This is just the next step in the fascist system that the PR machines still claim is "capitalism". In 2008, it became in vogue to keep all profits private, but then socialize the debt. Still doing it now, as there are no mortgages anymore without government backing.
Really? When SCOTUS decided that corporations were people, was that first a law? Which law? When SCOTUS decided that money = speech, was that first a law?
Nice repetition of statist backwards meme propagation, there, have to hand it to you for that. FYI, corporations ARE people. That is, they are government-sanctioned ways to organize groups of people, by government rules. While I agree that government has provided corporations too much protection, they didn't get it from the SCOTUS. All that Woodward did was say they have a right to enter into contracts and have them enforced. That is essential for any functioning system of commerce. The Santa Clara County decision just said that corporate debts have to be treated the same as personal debts for tax purposes. These are just items of fairness. It's called equal justice (contrasted sharply with "social justice" which states that neediness invokes a claim to the labor of others).
The SCOTUS is supposed to protect free speech and other rights, and free speech is probably one of the most important ones. Congress and the President have shown they have nothing but contempt for others' free speech rights - at least there is some branch sometimes upholding them. The only thing Buckley did was say you can't limit spending on campaigns - it does indeed limit speech.
In any case, these are all just cases where the government tried to impose limits on freedom, and people appealed to the courts. How the courts decide those conflicts may be of interest, but if you're going to complain about them going too far it looks like you would more likely have issue with something like Roe or Wickard, not the ones you do.
And it's nothing compared to the power of the executive these days, killing US citizens with drones, passing executive orders to get around Congress, ignoring Congress AND the decisions of the courts to implement whatever rules it wants. The FCC, the Department of Energy, and the EPA have all done that at the behest of the executive, all in violation of both Congressional laws and Federal court rulings. And yet you claim the SCOTUS is the one with expanded powers??? No basis in fact, and entirely bogus.
Easy because you're making stuff up. Yea, making stuff up is easy. Try some truth instead, that's what I was looking for.
Guatemala, 1954. United Fruit Co orders President Eisenhower to assassinate President Juan Jose Arevalo.
Bzzzzt!Arevalo died in 1990, and his term as President ended in 1951. What happened in 1954 was, after many years of bad relations, the Secretary of State of the US, and the CIA, backed a rebel (Carlos Castillo Armas), who eventually took over. The President he deposed was exiled. Yea, it protected the interests of United Fruit, who had been losing property to the Communist government for years. Nobody ordered Eisenhower to do anything. This incident was similar to the recent takeover of Libya, except in Libya the President really WAS killed
I already mentioned that type of scenario. It's not corporations "ordering" any violent action, in spite of however you wish to couch your rhetoric.
There is only one branch of government whose power has been growing out of control, and that's the US Supreme Court.
You're really out there with this one. The SCOTUS doesn't make laws at all, it only interprets them. It takes years for anyone to even get an audience. Yet the US President these days, if he's frustrated by delays getting congress to pass a law, just decides to start issuing executive orders to implement them anyway. Nobody stops him, SCOTUS doesn't question it. He's got drones, and he's sent them after and killed US Citizens with them. No corporate orders, just dictatorial level power.
Corporations have no power in a free market, only the consumers do.
That is frighteningly optimistic. Any truly free market naturally gravitates toward a plutocracy of monopolies, as companies continually get bigger and buy each other out unchecked (see Big Oil, Big Media, Big Telecom, etc). Then what power do consumers have?
We might a government that can provide and enforce regulation to prevent this.
Those are ALL examples of market distortions caused by government, not problems with the market. Big Oil is subsidized and heavily regulated by government. Everyone remembers the "trust bust" of Standard Oil, but few people realize that Standard was actually LOSING market share BEFORE the breakup, when its market share stood around 60 to 65%. Big Media is supported by never-ending copyright laws, trade agreements, and government-sponsored enforcement of private contracts. Big Telecom was created as a government-granted monopoly, broken up, then provided funding, enlisted as a tax collector, and granted all kinds of incumbent protections in recent laws.
Certainly there is a place for reasonable and fair regulation of industry, but the amount of intervention today is so great that the power consumers should typically have in the market is heavily curtailed. Any government support of commerce is slanted heavily toward protecting and benefiting producers. The only type of "consumer protection" rules that are passed these days are ones that eliminate consumer choice, and they ultimately benefit certain producers.
