The really idiotic thing about people who argue that "it was warmer millions of years ago" is that it is completely irrelvant.
Scientifically, you cannot compare today's climate with that of millions of years ago. The Earth was fundamentally different. Land masses were in different configurations. The atmospheric contents were different. The volcanic activity was different. The ocean currents were different. Even the amount of solar irradiance was different. So from a scientific standpoint, comparing todays climate to that of millions of years is, at best, naive.
Now, from a more species oriented point of view, we weren't around millions of years ago. Our coastal habitations did not depend on ocean levels millions of years ago. Our agricultural production did not depend on the climate millions of years ago. The livelihoods of millions of people did not depend on the climate millions of years ago.
We have survived and thrived because of our fairly stable climate NOW. Our agricultural production centers that produce food for millions rely on our climate NOW. Our preparedness for dealing with extreme weather events is based on our climate NOW.
And all current scientific evidence is showing our climate is changing NOW. Arguing that the earth was warmer when the dinosaurs were around is like arguing with an oncoming car that it shouldn't hit you because there was no car coming at you yesterday. It has no bearing on how the changes will affect us.
It doesn't matter if people think we aren't causing the warming. THEY ARE MISSING THE POINT. Even if we aren't causing or contributing to the warming, all the observations and models and science point to a warming world. The climate is still changing. It will have consequences. We can either attempt to study and prepare for it, or we can debate it and ignore it until it's too late.
Regardless, we will know within this century (probably in the next couple of decades) whether or not our unsustainable consumption of resources and arrogance will make us reap what we sowed.
Actually, at this point there isn't anything that we can do realistically to reverse the warming. Even if we stopped dumping CO2 into the atmosphere now, the planet would continue to warm.
To reverse the warming, we would need to somehow get the CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it. The problem is it would take a lot of energy to do and massive world wide participation. With most of the world still being powered by fossil fuels this is unlikely to work, not to mention the costs would be prohibitive to most nations.
So we can't realistically stop it or reverse it. However we can take steps to make it less drastic by reducing our contribution. We can also investigate the possible impacts and plan strategies to compensate. Making preparations now is a lot less costly than making reparations later.
The top 20% also controls almost all the wealth in the country. The are only taxed on a small portion of that. They also may pay the most in dollar amounts, but that 38% number doesn't mean they are paying 38% of their income (they aren't). Through various loopholes, tricks, and shelters, the effective tax rate on the upper 1% is more like 15-20%.
Percentages also don't show the effects of tax burden on the various classes. A 1% tax increase hits the middle class harder than it hits the rich. Plus, given our progressive tax scheme the rich get a piece of every cut made in the income brackets. So when taxes get cut across the board, they're getting more than just the 2 or 3% cut at the top.
The poor and working poor don't pay more in taxes because they really can't afford to. However the richest 20% of the country can, considering the practically own the US wealth wise. They just don't want to.
Government isn't doing anything to destroy the economy. We are.
We've got a dichotomy here. The dichotomy is that we worship capitalism, but we also tend to be an empathic and moral society (well, sometimes at least). These two cannot coexist peacefully. Capitalism is inherently amoral. Capitalism does not care about child labor laws, safety regulations, minimum wage, pollution restrictions, or a well educated populace capable of making reasonable decisions. All of those get in the way making profits.
We, being a moral and empathic society, have summarily told capitalism that we do not like treating people as disposable slave labor and we do not like treating our environment like toilet paper. Capitalism, like the spoiled child it is, doesn't really like being told what to do. So capitalism starts trying to find ways to get around these rules. This includes hiring illegal aliens and off-shoring production to countries that don't have such pesky rules to get in the way of making money. And since these foreign countries usually have high unemployment rates, labor is a lot cheaper even if they have to train them.
Now, the ironic part is that we are brainwashed in this country into thinking that in order to be worth anything, you have to have stuff. Lot's of stuff. Even stuff you can't really afford to have. So instead of our society collectively boycotting companies who circumvent the rules to punish them buy denying the largest consumer base in the world, we end up buying all the stuff that is now made in other countries(while turning a blind eye to their practices) making them record profits. This encourages companies to move more of their production overseas to make even more profit.
The government isn't to blame. We are. By having a moral compass that's easily influenced by cheap stuff we ENCOURAGE companies to go around the humane rules we have in place in this country. We don't boycott companies that use child labor sweatshops in Indonesia because we're all too happy to buy NAMEBRAND(tm) GIZMO for cheap. We don't ostracize companies that cause pollution in third world nations if they make REAL COOL CLOTHING ITEM(tm) that everyone wants. Just look how popular DeBeers diamonds are.
We, the people, decided collectively that we wanted a safe, sane, and clean working environments. We decided we wanted to be able to breath downwind of a production plant. We decided that we wanted companies not to treat their workers like replaceable slaves. We decided that we didn't want to allow the exploitation of children. We decided that everyone was entitled to at least a minimal wage and standard of living. These were all moral decisions that directly conflicted or impacted corporate bottom lines. In response, they went elsewhere.
Now if we all actually stood up for what we believed in a boycotted the hell out of these companies, then they'd come crawling back begging for forgiveness. Being the largest consumer economy in the world gives us a lot of power if we so choose to use it. But we don't, because we like cheap stuff. We are our own worst enemy in this dilemma. Blaming the government is a cheap cop-out to absolve us of our responsibility.
