What you call the "rapid growth" of those nations is basically just them trying their best to catch up to where the West was many decades ago. They aren't even doing that particularly well. India is, and this is putting it politely, still an absolute shithole. Brazil is only marginally better, and China only marginally better than that.
Developing nations are generally doing some or all of the three:
1) Building their industrial base 2) Providing free or low cost education 3) Providing free or low cost health care
The United States is doing the opposite of that. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our lack of high speed rail is a joke, as is our lack of mass transit outside of a few major cities, and our internet and cell phone networks are a decade behind Europe's. More job-crushing trade laws are being pushed (TPP), getting a college degree means five or six figures of debt, and the trivial detail that Obomneycare will still leave the U.S. with the worst health care system in the industrialized world.
How are those trends sustainable for the United States, where 80% of the population is in poverty or a paycheck away from it?
It's only halfways implemented. No butthurt right wing rage over Romneycare though, which was signed into law a full three years before Obama even took office.
and as much as you try to paint it as republican
Republicans came up with the idea and spent nearly two decades pushing it. That makes it....Republican.
Seriously, fucking own it rather than try to paint it as republican.
You seriously. Partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle own this. Republicans for coming up with the idea, and Democrats for loving it the second it was pushed by "their guy".
Of the people that I know many of them are Muslims.
Many of them are very bright, except for one thing - you just can NOT discuss religion (or faith) thing with them.
Unlike the Buddhists or Christians or Jews where you can have civil discussion, or even debates on matter pertaining to whether if there is a "God" or matter such as "If the different religion worship the same God" or the very act of suicide bombing killing the innocent can be call "a service to God"... you just can't have such discussion with the Muslims.
Dude, your pants are on fire to such an extent that it's visible from space. I see four Islamophobes gave you uprates, though.
How much genocide did the British commit against India? How many Indians where shoved into concentration camps called banstustans to clear land for white settlers?
Gandhi was known for his non-violence.
Because it was an effective tactic against the British occupation, who were looking to control markets and cheap resources. Not because the British were engaging in mass land theft and ethnic cleansing to make way for settlements. If Ghandi were born in South Africa, he would have been a "terroist bomber" just like Mandela. If Ghandi were born in Gaza, he would have been assassinated by Mossad or rotting in prison.
The problem with that line of thought is that "the people" aren't really "the people". They're "the people right now." What about the next generation? What about when an invading army kicks them all out and resettles the land? Where are their resources? What about the descendants of the people who were displaced by the current group?
Why so Concerned? If DeBeers can ration out their hoard of diamonds to manipulate prices, there's nothing stopping socially-controlled resources from being harvested at a reasonable rate while diversifying the rest of the economy.
What's your alternative, anyway? Private companies that give f***-all about how the rest of the economy will look like once the resource is depleted?
If we are to be honest rather than PC, whites were the reason South Africa was the most developed country in Africa
Aside from the obvious racism in that statement, there's leaving out the part that this "development" did not extend to 2/3 of the population. That's as asinine as saying Gaza is "most developed" because the Israelis have built some really nice settlements on the West Bank and the people of the right ethnicity get paid to move there.
and probably didn't even care if someone else could die if they stole it
They had no idea what they were stealing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have opened the cargo and given themselves a lethal dose of radiation poisoning.
And if they'd gotten involved in a high speed pursuit they could have killed someone just running away.
Guilty of crimes not even committed. Gotcha.
Not to mention their willingness to threaten deadly force in the act
They beat up the drivers, not shot them.
They jacked a rig, had no concern for the value of human life, and it bit them in the ass. To be blunt, they had it coming.
To be blunt, you're a bloodthirsty authoritarian thinking with his lizard brain. No, people who commit assault and grand theft cargo do not deserve to die. You wouldn't be from Texas by any chance, would you?
Precision targeting has reduced casualties to tiny levels, though the general public don't have a clue about that.
Which is why we kill 50 civilians for every alleged terrorist. Why it takes multiple attempts to kill the target, with varying number of civilians taking his place.
but I have yet to hear a good justification for his leaks about NSA's foreign operations
Do you have a justification for trying to spy on every person on the planet? Do you have a justification for a system that's more about corporate espionage than stopping terrorism? Do you have a justification for tut-tutting Snowden's revelations when the USG flippantly stated that it was listening in on Al Queda conference calls - about the most valuable counter-intelligence secret you could name?
but they aren't doing anything that every other country isn't trying to do to the United States
But this is a bullshit talking point, always has been always will be. It ignores the depth and pervasiveness of the NSA programs, the disparity in capability, and the geographical isolation of the U.S. from the rest of the world. You wouldn't say that Angola has a military, so it's equal in capability to the U.S. military, would you? Then why are you guys doing this with the NSA programs?