Even more false equivalencies. If you think your description of a mob boss with a hit man on salary is comparable, then please provide an example of a corporation ordering a hit that was carried out by a government official. I can think of lots of examples of the opposite (government agencies ordering hits carried out by corporations). They still do that in Iraq.
Now sure, you can claim that corporations wanting access to oil prompted the invasion of Iraq, the takeover of Libya, and the threats against the government of Uganda, and that's true. However it's also true that there are plenty of citizens supporting those actions, even if they are fooled by the compromised media and government spokeholes into thinking those actions aren't really about oil. But it's still the government making those decisions, and it's still the government that needs to be held accountable.
I don't disagree with you at all about the Federal Reserve and the undue influence of bad actors involved with many transnational corporations. But my contention is still no less valid: That it is the excessive power and coercive might of the Federal government that makes all this possible. And that ceding even more authority to the Federal government can only make the situation worse. And bringing down the power of the Federal government, or at least re-establishing the strict chains that the Constitution was intended to be is the only way to improve the situation.
After all, the authority of the Federal government, and especially the Executive branch, has for the most part only grown greater and greater over time. And every new power or expansion of that authority only serves to make things worse for the people, and lately that has included people all over the world.
You said "corporations" hold all the strings, and you compare them to Napoleon - a dictator with an army. Excellent example of a false equivalency if I ever saw one.
The last I saw, it was 535 people in Washington that pass, enforce, and uphold the laws, and a smaller number than than in charge of the military and all the armed bureaucracies. If you're complaining about about outside influences on the decisions those people make, then fine, but they are still the ones making the decisions, and claiming corporations have direct control over the coercive power of government is bullcrap.
You do realize it's government that's shutting down the protests and jailing the protesters, right? How does it make sense, then, to make them more powerful? So they can arrest protesters even faster?
Except when they have lots of money, monopolies, and the method which they use to screw consumers over is small enough that consumers won't shop elsewhere.
If the "screwing" is "small enough" that consumers won't shop elsewhere, it pretty much sounds like that's a functional market. Small-dicked corporations don't really seem like much of a threat.
As much as I admire them Jefferson and Washington were both 1%'ers who wanted among other things relief from taxes on their businesses.
That explains the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn't explain the Constitutional Convention, and the results of it, which vastly expanded the power of the central government.
Strings are more powerful then guns if the strings decide who gets shot. And I've said it before, will say it again. I'll take my chances with the gov't, because at least I HAVE a chance. Corporations stated goal is profit, not matter what the cost. The gov't at least has the potential to be "By the people, for the people". A corporation will never be anything but what it is: A replacement for the apparatus of the Divine Right of Kings.
The "Divine Right of Kings" IS, a form of government. Corporations have no power in a free market, only the consumers do. They have no powers of coercion, they require government for that. Government retains a monopoly on violence - all over violence is unlawful. A government "By the people" does nothing to protect the rights of its people, unless it is constrained from doing so - that's the purpose of the US Constitution - to constrain the powers of the government to its primary purpose: protecting the individual rights of its people.
The US Federal government does not really prioritize on that anymore - they are powerful enough not to. They don't respond to the people very much anymore, they are powerful enough not to. And with a government that powerful, with that much influence over all commerce and the ability to interject rules into every private transaction, of course there are entities looking to influence the government to favor them with their rules. Companies that do NOT invest in lobbying and influencing legislators are at a disadvantage, and if they manage to grow successful in such a situation, eventually the government will come after them for daring to ignore the government's power. Microsoft learned that lesson, and now has one of the largest lobbying budgets of any US company. Gibson Guitar is learning that lesson right now.
Does this even have much of a chance of passing? Considering how hard it's been lately to get IMPORTANT laws passed... do we even have to worry?
Our government can't seem to get much of anything done lately; how is this different?
Like all laws that benefit only the government and their corporate buddies, it will be passed as a "bi-partisan effort", and sold as "an important innovation to protect the American people."
There's no such thing. Unless you're referring to the Acceptable Use Policies written by the government agencies universities that wholly owned the entire network.
It was fun for a while. Too bad they've decided to kill it.
Seems I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere - Nothing ever imrpoves with Government involvement.
A pretty general statement, but certainly applicable here.
I'd say its the MAFIAA more than the government here.