...Personally I'd aim for the job that is most likely to make me happy. In case you're wondering studies have noted that money does not correlate with happiness (assuming one's above the poverty line). Work satisfaction on the other hand is heavily correlated. So is health, relationship satisfaction/love and social life satisfaction. In other words all things that an intense high stress high hour job makes very difficult to keep up.
You and your fancy science talk.
That may be the reality. The problem is, most of America lives inside the reality distortion field of "See how much stuff I got? I'm so much better than you!". They're bombarded with it constantly, with loud obnoxious commercials telling you that you need X and Y or you'll be ugly and outcast. This is reinforced by TV shows, along with popular music repeating the mantra of "No Money? You're worthless!". They've been shown that being ruthless is a means to an end. Kids raised on TV and smartphones don't even question these perceptions, and head into life not aiming for happiness but aiming for money, since they've been brainwashed into thinking they are the same.
Money, fame, and power are idolized. Teachers and intelligence are ridiculed. This is back-asswards of what it should be if this country wants to stay on top.
But if they did that, how would they fund wars? How would congresspeople fund their personal state pork projects? How would they fund corporate subsidies?
Oh, you want RESPONSIBLE government. Yeah, Responsible Government is down the road in Unreality County. Take a left at Benevolent Dictatorship, a right when you get to Communist Utopia, and go straight through the intersection at Fair Free Markets. If you hit Alice in Wonderland, you've gone to far.
I mostly agree with you. However, from the article:
"Under US securities law, if more than 500 investors hold a private company's shares, the firm is required to register with the SEC and file public statements.
The exclusion of US investors is unlikely to affect plans for Facebook to raise the $1.5bn, although it will mean some wealthy individuals and companies being denied a chance to buy into a fast-growing firm."
It kind of looks like the people who could really benefit from an IPO would already have been excluded. Just like always. So, I'm less inclined to be upset about this.
Do you honestly think this will prevent wealthy US investors or companies from owning shares?
BTW, I need to move a $25 million dollars but I can't do it without your help. If you provide an account with the $25,000 needed to start the transaction, I'd be willing to give you 20% as transaction fee.
Privacy does not trump moral or legal obligations. If you are breaking the law, no matter how much you may disagree with it, you're privacy will be invaded. If they don't like the law, then work to get it changed.
Regardless, rich assholes evading taxes while simultaneously whining about their taxes being too high should be given a nice long trip to Federal PYITA Prison. And instead of tax payers, they should use the assholes' own money to pay for their imprisonment.
I know it does. I just upped the impulse in your amygdala and slightly lowered your dopamine. It was a slight penalty to my logical reasoning score but gave me much needed morality points.
Re:Scientists will win, lose, lose, and lose
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
5. Ten years will have passed, and we will still be arguing about weather.
Whatever you think of it's relevance for the theory of AGW, Bastardi has made a specific prediction and challenged anyone to take him up on it. If those climatologists who are believers in AGW are true scientists they should be able to make a specific prediction that we can come back to in 10 years and either say, "Way to go, your prediction is correct" or "Sorry, back to the drawing board on your theory, your prediction is wrong."
First, climate science is not a cult. It is not a religion. The scientists follow their data and research.
Second, 10 years is still too short a time frame. A 30 year bet would be more reasonable as that would even out short term influences caused by longer scale met influences such as El Nino and La Nina.
The last major AGW prediction I can recall was that England would not have snow in winter any more. Of course, now that England has had a very snowy winter, those same AGW guys are telling us, "Well, yes, that is what you can expect from Global Warming." I would put a lot more credence into the latter statement if they had told us we could expect a snowier winter in England instead of telling us that England would be getting less and less snow every year.
[citation needed]
I have never heard any legitimate climate scientist saying that there would be no more snow in England either in the immediate future nor anytime within the next ten years. In fact, the only thing I've read on the subject was speculation that England would turn into Alaska if the Gulf Stream shut down (and it probably would too, consider the latitude England sits at).
The long term predictions from climate research are for 20 to 30 years out or longer. Speculation about what could happen over the next ten years is just that.
Yes, but that is WEATHER. You see, CLIMATE is different than WEATHER. It really is. His claim that climate is "just a big weather forecast" either shows he's a complete idiot when it comes to climate science or he's trolling.
Climate science is NOT a big weather forecast. Weather is just ONE factor in determining the overall climate of the planet.
I'd be more than willing to take his bet on the condition that the bet is off if extraordinary events occur (large volcanic eruptions or an large meteor impact, for example).
I can agree with that. However, a scientist, when wrong, will either go back and change his hypothesis to correct it OR realize that there's really no way to fix it and throw it out.
Watts maintains that he is still right in the face of evidence that shows he is wrong. And like any good (bad) blogger trying to generate site hits spins every single weather story into an attack against climate science or additional "proof" of some massive world-wide conspiracy.
If he wants to be skeptic and provide legitimate research (like the weather stations) that's great. It only makes for better science. But making claims of a giant conspiracy and refusing to acknowledge when he's been proven wrong really doesn't help constructive discussion on the subject. In fact, it really just makes him one more loud asshole on the net.
