...the spectrum in use by HAMs in the 400 MHz range would be athe spectrum in use by HAMs in the 400 MHz range would be auctioned off to commercial interests
Every time the government takes away more bandwidth and spectrum coverage from the Amateur Radio Service, it puts everyone in the USA in greater danger of dying in a disaster as it impedes the ability to provide essential life-saving disaster/emergency communications when other communication systems and infrastructure fail..
Any time there's a disaster or emergency where all other communications infrastructure is down, Hams are there providing essential outside communications links to state and national resources outside of the disaster area as well as providing/assisting with local rescue communications & coordination.
All the groundwork and integration into local, state, national, and worldwide emergency/disaster response and relief infrastructure has been done. Officials in charge when emergencies or disasters occur already have plans in place coordinating with amateur radio clubs in nearly every county and state in the USA as well as significant numbers across many nations (most nations??-too lazy to search) worldwide.
Disaster and emergency response departments and officials across the US and in many other countries along with amateur radio operators rehearse emergency response, planning, coordination, and effectiveness every year with an event called "Field Day".
This is one thing that *works* in our dysfunctional society, works very well, and has been working for many decades. Best of all, it does it better than anything else that's been tried while having the virtue of having the parts of the system that would cost the government the most provided by civilian volunteers.
Selling off *entire bands* assigned to amateur radio to finance some politician's, special-interest's, or political party's boondoggle is akin to the late paratrooper-trainee that decided to sell parts from his emergency chute to get a tattoo that read "Always Prepared".
I always thought the goal here was NOT to win the "Darwin Award"?
The even-scarier part is that the erosion of bandwidth and frequency ranges available to amateur radio has been going on for decades and has only accelerated.
Technology advances have made up for a lot, but the reductions in available bandwidth and spectrum coverage impact the ability to perform the emergency and disaster duties we depend on them to provide when things go really bad.
When listening to half of a conversation, just remember not to laugh too loud when the person says something really stupid. They are likely to accuse you of eavesdropping on what they consider to be a private conversation, oblivious to the fact that half the world can hear them.
Screw that! If I'm trapped with some idiot that insists on making/receiving a call while riding public transportation, inflicting their one-sided conversation loudly upon everyone else, I'm hauling out a scratchpad and scribbling down notes while looking then straight in the eyes!
If the police are called, I simply tell them I'm only following the DHS recommendations I saw in Walmart (if you see something, say something), since I didn't have any choice in whether I overheard the idiot with the phone or not.
Which sort of makes my point for me. If the power source needs a diesel backup that's going to be used often enough (ie some/most of the winter?), then it's not it's not as viable a source of renewable energy as that same diesel running on synthetic fuel would be. Unfortunately, there is not (yet) a viable large scale production capacity for synthetic fuel. Equally unfortunate is that people and research funding bodies have this solar pathology tattooed on their brains.
I'm mostly in agreement. Another point that few people think about concerning alternate energy plans that incorporate the idea of localized, i.e. per-residence or facility generation as in rooftop solar cells, is how does one provide for emergency situations such as storms & earthquakes where many thousands may be without power.
No big utility company vehicles and manpower out to restore power. This will put the poor, old, and lower-income people at higher risk.
The recurring cost and initial then ongoing infrastructure development cost that the government would have to provide would be absolutely huge, probably exceeding those of the health care plan, and thus require the government to take even more money from the people in taxes and fees.
I'm all for alternate energy. It's silly for an intelligent species to put all their civilization's energy production technology-base eggs in one basket.
However, it's equally insane to force a move to non-viable sources or those simply not advanced enough at this point in our technological development to do the job in a more economically viable manner than the existing sources. It must do the job *much cheaper and in a much more practical manner* in order to make the cost incurred in any massive changeover not cause economic and infastructure/logistic disaster.
I just haven't seen anything up to this point that wins on all those points you made as well as those I've stated. It will come in it's time when it's cheap and practical enough to be a better solution than what we have now to most people without needing any government subsidies and/or mandates. Doing otherwise is to do great harm to the entire population both in terms of economics and in the standard of living even to include food costs.