Actually, they are failing in the free market, because they no longer serve their customers and should be left to die and rot. But, in the US, a little government intervention goes a long way toward keeping the slaves from having any power like that.
You've got to follow the strings, and the ones holding all the strings are corporations. They became more powerful than any government decades ago.
Riiiiight. That's because of all the enforcement of corporate policies by armed bureaucracies, the IRS, autonomous drones and legions of... rent-a-cops?
Strings are more powerful than guns, now?
If only the government had MORE power (to beat MORE heads), everything would be okay, right? Then they would only protect the people that spend their days working and have limited funds for lobbying and media time, right?
They don't even have to do that. Just blame it all on the [other party], and point out how much more the [other party] is, and the public is sure to avoid voting for any third party, because it might mean the [wrong party] gets elected.
This. Sort of a big "duh". They are really cheap, and work well for off-site backup of your important data, too, especially stuff you don't trust being sent off into the cloud. Not as convenient as cloud storage, but actually quite a bit cheaper.
And your evidence is a list without North Korea included, that states specifically that it's not really good for comparison across countries? It's not a useful tool because it says nothing about quality of life. What good is it to have less "disparity" if most people in the lowest quintile are starving? Or - if even the poorest have adequate housing and food, why is it a problem?
Yes, and the fact that anyone can see a doctor *clearly* has nothing to do with it. When there is such a clear association of health metrics and socialized medicine (in reasonably capitalist countries), you have to wonder.
Cherry-picking statistics is not convincing, nor is comparing one place where no one requiring medical attention is turned away to another place where no one requiring medical attention is turned away. Claiming that it makes a difference because of who the payer is for the indigent or because there is a centralized system for rationing care makes a difference in general population health doesn't hold much water.
What it sounds like to me is separating the notions of files from the notion of storage. So only the engineer and the underlying system needs to worry about whether your data is on your hard drive, or the cloud, or a pen drive. Instead, the user can just worry about their text/image/video, wherever it happens to be.
Yea, that's kind of what it sounded like to me, too, and it's an absolutely horrible idea. Creating symlinks or somehow abstracting the storage location for convenience is one thing, but discovering the location in those cases is trivial. Claiming the user doesn't need to know about the storage and hiding it so deep it requires multiple tools or deeply obscured properties is a nightmarish scenario.
Microsoft already thinks this is a good idea, though, and it's already causing headaches. I've had to deal with issues from "volume shadow storage", those crazy library linkages (whatever they call them), and the user profile "virtualStore", that seems to want to redirect files sometimes for some unknown reason but constantly displays them as if they were somewhere else. More of this insanity is not a good thing.
You mean like the Scandinavian countries, which score better than we do on socioeconomic mobility, economic disparity,
Bah! Meaningless. Ranking countries by "economic disparity" puts North Korea on top. "Socioeconomic mobility" is only for the natives, brown immigrants aren't included.
public health, subjective well-being,
"public health" means they aren't afraid of condoms and their food isn't controlled by sugar tariffs, corn subsidies, ADM, Monsanto, and their doctors visited by hot babes pushing the latest patented poisons from Pfiser and Merk. "subjective" well-being = "I don't know how unhappy I am because everybody else is miserable".
and deal with terrorist incidents in a mature fashion by *not* succumbing to fear and curtailing civil rights?
"curtailing civil rights" is pretty hard when the bar is already so low. As far as succumbing to fear - those Scandinavian countries long ago instituted a policy of unlimited appeasement to all terrorists. It's what their so-called "multiculturalism" is designed to do.
I'm only lamenting the end of any space program at all, while all our resources go into conservation and population reduction. It's like the human race has become some old man that has lost all his ambition to better himself or the world around him, and is just looking forward to a quiet retirement where he can live out his remaining days in peace.
You think removing a handful of people from the Earth is going to make a difference ? Or do you envision launching millions of spaceships every day taking people to a better world, only a few hundred light years away.
Yea because the only options are mass migration or no extraterrestrial industry at all.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just the next step in the fascist system that the PR machines still claim is "capitalism". In 2008, it became in vogue to keep all profits private, but then socialize the debt. Still doing it now, as there are no mortgages anymore without government backing.
So the next step is to socialize expenses.
or how raising taxes on the people most able to afford it is stifling job creation.
Yes, but how do you raise taxes on the Federal government?