Ah. Playing the conspiracy card. That right there ends any meaningful discussion about the subject. I might as well try to convince a Birther that Obama is an American citizen.
Actually, data errors are NOAA's fault as they're the ones providing the raw data. The mistakes usually get corrected on their own when the records are reviewed (such as when the hurricane season gets reviewed at the end of the season). Most errors may not get discovered for awhile, as they are not used to make a sensationalized public release.
But McIntyre and Watts like to play the conspiracy card, and either encourage (or at the very least don't discourage or correct) erroneous data/conclusions of their own or that of their participants. Every single mistake is vindication for them and their audience. It's all the proof they need to mischaracterize the thousands of climate scientists in the world as evil, money-grubbing, fascist socialist bastards bent on world domination.
Basically they do the same thing the IDers do to the theory of evolution, only with less Jesus. Every now and again they discover an error, which is good because it makes the science that much better. But they have yet to do anything meaningful in discrediting the current body of climate science. The papers I know about authored by McIntyre on the subject have been ripped to shreds. Their collective postulations about weather stations was thoroughly debunked (though, of course, they continues to deny it). Most of their other arguments that I've seen in the climate community have been torn apart piece by piece by experts in the field.
It's possible to be a skeptic without being an asshole. I work with a few skeptics. We have interesting conversations ranging from analytical methods to atmospheric dynamics. But the only time McIntyre and Watts are brought up is when we either want to laugh or when we want to point out how NOT to do something.
If you think they're manipulating ground station data through selection, then ignore the ground stations and just look at the satellite data, which is showing the same warming trend.
"I have a friend...."
Speaking of bad science. Look, if you can demonstrate in a clearly well thought out manner that their science is completely wrong and bullshit, then write a paper about it and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Seriously. But you better have rock solid impenetrable arguments or it'll be ripped to shreds before it hits the presses. You would think that with so many glaring holes that people seem to be able to see in climate research, that someone would have been able to put forth a paper that tore the climate science community a new one with relative ease.
But the best that has been managed so far are correcting some relatively minor issues. Some have tried to put forth papers based on your premise and have summarily been laughed at due to the poor quality of the papers.
If you can summarily disprove the conclusions of the science and that there really is no warming, for fuck's sake put together a paper and do it. You will win a Nobel, you'll silence the ignorant masses who equate their backyard thermometer to the global energy balance, and you'll save billions to trillions of dollars that would have otherwise been wasted trying to come up with ways to prepare for and battle a crisis that doesn't exist.
Until you can produce that in reviewed/validated way, I'm going to side with the current body of scientific research. That has a lot more weight than some random slashdot poster who "has a friend".
Now compare your compensation to the head execs. Better yet, work out your hourly rate.
To sum up you're giving roughly 1/3 of your compensation away. For free. If you're salary is $100K and your working those rates, your effective rate of compensation is only $67K. Any company would be more than happy to give you nice lunches and dinners if that was all it took to get you to work for 33% less than what you agreed to. And they'd be laughing about it too.
For your sake, I hope you're getting 5 star gourmet meals or other compensation. $33K can buy a lot of beer and pizza.
If you have the power to do good, but choose not to, what does that make you?
Let's talk about this word good. From what morally superior position are you using this word? The problem with this word is that it means different things to different societies, and even different people. Doing "good" has often been abused in the past to give the moral justification to any number of shady activities from "think of the children" to all-out genocide. The saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" exists for a reason. People who murder abortion clinic workers think they are doing good. Timothy McVeigh thought he was doing good. The terrorists who brought down the towers thought they were doing good.
In reality, what is "good" is judged by those in power, or those who put them there (people). And usually, there is a religion involved to show they have backing from on-high.
Then of course, there are costs and consequences. For example, there was a story not too long ago about 6 people drowning in fairly calm river. So how did they drown? Each person kept trying to save the others, but none of them knew how to swim. They were trying to do good, but none of them stopped to consider the consequences of trying to save drowning people when they themselves didn't know how to swim.
Or on a larger scale, what's it worth to stop a genocide? Anything? Is worth having more people killed through war than the genocide you were trying to stop?
The ends don't justify the means. Blindly going forth in the name of "good" is rarely a smart plan that often comes with a lot of unintended consequences.
This isn't about our version of freedom.
You're right. This was about imaginary property, namely WMDs. Or was it about terrorism. Or was it one of the other trumped intelligence items that border on outright lying.
Regardless, if we were so concerned about this "psychotic" dictator and genocide we had plenty of opportunities to stop him (long before Kuwait). But he was too useful where he was.
This is about a psychotic dictator on the path to joining a select group that currently includes the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. But hey, if you think a couple billion dollars is worth more than 600,000 people... ok, have fun.
First, it isn't a couple billion dollars. You're off by three orders of magnitude.
If it were just money I wouldn't care. But it wasn't. It was A LOT of lives. Getting more people killed than what you're trying to save isn't the smartest way to go about something.
We don't do ourselves or anyone else any favors by spending and bleeding ourselves into oblivion.
Ok, so because helping everybody will "spend us into oblivion", we shouldn't help anybody?
How did you get that from what I said?