I, and likely most other people, don't think our standard of living is too high. I'm sure you don't either.
For them to charge you with attempting to blind the camera, they have to admit they were using it in an illegal fashion and that you were protecting yourself from their illegal and warrantless invasion of privacy.
No, they don't and won't.
IANAL, however, on more than one occasion I've seen how things like this are typically handled in court.
Most judges this would come before would probably not allow any of those facts into the record. The judge would almost certainly narrow the scope of the evidence & testimony that he allows to be presented and rule it irrelevant to the fact that you vandalized government property. Only the facts concerning whether the damage actually occurred & the cause, and who did it, would likely be allowed.
They can't have citizens getting all uppity and demanding *justice*. He will happily point out that you are being judged in a court of *law*, not justice. They will view your actions as defiance of, and lack of respect for, their authority and seek to make an example of you to discourage others.
You *might* get extremely lucky if you've got the resources for a long series of appeals and a top-notch legal team. If you're just a low- to high-middle-income type, the best you can hope for is to plea-bargain it out and hope for restitution and probation over jail time.
Your best strategy would be to leave the camera alone, hire a good lawyer, document everything, and then file a lawsuit to have the camera moved or pointed elsewhere.
It isn't nearly as satisfying as blinding the camera with geek "skillz", but at least it doesn't involve an overly-"affectionate" cellmate named Bubba and "soap-on-a-rope".
The whole point of backscatter/mm-wave scanners are that they don't penetrate much more than clothing.
If that's true, then that's not what they are talking about here. From TFA:
The system would use multiple cameras mounted on a so-called Z Backscatter Van to covertly scan moving pedestrians for potential threats, McCall said. A Z Backscatter Van is a mobile threat detection system that uses X-Rays to quickly scan through vehicles and buildings for hidden explosives and contraband.
Any x-ray system capable of scanning through buildings is surely powerful enough to expose a fetus to x-rays.
/sarc Sure, if we were talking about *normal* x-ray radiation.
*This* radiation is magic government-approved anti-terrorist radiation, so it *can't* be harmful to Patriotic Americans(TM).
If you get cancer from these backscatter scanners, it obviously means you were against government-run healthcare, public-sector unions, and the economic stimulus bills, not to mention being a racist homophobe./sarc
What has the medieval warming to do with global warming? Nothing ofc as it was very certainly not man made. Unfortunately we do not even know what caused it. So bringing it in any argument regarding CO2 makes no sense at all.
If we cannot determine what caused the Medieval warm period, how do we then know that any warming we are experiencing isn't the same thing? Or something else we don't yet understand?
Our sun has also been doing some unusual things such that other planets in our solar system have been warming. Is there even enough data from that available to be useful, and has it been tested & verified in current climate models?
With that much uncertainty, is it then worth doing significant damage to struggling economies (that also provide the food supply) and will require a lowering of living standards worldwide? How would one even go about enforcing the restrictions that would be necessary worldwide for any realistic plan to be effective in places like China, India, etc? An "eco-war" or "Gaia Crusade"?
For the price in human lives and living conditions/standards that would necessarily be paid by any of the current plans for combating "climate change", there must be much, much more in the way of solid data and advancements in the understanding of planetary climate systems and the analysis methods used.
Anything less is genocide based on taking a wager with unknown odds and with little real idea what ultimately may be lost or won.
Sorry, but humans at this point have simply not advanced enough in our understanding of planetary climatology, nor collected enough data, to start screwing with the only climate and ecology we have without a good possibility of nominating ourselves for a Darwin Award, and at great cost to get there.
"A man's got to know his limitations." -Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry
I was saying you can use averages for dissimilar work to make the claim that the public sector is better paid, or you can pick and choose positions to use as case studies. Both are misleading. One compares apples to oranges. The other makes the case that the outlying exception is a rule. Neither proves your point. And counter points based on better data are easy to come by. For example this and this.
Another stellar source of non agenda-driven information./sarc
The least you could do is cite something that isn't completely discredited with only a single Google search and one or two mouse-clicks. What you cited is an intellectual insult to anyone that bothers to check.