Really? When SCOTUS decided that corporations were people, was that first a law? Which law? When SCOTUS decided that money = speech, was that first a law?
Nice repetition of statist backwards meme propagation, there, have to hand it to you for that. FYI, corporations ARE people. That is, they are government-sanctioned ways to organize groups of people, by government rules. While I agree that government has provided corporations too much protection, they didn't get it from the SCOTUS. All that Woodward did was say they have a right to enter into contracts and have them enforced. That is essential for any functioning system of commerce. The Santa Clara County decision just said that corporate debts have to be treated the same as personal debts for tax purposes. These are just items of fairness. It's called equal justice (contrasted sharply with "social justice" which states that neediness invokes a claim to the labor of others).
The SCOTUS is supposed to protect free speech and other rights, and free speech is probably one of the most important ones. Congress and the President have shown they have nothing but contempt for others' free speech rights - at least there is some branch sometimes upholding them. The only thing Buckley did was say you can't limit spending on campaigns - it does indeed limit speech.
In any case, these are all just cases where the government tried to impose limits on freedom, and people appealed to the courts. How the courts decide those conflicts may be of interest, but if you're going to complain about them going too far it looks like you would more likely have issue with something like Roe or Wickard, not the ones you do.
And it's nothing compared to the power of the executive these days, killing US citizens with drones, passing executive orders to get around Congress, ignoring Congress AND the decisions of the courts to implement whatever rules it wants. The FCC, the Department of Energy, and the EPA have all done that at the behest of the executive, all in violation of both Congressional laws and Federal court rulings. And yet you claim the SCOTUS is the one with expanded powers??? No basis in fact, and entirely bogus.
God, you make it too easy.
Easy because you're making stuff up. Yea, making stuff up is easy. Try some truth instead, that's what I was looking for.
Guatemala, 1954. United Fruit Co orders President Eisenhower to assassinate President Juan Jose Arevalo.
Bzzzzt!Arevalo died in 1990, and his term as President ended in 1951. What happened in 1954 was, after many years of bad relations, the Secretary of State of the US, and the CIA, backed a rebel (Carlos Castillo Armas), who eventually took over. The President he deposed was exiled. Yea, it protected the interests of United Fruit, who had been losing property to the Communist government for years. Nobody ordered Eisenhower to do anything. This incident was similar to the recent takeover of Libya, except in Libya the President really WAS killed
I already mentioned that type of scenario. It's not corporations "ordering" any violent action, in spite of however you wish to couch your rhetoric.
There is only one branch of government whose power has been growing out of control, and that's the US Supreme Court.
You're really out there with this one. The SCOTUS doesn't make laws at all, it only interprets them. It takes years for anyone to even get an audience. Yet the US President these days, if he's frustrated by delays getting congress to pass a law, just decides to start issuing executive orders to implement them anyway. Nobody stops him, SCOTUS doesn't question it. He's got drones, and he's sent them after and killed US Citizens with them. No corporate orders, just dictatorial level power.
Corporations have no power in a free market, only the consumers do.
That is frighteningly optimistic. Any truly free market naturally gravitates toward a plutocracy of monopolies, as companies continually get bigger and buy each other out unchecked (see Big Oil, Big Media, Big Telecom, etc). Then what power do consumers have? We might a government that can provide and enforce regulation to prevent this.
Those are ALL examples of market distortions caused by government, not problems with the market. Big Oil is subsidized and heavily regulated by government. Everyone remembers the "trust bust" of Standard Oil, but few people realize that Standard was actually LOSING market share BEFORE the breakup, when its market share stood around 60 to 65%. Big Media is supported by never-ending copyright laws, trade agreements, and government-sponsored enforcement of private contracts. Big Telecom was created as a government-granted monopoly, broken up, then provided funding, enlisted as a tax collector, and granted all kinds of incumbent protections in recent laws.
Certainly there is a place for reasonable and fair regulation of industry, but the amount of intervention today is so great that the power consumers should typically have in the market is heavily curtailed. Any government support of commerce is slanted heavily toward protecting and benefiting producers. The only type of "consumer protection" rules that are passed these days are ones that eliminate consumer choice, and they ultimately benefit certain producers.
Even more false equivalencies. If you think your description of a mob boss with a hit man on salary is comparable, then please provide an example of a corporation ordering a hit that was carried out by a government official. I can think of lots of examples of the opposite (government agencies ordering hits carried out by corporations). They still do that in Iraq.