I don't have a problem with helping people, or spending money to do so. I have problem with being stupid about it. And things like the Iraq war, or wars of convenience or opportunity, are incredibly stupid. Wars kill and destroy. They are net sinks of resources. And if you don't execute a war carefully you end up causing bigger problems than what you started with, including driving yourself into massive debt.
Or in other words, don't take charity money and buy bibles for kids who are starving.
Huh? Stay on topic. We're talking about the moral responsibility to remove a mass-murderer from power. If you somehow think the fact that you armed him absolves you of that duty, you're sick.
You're picking up some strange things out of what I said. In no way did I say or even imply that it was not our responsibility.
Current most likely way to become rich: Lucky sperm.
Hard work won't make you rich. Only the naive believe that.
That's not to say hard work is pointless. Hard work will still (usually) give you a comfortable life. But hard work alone won't ever make you rich. It just doesn't work that way. I can tell you for a fact that a single mom working three jobs to support her kids is working harder than most CEOs in this country, but she isn't going to get rich doing it.
You need to know People, and have a lot of luck. Even if you are the first with the Next Big Thing(tm), it may languish in obscurity for years or decades without the right resources and connections.
But if the luck thing isn't working out then try being an asshole. That really seems to move people up the corporate ladder...or gets them elected to congress.
I think you are using poor logic. Stepping in and helping an oppressed nation does not mean you then have to liberate all oppressed nations.
Your right. No one would expect that. Instead you get to pick and choose the targets of convenience.
Nor does it mean that if you do not liberate every oppressed nation in the world it invalidates the good work you did to help a few.
Please define good work, as that is a very morally gray area. We've done a lot of "good work" that the people on the receiving end might not be inclined to think so.
Some you can step in quickly (eg Kuwait), others better late than never (eg Kosovo and Darfur), and others you may not be able to step in militarily but can try economic pressure (eg North Korea and Iran). In real life with limited resources, you can only do so much.
In real life you shouldn't fuck things up in the first place. We weren't "liberating" Kuwait. We were fixing a massive fuck up, namely installing and supporting Saddam as the dictator of Iraq. Kosovo and Darfur we reluctantly got involved in only after public pressure got to the point where we started to look bad (Darfur got really bad before we did anything). And economic pressures rarely hurt those in power, especially if they've convinced their populace that they are a god. They can also be employed out of spite (Cuba), which doesn't exactly put a halo over our heads.
That's not to say that we don't do some good from time to time. However, our slate is not clean. Nor arguably balanced. We've done some pretty nasty crap in the name of "national interests". Sure, we're not the only ones but we're big enough that when we screw up we screw up BIG and whole countries end up paying for it.
Not really, conceptually. It is only a matter of scale.
You mean like how a candle flame is exactly like a nuclear bomb, only smaller?
It's more than a matter of scale. When you save someone from being raped, you don't have to worry much about the consequences. You don't have to worry about destroying critical infrastructure that will cause thousands to go without electricity or drinking water. You don't need to be concerned with the immense costs in money and resources and how that affects your own country back home. You don't have to be concerned with slaughtering innocents, or inciting other hostile groups, or how to fill the power vacuum, or the political repercussions, or reconstruction of destroyed towns and cities, etc. .
So conceptually, no. Saving someone from being raped is nothing like liberating a nation.
Compared to some of our past foreign policy (or lack thereof), well...yeah it would take something pretty bad in those cables to top that. Like making lampshades out of babies or something.
Since the US seems to have so many problems at home, why don't you try this for a generation - recall all your troops, close fucking Guantanamo Bay ( you are in violation of the "agreement" that was forced upon Cuba way back), stop meddling in other countries politics and try to find ways to teach geography to your citizens that don't involve bombings and troop deployments.
Sounds good. Boot out the UN, stop giving out foreign aid, don't bother trying to control the price of oil. Ignore the North Koreans and hang the South out to dry. Let China kick the shit out of anyone they don't like. Then kick back, crack a beer, and watch the world disintegrate. I'm with ya. Being Canadian, I'll probably get to watch most of the ICBM's go by. Should be a kickass light-show, eh?
Now why on Earth would China go out of it's way to destabilize the world? It's making money hand over fist. It's economical suicide to become heavy handed, especially when we're not the only country with a nuclear arsenal (which people seem to forget quite often for some reason).
You also seem to think that South Korea can't fend for itself. Sure, a pure ground war wouldn't be pretty, but that's assuming it would be. The initial strike wouldn't be pretty either, but crippling North Korea's industry and communications capabilities only requires a relative few surgical strikes. Even IF NK has nuclear weapons they are low yield and few in number. And if it did go nuclear you can be sure there wouldn't be much left of NK.
Oil prices? Let them go. It will only be a good thing in the end. At the same time, those countries want to make money as well. They also know that a destabilized world is one where it would be harder to make money. They aren't going to go all crazy and start charging $500 a barrel.
The world will not disintegrate if the US decides to not be the world police. Too many people are making too much money. And those interests want a world where they can continue to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
The really idiotic thing about people who argue that "it was warmer millions of years ago" is that it is completely irrelvant.