2013 was the quietest tornado season on record. Don't make shit up to try to win an argument.
Making up shit - like pretending that weather has to be getting worse everywhere all the time before we can say climate change is happening? That's a tired denailist canard, and the only one going on about 2013 is you.
You want to talk about recorded tornadoes though, the list is dominated by a single set of twisters in 1917, and the rest come in the last few years. Greatest pressure drops, widest path, longest thunderstorm cells, most tornadoes in a day. As for most tornadoes in a year, that was in 2004.
Really? This is controversial? There are foundational assumptions in mathematics yet no one seems bothered by that. Point out the obvious when it comes to science and the uneducated science cheerleaders come out of the woodwork to "defend science" against... what exactly?
Doubling down on the tautology isn't naming an example.
So your post is a non sequitur. Jobs was also a dick for screwing Woz out of royalties way back in the day - but that doesn't have anything to do with benchmarks.
That's what I'm talking about: the author is a right wing troll, and anyone who touts his book is a troll as well, or a fuckwit dumber than pond scum. You might as well cite a work by Baghdad Bob, the level of credibility is the same.
That's still not quite right. "Global warming" means you're increasing the total energy of the system. As a consequence, all the extremes become more so. For example, warmer-than-usual temperatures in the southwest might push the jetstream northward, causing it to catch arctic air and then meander back southward, causing a record-cold blizzard in the northeast (or something like that).
No, it's still right, because "global warming" means an overall warming of the planet. As for blizzards, that's where the warm air comes in again, because it can carry more moisture than cold air. One of the common denialist canards is that climate change is a myth because some parts of the poles have increasing ice - but leave out the part where that's due to increased precipitation from warmer air.
Bullshit. Every time reality doesn't match their predictions, instead of admitting their hypothesis has been falsified, they change their models and expect a "do over."
If anything, climate models have been too conservative in predicting warming patterns. Reality has a well-known anti-wingnut bias.
In other words, capitalism fails because it is exactly like every other system
Capitalism is unlike every other system because only capitalism defines monumental failures as success. 50 million people living in grinding generational poverty? They're just being paid "fair market wages". Bankers crash the world economy by betting more money than exists across the entire planet? Resources are just being "allocated more effectively."
If Lenin had figured this out, the fall of the Soviet Union would be one of communism's greatest success stories.
Nonsense! Science requires a plethora of foundational assumptions.
Name one. Then illustrate that what you call an "assumption" wasn't derived through testing. You know, 2 + 2 = 4, pythagorean theorem, asexual reproduction...something.
There are STILL people who think a single season, storm, or record defines climate?
There are STILL people pushing this butthurt deflection? Warmer more humid air makes for more powerful storms, and warmer, drier air makes for record drought conditions. So yeah, denialists, record tornado seasons, massive forest fires months before fire season, record heat waves of months of 100+ degree heat and the most powerful hurricanes/typhoons in a century/of all time are evidence of global warming.
Seriously, why do people get so upset about what happens in Texas?
Because Texas, unlike other states, purchases books for the entire state. Because Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the union. Because this means that publishers will frequently write their books for the Texas market and hope they are adopted elsewhere. Because that means that the textbook your local school uses is heavily influenced by Texas. Oh, and there's that trivial matter of not wanting Texas schoolkids to have a third rate education just because of where they live.
Because this is not news - I knew this at least 15 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Developing nations are generally doing some or all of the three:
1) Building their industrial base
2) Providing free or low cost education
3) Providing free or low cost health care
The United States is doing the opposite of that. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our lack of high speed rail is a joke, as is our lack of mass transit outside of a few major cities, and our internet and cell phone networks are a decade behind Europe's. More job-crushing trade laws are being pushed (TPP), getting a college degree means five or six figures of debt, and the trivial detail that Obomneycare will still leave the U.S. with the worst health care system in the industrialized world.
How are those trends sustainable for the United States, where 80% of the population is in poverty or a paycheck away from it?
It's only halfways implemented. No butthurt right wing rage over Romneycare though, which was signed into law a full three years before Obama even took office.
Republicans came up with the idea and spent nearly two decades pushing it. That makes it....Republican.
You seriously. Partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle own this. Republicans for coming up with the idea, and Democrats for loving it the second it was pushed by "their guy".
He fucking hacked fucking phone systems. Which makes fucking makes him a fucking hacker. Fuckity fuckity fuckity fuuuuck!
Dude, your pants are on fire to such an extent that it's visible from space. I see four Islamophobes gave you uprates, though.
How much genocide did the British commit against India? How many Indians where shoved into concentration camps called banstustans to clear land for white settlers?