Now sure, you can claim that corporations wanting access to oil prompted the invasion of Iraq, the takeover of Libya, and the threats against the government of Uganda, and that's true. However it's also true that there are plenty of citizens supporting those actions, even if they are fooled by the compromised media and government spokeholes into thinking those actions aren't really about oil. But it's still the government making those decisions, and it's still the government that needs to be held accountable.
I don't disagree with you at all about the Federal Reserve and the undue influence of bad actors involved with many transnational corporations. But my contention is still no less valid: That it is the excessive power and coercive might of the Federal government that makes all this possible. And that ceding even more authority to the Federal government can only make the situation worse. And bringing down the power of the Federal government, or at least re-establishing the strict chains that the Constitution was intended to be is the only way to improve the situation.
After all, the authority of the Federal government, and especially the Executive branch, has for the most part only grown greater and greater over time. And every new power or expansion of that authority only serves to make things worse for the people, and lately that has included people all over the world.
You said "corporations" hold all the strings, and you compare them to Napoleon - a dictator with an army. Excellent example of a false equivalency if I ever saw one.
The last I saw, it was 535 people in Washington that pass, enforce, and uphold the laws, and a smaller number than than in charge of the military and all the armed bureaucracies. If you're complaining about about outside influences on the decisions those people make, then fine, but they are still the ones making the decisions, and claiming corporations have direct control over the coercive power of government is bullcrap.
You do realize it's government that's shutting down the protests and jailing the protesters, right? How does it make sense, then, to make them more powerful? So they can arrest protesters even faster?
Corporations have no power in a free market
Except when they have lots of money, monopolies, and the method which they use to screw consumers over is small enough that consumers won't shop elsewhere.
If the "screwing" is "small enough" that consumers won't shop elsewhere, it pretty much sounds like that's a functional market. Small-dicked corporations don't really seem like much of a threat.
As much as I admire them Jefferson and Washington were both 1%'ers who wanted among other things relief from taxes on their businesses.
That explains the Declaration of Independence, but it doesn't explain the Constitutional Convention, and the results of it, which vastly expanded the power of the central government.
Strings are more powerful then guns if the strings decide who gets shot. And I've said it before, will say it again. I'll take my chances with the gov't, because at least I HAVE a chance. Corporations stated goal is profit, not matter what the cost. The gov't at least has the potential to be "By the people, for the people". A corporation will never be anything but what it is: A replacement for the apparatus of the Divine Right of Kings.
The "Divine Right of Kings" IS, a form of government. Corporations have no power in a free market, only the consumers do. They have no powers of coercion, they require government for that. Government retains a monopoly on violence - all over violence is unlawful. A government "By the people" does nothing to protect the rights of its people, unless it is constrained from doing so - that's the purpose of the US Constitution - to constrain the powers of the government to its primary purpose: protecting the individual rights of its people.
The US Federal government does not really prioritize on that anymore - they are powerful enough not to. They don't respond to the people very much anymore, they are powerful enough not to. And with a government that powerful, with that much influence over all commerce and the ability to interject rules into every private transaction, of course there are entities looking to influence the government to favor them with their rules. Companies that do NOT invest in lobbying and influencing legislators are at a disadvantage, and if they manage to grow successful in such a situation, eventually the government will come after them for daring to ignore the government's power. Microsoft learned that lesson, and now has one of the largest lobbying budgets of any US company. Gibson Guitar is learning that lesson right now.
Does this even have much of a chance of passing? Considering how hard it's been lately to get IMPORTANT laws passed... do we even have to worry?
Our government can't seem to get much of anything done lately; how is this different?
Like all laws that benefit only the government and their corporate buddies, it will be passed as a "bi-partisan effort", and sold as "an important innovation to protect the American people."
... Regan era internet regulations.
There's no such thing. Unless you're referring to the Acceptable Use Policies written by the government agencies universities that wholly owned the entire network.
I actually went over and signed it. How naive I am. But then I read the "responses" to the other petitions.
They actually do a lot of bullcrap spin before politely saying "screw you".
It was fun for a while. Too bad they've decided to kill it.
Seems I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere - Nothing ever imrpoves with Government involvement.
A pretty general statement, but certainly applicable here.
I'd say its the MAFIAA more than the government here.