Scientifically, you cannot compare today's climate with that of millions of years ago. The Earth was fundamentally different. Land masses were in different configurations. The atmospheric contents were different. The volcanic activity was different. The ocean currents were different. Even the amount of solar irradiance was different. So from a scientific standpoint, comparing todays climate to that of millions of years is, at best, naive.
Now, from a more species oriented point of view, we weren't around millions of years ago. Our coastal habitations did not depend on ocean levels millions of years ago. Our agricultural production did not depend on the climate millions of years ago. The livelihoods of millions of people did not depend on the climate millions of years ago.
We have survived and thrived because of our fairly stable climate NOW. Our agricultural production centers that produce food for millions rely on our climate NOW. Our preparedness for dealing with extreme weather events is based on our climate NOW.
And all current scientific evidence is showing our climate is changing NOW. Arguing that the earth was warmer when the dinosaurs were around is like arguing with an oncoming car that it shouldn't hit you because there was no car coming at you yesterday. It has no bearing on how the changes will affect us.
It doesn't matter if people think we aren't causing the warming. THEY ARE MISSING THE POINT. Even if we aren't causing or contributing to the warming, all the observations and models and science point to a warming world. The climate is still changing. It will have consequences. We can either attempt to study and prepare for it, or we can debate it and ignore it until it's too late.
Regardless, we will know within this century (probably in the next couple of decades) whether or not our unsustainable consumption of resources and arrogance will make us reap what we sowed.
Actually, at this point there isn't anything that we can do realistically to reverse the warming. Even if we stopped dumping CO2 into the atmosphere now, the planet would continue to warm.
To reverse the warming, we would need to somehow get the CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it. The problem is it would take a lot of energy to do and massive world wide participation. With most of the world still being powered by fossil fuels this is unlikely to work, not to mention the costs would be prohibitive to most nations.
So we can't realistically stop it or reverse it. However we can take steps to make it less drastic by reducing our contribution. We can also investigate the possible impacts and plan strategies to compensate. Making preparations now is a lot less costly than making reparations later.
The top 20% also controls almost all the wealth in the country. The are only taxed on a small portion of that. They also may pay the most in dollar amounts, but that 38% number doesn't mean they are paying 38% of their income (they aren't). Through various loopholes, tricks, and shelters, the effective tax rate on the upper 1% is more like 15-20%.
Percentages also don't show the effects of tax burden on the various classes. A 1% tax increase hits the middle class harder than it hits the rich. Plus, given our progressive tax scheme the rich get a piece of every cut made in the income brackets. So when taxes get cut across the board, they're getting more than just the 2 or 3% cut at the top.
The poor and working poor don't pay more in taxes because they really can't afford to. However the richest 20% of the country can, considering the practically own the US wealth wise. They just don't want to.
Government isn't doing anything to destroy the economy. We are.
We've got a dichotomy here. The dichotomy is that we worship capitalism, but we also tend to be an empathic and moral society (well, sometimes at least). These two cannot coexist peacefully. Capitalism is inherently amoral. Capitalism does not care about child labor laws, safety regulations, minimum wage, pollution restrictions, or a well educated populace capable of making reasonable decisions. All of those get in the way making profits.
We, being a moral and empathic society, have summarily told capitalism that we do not like treating people as disposable slave labor and we do not like treating our environment like toilet paper. Capitalism, like the spoiled child it is, doesn't really like being told what to do. So capitalism starts trying to find ways to get around these rules. This includes hiring illegal aliens and off-shoring production to countries that don't have such pesky rules to get in the way of making money. And since these foreign countries usually have high unemployment rates, labor is a lot cheaper even if they have to train them.
Now, the ironic part is that we are brainwashed in this country into thinking that in order to be worth anything, you have to have stuff. Lot's of stuff. Even stuff you can't really afford to have. So instead of our society collectively boycotting companies who circumvent the rules to punish them buy denying the largest consumer base in the world, we end up buying all the stuff that is now made in other countries(while turning a blind eye to their practices) making them record profits. This encourages companies to move more of their production overseas to make even more profit.
The government isn't to blame. We are. By having a moral compass that's easily influenced by cheap stuff we ENCOURAGE companies to go around the humane rules we have in place in this country. We don't boycott companies that use child labor sweatshops in Indonesia because we're all too happy to buy NAMEBRAND(tm) GIZMO for cheap. We don't ostracize companies that cause pollution in third world nations if they make REAL COOL CLOTHING ITEM(tm) that everyone wants. Just look how popular DeBeers diamonds are.
We, the people, decided collectively that we wanted a safe, sane, and clean working environments. We decided we wanted to be able to breath downwind of a production plant. We decided that we wanted companies not to treat their workers like replaceable slaves. We decided that we didn't want to allow the exploitation of children. We decided that everyone was entitled to at least a minimal wage and standard of living. These were all moral decisions that directly conflicted or impacted corporate bottom lines. In response, they went elsewhere.
Now if we all actually stood up for what we believed in a boycotted the hell out of these companies, then they'd come crawling back begging for forgiveness. Being the largest consumer economy in the world gives us a lot of power if we so choose to use it. But we don't, because we like cheap stuff. We are our own worst enemy in this dilemma. Blaming the government is a cheap cop-out to absolve us of our responsibility.
