. By your use of the word, life itself would be considered "flawed" because it is filled with uncertainty. It's as impossible to remove all uncertainty from science as it is to remove it from life itself. Use some wisdom instead of twisted rhetoric.
Seriously, isn't it time people realised that environmental studies is still a discipline in its infancy, and political action taken on the basis of a young science is irresponsible ?
Get with the program, dude. ALL our science is in its infancy. Environmental science is no different than any other science. There is uncertainty involved and if you're not comfortable with uncertainty then you're not likely to be able to understand and evaluate the value of scientific study. What you're arguing is for the elimination of science as a basis for the deployment of policy. That leaves us with only faith to go by. I prefer to use uncertain science as a basis for policy rather than certain faith.
Because governments always tell the truth and never make mistakes.
And corporate-funded public relations "think tanks" have nothing to gain from manipulating public opinion to promote their employer's business interests?
I'd take a government scientist's word over a corporate scientist's any day.
Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't have time to read all of his post. He's talking about with the throttle stuck open.
Perhaps you were in a hurry and didn't read my post that he replied to in which I specifically referred to the throttle being stuck open.
If you think you can do it in under two minutes, I encourage you to upload the video of you trying.
I do, in fact, believe that a car under full throttle could be stopped in under two minutes. As deliberately performing this feat would constitute extreme abuse of a vehicle, only a fool would attempt it on their personal vehicle. For that reason, I believe you are much more qualified to perform this particular experiment.
Show me a car that can't stop from any speed in under two minutes and I'll show you an engineer or two in the unemployment line.
breaking prolonged and at high speed will cause severe reduction in breaking power and even a LOSS of breaking power.
Well, there's the rub, though, isn't it? If a car goes full throttle and out of control, who's going to let that continue for a prolonged period? A sensible person would shove the brake pedal to the floor and immediately bring the car to a stop rather than continue tooling down the highway applying partial braking force until the brakes overheated.
So, the poster was very, very right.
If you can get bermuda grass to grow in the EKY climate at 2500', getting corn or tobacco to grow shouldn't be a problem.
So, no farms then. Just admit it -- you made that crap up. Just like the the valley fills in eastern KY "at 2500'." There might be some at 1000 ft. but I'd call that a pretty high altitude fill for that area.
It's the mark of a truly enlightened person who can alter his beliefs when confronted with evidence that contradicts his closely-held assumptions. Your assumptions obviously aren't backed up with any knowledge of the reality of the effects of mountaintop removal/valley fill mining but appear to be based, instead, on Massey propaganda. Can't you please join with the good people of Kentucky (and states east and south) to help stop the abuse of the land and people of Appalachia by greedy out-of-state energy colonists who just want to enslave these people and places for their short-term benefit and then leave us to clean up the mess? It's important because it's permanent.
Fine. Where's the farm?
Nature prescribes no bounds aside from the laws of physics.
Perhaps I should be more specific...Earth's natural ecosystem proscribes boundaries that we thumb our noses at when we choose to use massive quantities of resources to achieve some kind of imaginary utopia of technological isolation from the limits of our physical existence.
Every known living thing consumes energy and produces waste.
Only as necessary for its survival.
The fact that we do too is not inherently immoral. The degree to which we do it can be but only when it harms the survival of humans.
It sounds like you're agreeing with me here. That's what I just said. We're choosing to go in a direction that turns our backs on nature (I'm sorry, Earth's ecosystem) and is, in a very real way, harming the survival of, not only humans, but many other species on the planet. How can that be natural? How can you justify that by waving your hand and saying it's all good, just humans being natural? Once we achieve the power to make life-and-death decisions over entire ecosystems and species we have a very high moral responsibility to bring great wisdom and deliberation to the use of that power. That's something we've been loath to do and that your argument gives a breezy pass to.
Tell me, what arbitrary boundaries do you place on human behavior?
I never claimed to apply any arbitrary boundaries. My point was that we have a responsibility to protect the environment now that we have such great power to affect it. The "it's all natural" argument is just an excuse to avoid that responsibility.
"Mountaintop removal" also known as "scrape and fill" produces useable land for farming and development in the most economically depressed area in the US.
I offer all due respect to you when I say that you are a liar. Show me a farm on a mountaintop removal site. These are barren, rocky landscapes that can barely grow grass, let alone a productive food crop. Mountaintop removal mining illegally destroys streams and good hardwood forestland. The reclaimed sites may look green from a distance but they are barren and infertile.
It always pisses me off when people live in some fantasyland where "nature" is always in perfect harmony and humans no nothing but upset it.
And it always pisses me off that the same people who make this argument use it to justify human greed-induced environmental degradation.
Every time someone points out that we're crapping in our own nest someone else trots this line out to make the claim that we have the right because we're products of nature ourselves. It's a two-faced argument because we do everything we can to isolate ourselves from the realities of nature. We drive cars and travel in planes to overcome the physical limits of our natural speed. We build air-tight buildings and install air conditioning because we don't like the natural climate. We genetically engineer our food because we want greater profit from its production. We spew the waste of our unnatural lifestyle back into the natural environment that is the very source of our well-being. That's why your argument is morally bankrupt. Until you live within the bounds that nature has proscribed, you're not a natural force in the environment. You are a very unnatural force.