Actually, they are failing in the free market, because they no longer serve their customers and should be left to die and rot. But, in the US, a little government intervention goes a long way toward keeping the slaves from having any power like that.
When has the government ever not teamed up with corporations?
Well there was that brief period in America between 1775 and 1789.
You've got to follow the strings, and the ones holding all the strings are corporations. They became more powerful than any government decades ago.
Riiiiight. That's because of all the enforcement of corporate policies by armed bureaucracies, the IRS, autonomous drones and legions of ... rent-a-cops?
Strings are more powerful than guns, now?
If only the government had MORE power (to beat MORE heads), everything would be okay, right? Then they would only protect the people that spend their days working and have limited funds for lobbying and media time, right?
They don't even have to do that. Just blame it all on the [other party], and point out how much more the [other party] is, and the public is sure to avoid voting for any third party, because it might mean the [wrong party] gets elected.
This. Sort of a big "duh". They are really cheap, and work well for off-site backup of your important data, too, especially stuff you don't trust being sent off into the cloud. Not as convenient as cloud storage, but actually quite a bit cheaper.
You are either misinformed or lying
And your evidence is a list without North Korea included, that states specifically that it's not really good for comparison across countries? It's not a useful tool because it says nothing about quality of life. What good is it to have less "disparity" if most people in the lowest quintile are starving? Or - if even the poorest have adequate housing and food, why is it a problem?
Yes, and the fact that anyone can see a doctor *clearly* has nothing to do with it. When there is such a clear association of health metrics and socialized medicine (in reasonably capitalist countries), you have to wonder.
Cherry-picking statistics is not convincing, nor is comparing one place where no one requiring medical attention is turned away to another place where no one requiring medical attention is turned away. Claiming that it makes a difference because of who the payer is for the indigent or because there is a centralized system for rationing care makes a difference in general population health doesn't hold much water.
What it sounds like to me is separating the notions of files from the notion of storage. So only the engineer and the underlying system needs to worry about whether your data is on your hard drive, or the cloud, or a pen drive. Instead, the user can just worry about their text/image/video, wherever it happens to be.
Yea, that's kind of what it sounded like to me, too, and it's an absolutely horrible idea. Creating symlinks or somehow abstracting the storage location for convenience is one thing, but discovering the location in those cases is trivial. Claiming the user doesn't need to know about the storage and hiding it so deep it requires multiple tools or deeply obscured properties is a nightmarish scenario.
Microsoft already thinks this is a good idea, though, and it's already causing headaches. I've had to deal with issues from "volume shadow storage", those crazy library linkages (whatever they call them), and the user profile "virtualStore", that seems to want to redirect files sometimes for some unknown reason but constantly displays them as if they were somewhere else. More of this insanity is not a good thing.
You mean like the Scandinavian countries, which score better than we do on socioeconomic mobility, economic disparity,
Bah! Meaningless. Ranking countries by "economic disparity" puts North Korea on top. "Socioeconomic mobility" is only for the natives, brown immigrants aren't included.
public health, subjective well-being,
"public health" means they aren't afraid of condoms and their food isn't controlled by sugar tariffs, corn subsidies, ADM, Monsanto, and their doctors visited by hot babes pushing the latest patented poisons from Pfiser and Merk. "subjective" well-being = "I don't know how unhappy I am because everybody else is miserable".
and deal with terrorist incidents in a mature fashion by *not* succumbing to fear and curtailing civil rights?
"curtailing civil rights" is pretty hard when the bar is already so low. As far as succumbing to fear - those Scandinavian countries long ago instituted a policy of unlimited appeasement to all terrorists. It's what their so-called "multiculturalism" is designed to do.
Well it was your idea, not mine.
I'm only lamenting the end of any space program at all, while all our resources go into conservation and population reduction. It's like the human race has become some old man that has lost all his ambition to better himself or the world around him, and is just looking forward to a quiet retirement where he can live out his remaining days in peace.
You think removing a handful of people from the Earth is going to make a difference ? Or do you envision launching millions of spaceships every day taking people to a better world, only a few hundred light years away.
Yea because the only options are mass migration or no extraterrestrial industry at all.
Plenty of skeptics (actually dentists, there is a difference, and Muller is the former not the later)
Dammit! Now there are even dentists in on it!!??! I guess now I need to go looking for an environmentally friendly dentist.