...Personally I'd aim for the job that is most likely to make me happy. In case you're wondering studies have noted that money does not correlate with happiness (assuming one's above the poverty line). Work satisfaction on the other hand is heavily correlated. So is health, relationship satisfaction/love and social life satisfaction. In other words all things that an intense high stress high hour job makes very difficult to keep up.
You and your fancy science talk.
That may be the reality. The problem is, most of America lives inside the reality distortion field of "See how much stuff I got? I'm so much better than you!". They're bombarded with it constantly, with loud obnoxious commercials telling you that you need X and Y or you'll be ugly and outcast. This is reinforced by TV shows, along with popular music repeating the mantra of "No Money? You're worthless!". They've been shown that being ruthless is a means to an end. Kids raised on TV and smartphones don't even question these perceptions, and head into life not aiming for happiness but aiming for money, since they've been brainwashed into thinking they are the same.
Money, fame, and power are idolized. Teachers and intelligence are ridiculed. This is back-asswards of what it should be if this country wants to stay on top.
Perhaps these researchers have never heard of Failbook.
But if they did that, how would they fund wars? How would congresspeople fund their personal state pork projects? How would they fund corporate subsidies?
Oh, you want RESPONSIBLE government. Yeah, Responsible Government is down the road in Unreality County. Take a left at Benevolent Dictatorship, a right when you get to Communist Utopia, and go straight through the intersection at Fair Free Markets. If you hit Alice in Wonderland, you've gone to far.
I mostly agree with you. However, from the article:
"Under US securities law, if more than 500 investors hold a private company's shares, the firm is required to register with the SEC and file public statements.
The exclusion of US investors is unlikely to affect plans for Facebook to raise the $1.5bn, although it will mean some wealthy individuals and companies being denied a chance to buy into a fast-growing firm."
It kind of looks like the people who could really benefit from an IPO would already have been excluded. Just like always. So, I'm less inclined to be upset about this.
Do you honestly think this will prevent wealthy US investors or companies from owning shares?
BTW, I need to move a $25 million dollars but I can't do it without your help. If you provide an account with the $25,000 needed to start the transaction, I'd be willing to give you 20% as transaction fee.
Privacy does not trump moral or legal obligations. If you are breaking the law, no matter how much you may disagree with it, you're privacy will be invaded. If they don't like the law, then work to get it changed.
Regardless, rich assholes evading taxes while simultaneously whining about their taxes being too high should be given a nice long trip to Federal PYITA Prison. And instead of tax payers, they should use the assholes' own money to pay for their imprisonment.
Yes, like that laugh you do when you're crying.
I know it does. I just upped the impulse in your amygdala and slightly lowered your dopamine. It was a slight penalty to my logical reasoning score but gave me much needed morality points.
5. Ten years will have passed, and we will still be arguing about weather.
FTFY.
Whatever you think of it's relevance for the theory of AGW, Bastardi has made a specific prediction and challenged anyone to take him up on it. If those climatologists who are believers in AGW are true scientists they should be able to make a specific prediction that we can come back to in 10 years and either say, "Way to go, your prediction is correct" or "Sorry, back to the drawing board on your theory, your prediction is wrong."
First, climate science is not a cult. It is not a religion. The scientists follow their data and research.
Second, 10 years is still too short a time frame. A 30 year bet would be more reasonable as that would even out short term influences caused by longer scale met influences such as El Nino and La Nina.
The last major AGW prediction I can recall was that England would not have snow in winter any more. Of course, now that England has had a very snowy winter, those same AGW guys are telling us, "Well, yes, that is what you can expect from Global Warming." I would put a lot more credence into the latter statement if they had told us we could expect a snowier winter in England instead of telling us that England would be getting less and less snow every year.
[citation needed]
I have never heard any legitimate climate scientist saying that there would be no more snow in England either in the immediate future nor anytime within the next ten years. In fact, the only thing I've read on the subject was speculation that England would turn into Alaska if the Gulf Stream shut down (and it probably would too, consider the latitude England sits at).
The long term predictions from climate research are for 20 to 30 years out or longer. Speculation about what could happen over the next ten years is just that.
Yes, but that is WEATHER. You see, CLIMATE is different than WEATHER. It really is. His claim that climate is "just a big weather forecast" either shows he's a complete idiot when it comes to climate science or he's trolling.
Climate science is NOT a big weather forecast. Weather is just ONE factor in determining the overall climate of the planet.
I'd be more than willing to take his bet on the condition that the bet is off if extraordinary events occur (large volcanic eruptions or an large meteor impact, for example).
I can agree with that. However, a scientist, when wrong, will either go back and change his hypothesis to correct it OR realize that there's really no way to fix it and throw it out.
Watts maintains that he is still right in the face of evidence that shows he is wrong. And like any good (bad) blogger trying to generate site hits spins every single weather story into an attack against climate science or additional "proof" of some massive world-wide conspiracy.
If he wants to be skeptic and provide legitimate research (like the weather stations) that's great. It only makes for better science. But making claims of a giant conspiracy and refusing to acknowledge when he's been proven wrong really doesn't help constructive discussion on the subject. In fact, it really just makes him one more loud asshole on the net.