C'mon. Ya gotta at least make taking apart your arguments take more effort than a half-dozen mouse clicks. I feel like you're not really trying. Long week, perhaps?
Ah well. I'm wasting my time. Your mind is obviously not open. I wish it were. For your own sake, not mine. Things are going to be awfully tough for you in the near future.
Government employees are paid mostly through taxes.
This is why they traditionally are paid lower than the private sector.
Say WHAT!?!? Paid *lower*!?!?
You'd better check your facts. On average, government workers...particularly those in public sector unions...are paid far, far better and get far, far better benefits than those doing equivalent work in the private sector.
Why do you think that hundreds of public sector unions are rushing to get exemptions from complying with the new health care laws?
A unionized city bus driver where I live *starts* at about $45K plus "Cadillac" bennies, and many retire after 20 years receiving upwards of $140K/yr plus full bennies. That's just insane.
The problem with government employees engaging in collective bargaining is that the "employer" (the government) is not bargaining with it's own money, but taxpayer's money. It will not "go out of business" if it pays too much to the workers. It simply raises *our* taxes. Which the unions then use to contribute to those politician's campaigns who support more pay/benefits and an expanded unionized government workforce.
There's little incentive for the government to drive a hard bargain with the unions, and significant motive to do just the opposite and "buy" the union worker's votes/support for expanded government, heavier taxes, and more union powers. The only check on this is exactly what is happening now in WI, OH, etc etc.
Modded "Troll"??
I guess that's another Leftist without an argument but with mod points.
The way the Fox News folks get their "public sector workers make more" number...
What has Fox News got to do with anything? I never mentioned Fox. I don't get my facts from Fox. Or MSNBC. Or from CNN. ABC, CBS, or NBC.
Here are a couple articles discussing the problem. The problem being, at it's root, that there is no compelling reason for government to restrain public sector union wages & compensation. Just the opposite, in fact. Politically, it builds an "unholy alliance" between politicians and public sector unions.
The pay gap between government workers and lower-compensated private employees is growing as public employees enjoy sizable benefit growth even in a distressed economy, federal figures show.
Public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, the latest available data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says. Private-sector workers got $7.98 an hour.
Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour â" $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31.
The gap has been expanding because of the increasing value of public employee benefits. Last year, government benefits rose three times more than those in the private sector: up 69 cents an hour for civil servants, 23 cents for private workers.
Labor costs account for about half of state and local spending, according to BLS and Census data. Benefits consume a growing share of that, now 34%.
There is little question that the compensation, benefits and pensions of public sector employees exceed those of many private sector workers. Whatever the standard, compensation that is commonplace for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers in California is almost unheard of in the private sector.
Consider, for example, the city of Los Angeles. Its memoranda of understanding with public employee bargaining units are posted on the cityâ(TM)s website. There are more than 80 types of clerical positions. The pay range for these is, on average, $43,600 to $53,200 per year. In general, after five years employment, a secretary will earn $53,200, well above what the private sector generally pays.
The salaries of clerical workers are commensurate with those of other city workers. Child care associates, golf starters and salaried recreation workers all typically receive more than $40,000 a year to start and all other full-time, salaried city recreation positions receive more than $50,000 a year to start.
Government employees are paid mostly through taxes.
This is why they traditionally are paid lower than the private sector.
Say WHAT!?!? Paid *lower*!?!?
You'd better check your facts. On average, government workers...particularly those in public sector unions...are paid far, far better and get far, far better benefits than those doing equivalent work in the private sector.
Why do you think that hundreds of public sector unions are rushing to get exemptions from complying with the new health care laws?
A unionized city bus driver where I live *starts* at about $45K plus "Cadillac" bennies, and many retire after 20 years receiving upwards of $140K/yr plus full bennies. That's just insane.
The problem with government employees engaging in collective bargaining is that the "employer" (the government) is not bargaining with it's own money, but taxpayer's money. It will not "go out of business" if it pays too much to the workers. It simply raises *our* taxes. