Industry-negotiated "solutions" are the antithesis of a democratic process.
Doesn't this just hit the nail on the head when it comes to neoliberal philosophy. You can thank von Mises, Hayek, Rand and their legion of followers for "freedom" disguised as an anti-democratic breakdown of sovereignty.
The liberal policy is to say "No" to everything that Labor does, this will lose them a lot of votes.
Seems to have worked pretty well for the Republicans. Congresses approval is around 10%, yet half the population still supports this now reactionary political philosophy. Who's to say that Abbott cannot make ground out of contrarian hatred. After-all, plenty of people hate the Labor and the Greens, and Abbot has a large media complex that will back him all the way. A lie said enough times... just saying.
If you look on wikipedia, you will find out that Japan has the 7th largest military budget in the world, at only a fraction of their GDP. They have about 250k active personal, 50k reserves, and about 27 million men of service age. They have their own native high-tech defence industry, which is supplemented with US and European technology.
If they had to go to war tomorrow, they have a significant high-tech air-force, navy and army with a modern capable war doctrine. If engaged in a protracted war, like WWII, they could draw down on over 50 million personal, and deploy a massive high tech manufacturing base and indigenous know-how. They are also the 3rd richest country in the world. (Most of their debt is domestically held.)
For 200+ years China was bullied by western powers
This is true. And then China proved itself to be the equal bully of Victorian era European powers.
You are right about the declining influence of the USA and the EU. I suspect, however, that China will not rise above, but will trace a similar arc as the soviet union did. In many ways, the Chinese miracle reflects the decade-long double-digit growth of the soviet union. And likewise, both countries have serious internal problems, including/severe/ environmental issues.
I do believe that the chinese leadership will not sit idly by on these environmental issues, and their environmental policy looks bizarre to outsiders. I suspect they are drawing down on the possibility of future technical solutions which they are now investing in. But the future of industrial china has not yet been written.
btw, the USA, France, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia and China are probably the only countries that can sustain a significant war. There may be a dearth of political will within the USA, France, Britain, German and Japan -- but if the will is ever galvonised, make no mistake, they could prosecute a real war anywhere on the planet.
If you mean obedience against the big-government industrial military complex, then you are correct. Political activists wanted to stop the build-up of nuclear weapons in the world, and stuck upon this rhetorical device.
Nah, in conservative-land, Obama is vilified as a front for liberal world government. And plenty of people believe that this centre-right president is really Stalin in disguise. It would help our political discourse if it was, you know, grounded in reality.
Forget Fluke's arguments. What about the National Institute of Health. You know -- the/EXPERTS/. Of couse, experts are merely ideologues when it comes to political issues. Both liberal and conservative selectively ignore science whenever they see fit.
Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).
Well, this is a health issue -- according to health/experts/, like doctors. As for "forcing" religious organisations -- nobody is forcing them to do anything. The government/does/ give them wheelbarrows of cash. Talk about a sense of entitlement.
Comparing the centrist journalistic standards of CNN and Fox's red-meat epistemology is quite absurd. Of course, this is exactly what Murdoch wants you to do. It is interesting that the political right accuses liberals of "relativism", and it is true. But your statement is about as brain-dead as relativism can be.
btw, I/do/ watch both CNN and fox. One is good for news, and the other for studying the political mind.
It is the best reality TV show I've ever seen. Would love to see Santorum or Gingritch win the nomination just for the popcorn value. Ron Paul would provoke an even bigger farce, since the guy actually believes in something, and it's a different planet from the status quo. What more entertainment could you possibly hope for?
In all likelihood, this is either the work of a rogue agent or even a well-intentioned mistake.
This is possible, but not "all likelihood. The Harper government has already shown a deep disrespect for democracy in several ways, and through several actions. Harper himself was caught cheating at a public debate, so cheating at an election... it is very much a question of moral character.
Foxconn has done plenty of wrong - consulting with this(or any) PR agency only affirms it.
Unfortunately, PR firms do a great job at muddying the waters -- even when they are completely transparent shills. The may well be astroturf shills on this very webpage, ready to "educate" us.
The IPCC reports are very explicit (in the opening pages) about risk factors and give very precise definitions of likelihoods. Environmentalists do play fast and loose with the truth, but for scientists this is the exception to the rule.
You are confusing reading someone else's blog with knowing. There are facts in dispute here. It is typical for deniers to repeat the fantastical claims of others -- because the "feel" right, the must be right.
So, 3 to 1 against eh? 75% of scientists were publishing against AGW? I'd say it is more like 500 to 1 against. I think we should crack open these abstracts and actually look at them. That should be really entertaining.
Okay, maybe some skeptics talk about risk. But the presupposition is always that AGW isn't happening, so the risk is nigh on 0%. Care to prove me wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Industry-negotiated "solutions" are the antithesis of a democratic process.
Doesn't this just hit the nail on the head when it comes to neoliberal philosophy. You can thank von Mises, Hayek, Rand and their legion of followers for "freedom" disguised as an anti-democratic breakdown of sovereignty.
lol! That is the worst argument that I've ever heard. And I've been on the interwebs for years now.
The liberal policy is to say "No" to everything that Labor does, this will lose them a lot of votes.
Seems to have worked pretty well for the Republicans. Congresses approval is around 10%, yet half the population still supports this now reactionary political philosophy. Who's to say that Abbott cannot make ground out of contrarian hatred. After-all, plenty of people hate the Labor and the Greens, and Abbot has a large media complex that will back him all the way. A lie said enough times... just saying.
Conservative insiders admit that their database was used. Got it not? Good.
I agree with that. On average, people are attracted to the powerful before they are attracted to the just. Harper is powerful and unjust.
If you look on wikipedia, you will find out that Japan has the 7th largest military budget in the world, at only a fraction of their GDP. They have about 250k active personal, 50k reserves, and about 27 million men of service age. They have their own native high-tech defence industry, which is supplemented with US and European technology.
If they had to go to war tomorrow, they have a significant high-tech air-force, navy and army with a modern capable war doctrine. If engaged in a protracted war, like WWII, they could draw down on over 50 million personal, and deploy a massive high tech manufacturing base and indigenous know-how. They are also the 3rd richest country in the world. (Most of their debt is domestically held.)
For 200+ years China was bullied by western powers
This is true. And then China proved itself to be the equal bully of Victorian era European powers.
/severe/ environmental issues.
You are right about the declining influence of the USA and the EU. I suspect, however, that China will not rise above, but will trace a similar arc as the soviet union did. In many ways, the Chinese miracle reflects the decade-long double-digit growth of the soviet union. And likewise, both countries have serious internal problems, including
I do believe that the chinese leadership will not sit idly by on these environmental issues, and their environmental policy looks bizarre to outsiders. I suspect they are drawing down on the possibility of future technical solutions which they are now investing in. But the future of industrial china has not yet been written.
btw, the USA, France, Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia and China are probably the only countries that can sustain a significant war. There may be a dearth of political will within the USA, France, Britain, German and Japan -- but if the will is ever galvonised, make no mistake, they could prosecute a real war anywhere on the planet.
such as the one you might work for or soon not work for as the case may be.
Ohhhhh -- aspersions that google is an anti-competitive monster. /Scary/.
/see/ them do something malicious just to make a buck.
Personally, I'll worry when I
and is intended to scare people into obedience.
If you mean obedience against the big-government industrial military complex, then you are correct. Political activists wanted to stop the build-up of nuclear weapons in the world, and stuck upon this rhetorical device.
But only the sheep were polarized.
Nah, in conservative-land, Obama is vilified as a front for liberal world government. And plenty of people believe that this centre-right president is really Stalin in disguise. It would help our political discourse if it was, you know, grounded in reality.
Also, don't know what your talking about giving religious organizations wheelbarrows of cash
Not talking about tax breaks. I'm talking about 67% of catholic charity comes directly from government sources.
It's a health issue in, what, 5 percent of cases (being extremely generous)?
Guess you should read the NIH material and examine the empirically based cost benefit analysis. Much better then back of the envelope calculations.
but much more evil than the other party.
Is that you Santorum?
Forget Fluke's arguments. What about the National Institute of Health. You know -- the /EXPERTS/. Of couse, experts are merely ideologues when it comes to political issues. Both liberal and conservative selectively ignore science whenever they see fit.
Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).
Well, this is a health issue -- according to health /experts/, like doctors. As for "forcing" religious organisations -- nobody is forcing them to do anything. The government /does/ give them wheelbarrows of cash. Talk about a sense of entitlement.
Comparing the centrist journalistic standards of CNN and Fox's red-meat epistemology is quite absurd. Of course, this is exactly what Murdoch wants you to do. It is interesting that the political right accuses liberals of "relativism", and it is true. But your statement is about as brain-dead as relativism can be.
/do/ watch both CNN and fox. One is good for news, and the other for studying the political mind.
btw, I
a fortune off some other developers' software,
Patents aren't software. Do you even write code, or are you just a corporate shill?
IDIOT
It is the best reality TV show I've ever seen. Would love to see Santorum or Gingritch win the nomination just for the popcorn value. Ron Paul would provoke an even bigger farce, since the guy actually believes in something, and it's a different planet from the status quo. What more entertainment could you possibly hope for?
I'd agree with that. The conservatives and liberals have broad agreements on many topics, but there are also lots of sharp differences too.
Well... the rules stipulated that the party leaders were not allowed to bring in notes. Harper snuck a crib-sheet in, and had it on his lap.
In all likelihood, this is either the work of a rogue agent or even a well-intentioned mistake.
This is possible, but not "all likelihood. The Harper government has already shown a deep disrespect for democracy in several ways, and through several actions. Harper himself was caught cheating at a public debate, so cheating at an election... it is very much a question of moral character.
Foxconn has done plenty of wrong - consulting with this(or any) PR agency only affirms it.
Unfortunately, PR firms do a great job at muddying the waters -- even when they are completely transparent shills. The may well be astroturf shills on this very webpage, ready to "educate" us.
The IPCC reports are very explicit (in the opening pages) about risk factors and give very precise definitions of likelihoods. Environmentalists do play fast and loose with the truth, but for scientists this is the exception to the rule.
, then you know that is still
You are confusing reading someone else's blog with knowing. There are facts in dispute here. It is typical for deniers to repeat the fantastical claims of others -- because the "feel" right, the must be right.
So, 3 to 1 against eh? 75% of scientists were publishing against AGW? I'd say it is more like 500 to 1 against. I think we should crack open these abstracts and actually look at them. That should be really entertaining.
Okay, maybe some skeptics talk about risk. But the presupposition is always that AGW isn't happening, so the risk is nigh on 0%. Care to prove me wrong?