Ah. Playing the conspiracy card. That right there ends any meaningful discussion about the subject. I might as well try to convince a Birther that Obama is an American citizen.
Actually, data errors are NOAA's fault as they're the ones providing the raw data. The mistakes usually get corrected on their own when the records are reviewed (such as when the hurricane season gets reviewed at the end of the season). Most errors may not get discovered for awhile, as they are not used to make a sensationalized public release.
But McIntyre and Watts like to play the conspiracy card, and either encourage (or at the very least don't discourage or correct) erroneous data/conclusions of their own or that of their participants. Every single mistake is vindication for them and their audience. It's all the proof they need to mischaracterize the thousands of climate scientists in the world as evil, money-grubbing, fascist socialist bastards bent on world domination.
Basically they do the same thing the IDers do to the theory of evolution, only with less Jesus. Every now and again they discover an error, which is good because it makes the science that much better. But they have yet to do anything meaningful in discrediting the current body of climate science. The papers I know about authored by McIntyre on the subject have been ripped to shreds. Their collective postulations about weather stations was thoroughly debunked (though, of course, they continues to deny it). Most of their other arguments that I've seen in the climate community have been torn apart piece by piece by experts in the field.
It's possible to be a skeptic without being an asshole. I work with a few skeptics. We have interesting conversations ranging from analytical methods to atmospheric dynamics. But the only time McIntyre and Watts are brought up is when we either want to laugh or when we want to point out how NOT to do something.
If you think they're manipulating ground station data through selection, then ignore the ground stations and just look at the satellite data, which is showing the same warming trend.
"I have a friend...."
Speaking of bad science. Look, if you can demonstrate in a clearly well thought out manner that their science is completely wrong and bullshit, then write a paper about it and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Seriously. But you better have rock solid impenetrable arguments or it'll be ripped to shreds before it hits the presses. You would think that with so many glaring holes that people seem to be able to see in climate research, that someone would have been able to put forth a paper that tore the climate science community a new one with relative ease.
But the best that has been managed so far are correcting some relatively minor issues. Some have tried to put forth papers based on your premise and have summarily been laughed at due to the poor quality of the papers.
If you can summarily disprove the conclusions of the science and that there really is no warming, for fuck's sake put together a paper and do it. You will win a Nobel, you'll silence the ignorant masses who equate their backyard thermometer to the global energy balance, and you'll save billions to trillions of dollars that would have otherwise been wasted trying to come up with ways to prepare for and battle a crisis that doesn't exist.
Until you can produce that in reviewed/validated way, I'm going to side with the current body of scientific research. That has a lot more weight than some random slashdot poster who "has a friend".
Do you have any idea the shear amount of energy it takes to raise the planet wide temperature by .4C? It makes a CAT5 hurricane look like a gnat fart.
That amount of temperature increase over that short of a time period IS dramatic.
Now compare your compensation to the head execs. Better yet, work out your hourly rate.
To sum up you're giving roughly 1/3 of your compensation away. For free. If you're salary is $100K and your working those rates, your effective rate of compensation is only $67K. Any company would be more than happy to give you nice lunches and dinners if that was all it took to get you to work for 33% less than what you agreed to. And they'd be laughing about it too.
For your sake, I hope you're getting 5 star gourmet meals or other compensation. $33K can buy a lot of beer and pizza.
If you have the power to do good, but choose not to, what does that make you?
Let's talk about this word good. From what morally superior position are you using this word? The problem with this word is that it means different things to different societies, and even different people. Doing "good" has often been abused in the past to give the moral justification to any number of shady activities from "think of the children" to all-out genocide. The saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" exists for a reason. People who murder abortion clinic workers think they are doing good. Timothy McVeigh thought he was doing good. The terrorists who brought down the towers thought they were doing good.
In reality, what is "good" is judged by those in power, or those who put them there (people). And usually, there is a religion involved to show they have backing from on-high.
Then of course, there are costs and consequences. For example, there was a story not too long ago about 6 people drowning in fairly calm river. So how did they drown? Each person kept trying to save the others, but none of them knew how to swim. They were trying to do good, but none of them stopped to consider the consequences of trying to save drowning people when they themselves didn't know how to swim.
Or on a larger scale, what's it worth to stop a genocide? Anything? Is worth having more people killed through war than the genocide you were trying to stop?
The ends don't justify the means. Blindly going forth in the name of "good" is rarely a smart plan that often comes with a lot of unintended consequences.
This isn't about our version of freedom.
You're right. This was about imaginary property, namely WMDs. Or was it about terrorism. Or was it one of the other trumped intelligence items that border on outright lying.
Regardless, if we were so concerned about this "psychotic" dictator and genocide we had plenty of opportunities to stop him (long before Kuwait). But he was too useful where he was.
This is about a psychotic dictator on the path to joining a select group that currently includes the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. But hey, if you think a couple billion dollars is worth more than 600,000 people... ok, have fun.
First, it isn't a couple billion dollars. You're off by three orders of magnitude.
Second, care to take a look at the numbers that have died as a result of the Iraq wars? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
If it were just money I wouldn't care. But it wasn't. It was A LOT of lives. Getting more people killed than what you're trying to save isn't the smartest way to go about something.