Because it was an effective tactic against the British occupation, who were looking to control markets and cheap resources. Not because the British were engaging in mass land theft and ethnic cleansing to make way for settlements. If Ghandi were born in South Africa, he would have been a "terroist bomber" just like Mandela. If Ghandi were born in Gaza, he would have been assassinated by Mossad or rotting in prison.
Because "not renewing the license of a radio station that backed a freaking coup is so "authoritarian".
When has the U.S. sold large amounts of weapons to Cuba, Vietnam, or China?
Depends on whether or not you're a radical Christianist.
Your right wing trolling: obvious. We know your type as well.
Why so Concerned? If DeBeers can ration out their hoard of diamonds to manipulate prices, there's nothing stopping socially-controlled resources from being harvested at a reasonable rate while diversifying the rest of the economy.
What's your alternative, anyway? Private companies that give f***-all about how the rest of the economy will look like once the resource is depleted?
Aside from the obvious racism in that statement, there's leaving out the part that this "development" did not extend to 2/3 of the population. That's as asinine as saying Gaza is "most developed" because the Israelis have built some really nice settlements on the West Bank and the people of the right ethnicity get paid to move there.
They had no idea what they were stealing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have opened the cargo and given themselves a lethal dose of radiation poisoning.
Guilty of crimes not even committed. Gotcha.
They beat up the drivers, not shot them.
To be blunt, you're a bloodthirsty authoritarian thinking with his lizard brain. No, people who commit assault and grand theft cargo do not deserve to die. You wouldn't be from Texas by any chance, would you?
Which is why we kill 50 civilians for every alleged terrorist. Why it takes multiple attempts to kill the target, with varying number of civilians taking his place.
Precision bullshit, more like it.
Do you have a justification for trying to spy on every person on the planet? Do you have a justification for a system that's more about corporate espionage than stopping terrorism? Do you have a justification for tut-tutting Snowden's revelations when the USG flippantly stated that it was listening in on Al Queda conference calls - about the most valuable counter-intelligence secret you could name?
But this is a bullshit talking point, always has been always will be. It ignores the depth and pervasiveness of the NSA programs, the disparity in capability, and the geographical isolation of the U.S. from the rest of the world. You wouldn't say that Angola has a military, so it's equal in capability to the U.S. military, would you? Then why are you guys doing this with the NSA programs?
Making up shit - like pretending that weather has to be getting worse everywhere all the time before we can say climate change is happening? That's a tired denailist canard, and the only one going on about 2013 is you.
You want to talk about recorded tornadoes though, the list is dominated by a single set of twisters in 1917, and the rest come in the last few years. Greatest pressure drops, widest path, longest thunderstorm cells, most tornadoes in a day. As for most tornadoes in a year, that was in 2004.
They have. IPCC reports have consistently under-projected the rate of change.
Touche. I should have said "most powerful ever recorded".
Doubling down on the tautology isn't naming an example.
So your post is a non sequitur. Jobs was also a dick for screwing Woz out of royalties way back in the day - but that doesn't have anything to do with benchmarks.
That's what I'm talking about: the author is a right wing troll, and anyone who touts his book is a troll as well, or a fuckwit dumber than pond scum. You might as well cite a work by Baghdad Bob, the level of credibility is the same.
No, it's still right, because "global warming" means an overall warming of the planet. As for blizzards, that's where the warm air comes in again, because it can carry more moisture than cold air. One of the common denialist canards is that climate change is a myth because some parts of the poles have increasing ice - but leave out the part where that's due to increased precipitation from warmer air.
If anything, climate models have been too conservative in predicting warming patterns. Reality has a well-known anti-wingnut bias.
Capitalism is unlike every other system because only capitalism defines monumental failures as success. 50 million people living in grinding generational poverty? They're just being paid "fair market wages". Bankers crash the world economy by betting more money than exists across the entire planet? Resources are just being "allocated more effectively."
If Lenin had figured this out, the fall of the Soviet Union would be one of communism's greatest success stories.
Name one. Then illustrate that what you call an "assumption" wasn't derived through testing. You know, 2 + 2 = 4, pythagorean theorem, asexual reproduction...something.
There are STILL people pushing this butthurt deflection? Warmer more humid air makes for more powerful storms, and warmer, drier air makes for record drought conditions. So yeah, denialists, record tornado seasons, massive forest fires months before fire season, record heat waves of months of 100+ degree heat and the most powerful hurricanes/typhoons in a century/of all time are evidence of global warming.
Because Texas, unlike other states, purchases books for the entire state. Because Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the union. Because this means that publishers will frequently write their books for the Texas market and hope they are adopted elsewhere. Because that means that the textbook your local school uses is heavily influenced by Texas. Oh, and there's that trivial matter of not wanting Texas schoolkids to have a third rate education just because of where they live.
Because this is not news - I knew this at least 15 years ago.