We don't do ourselves or anyone else any favors by spending and bleeding ourselves into oblivion.
Ok, so because helping everybody will "spend us into oblivion", we shouldn't help anybody?
How did you get that from what I said?
I don't have a problem with helping people, or spending money to do so. I have problem with being stupid about it. And things like the Iraq war, or wars of convenience or opportunity, are incredibly stupid. Wars kill and destroy. They are net sinks of resources. And if you don't execute a war carefully you end up causing bigger problems than what you started with, including driving yourself into massive debt.
Or in other words, don't take charity money and buy bibles for kids who are starving.
Huh? Stay on topic. We're talking about the moral responsibility to remove a mass-murderer from power. If you somehow think the fact that you armed him absolves you of that duty, you're sick.
You're picking up some strange things out of what I said. In no way did I say or even imply that it was not our responsibility.
On of the parent post implied
Current most likely way to become rich: Lucky sperm.
Hard work won't make you rich. Only the naive believe that.
That's not to say hard work is pointless. Hard work will still (usually) give you a comfortable life. But hard work alone won't ever make you rich. It just doesn't work that way. I can tell you for a fact that a single mom working three jobs to support her kids is working harder than most CEOs in this country, but she isn't going to get rich doing it.
You need to know People, and have a lot of luck. Even if you are the first with the Next Big Thing(tm), it may languish in obscurity for years or decades without the right resources and connections.
But if the luck thing isn't working out then try being an asshole. That really seems to move people up the corporate ladder...or gets them elected to congress.
I think you are using poor logic. Stepping in and helping an oppressed nation does not mean you then have to liberate all oppressed nations.
Your right. No one would expect that. Instead you get to pick and choose the targets of convenience.
Nor does it mean that if you do not liberate every oppressed nation in the world it invalidates the good work you did to help a few.
Please define good work, as that is a very morally gray area. We've done a lot of "good work" that the people on the receiving end might not be inclined to think so.
Some you can step in quickly (eg Kuwait), others better late than never (eg Kosovo and Darfur), and others you may not be able to step in militarily but can try economic pressure (eg North Korea and Iran). In real life with limited resources, you can only do so much.
In real life you shouldn't fuck things up in the first place. We weren't "liberating" Kuwait. We were fixing a massive fuck up, namely installing and supporting Saddam as the dictator of Iraq. Kosovo and Darfur we reluctantly got involved in only after public pressure got to the point where we started to look bad (Darfur got really bad before we did anything). And economic pressures rarely hurt those in power, especially if they've convinced their populace that they are a god. They can also be employed out of spite (Cuba), which doesn't exactly put a halo over our heads.
That's not to say that we don't do some good from time to time. However, our slate is not clean. Nor arguably balanced. We've done some pretty nasty crap in the name of "national interests". Sure, we're not the only ones but we're big enough that when we screw up we screw up BIG and whole countries end up paying for it.
Not really, conceptually. It is only a matter of scale.
You mean like how a candle flame is exactly like a nuclear bomb, only smaller?
It's more than a matter of scale. When you save someone from being raped, you don't have to worry much about the consequences. You don't have to worry about destroying critical infrastructure that will cause thousands to go without electricity or drinking water. You don't need to be concerned with the immense costs in money and resources and how that affects your own country back home. You don't have to be concerned with slaughtering innocents, or inciting other hostile groups, or how to fill the power vacuum, or the political repercussions, or reconstruction of destroyed towns and cities, etc. .
So conceptually, no. Saving someone from being raped is nothing like liberating a nation.
Compared to some of our past foreign policy (or lack thereof), well...yeah it would take something pretty bad in those cables to top that. Like making lampshades out of babies or something.
Since the US seems to have so many problems at home, why don't you try this for a generation - recall all your troops, close fucking Guantanamo Bay ( you are in violation of the "agreement" that was forced upon Cuba way back), stop meddling in other countries politics and try to find ways to teach geography to your citizens that don't involve bombings and troop deployments.
Sounds good. Boot out the UN, stop giving out foreign aid, don't bother trying to control the price of oil. Ignore the North Koreans and hang the South out to dry. Let China kick the shit out of anyone they don't like. Then kick back, crack a beer, and watch the world disintegrate. I'm with ya. Being Canadian, I'll probably get to watch most of the ICBM's go by. Should be a kickass light-show, eh?
Now why on Earth would China go out of it's way to destabilize the world? It's making money hand over fist. It's economical suicide to become heavy handed, especially when we're not the only country with a nuclear arsenal (which people seem to forget quite often for some reason).
You also seem to think that South Korea can't fend for itself. Sure, a pure ground war wouldn't be pretty, but that's assuming it would be. The initial strike wouldn't be pretty either, but crippling North Korea's industry and communications capabilities only requires a relative few surgical strikes. Even IF NK has nuclear weapons they are low yield and few in number. And if it did go nuclear you can be sure there wouldn't be much left of NK.
Oil prices? Let them go. It will only be a good thing in the end. At the same time, those countries want to make money as well. They also know that a destabilized world is one where it would be harder to make money. They aren't going to go all crazy and start charging $500 a barrel.
The world will not disintegrate if the US decides to not be the world police. Too many people are making too much money. And those interests want a world where they can continue to do so.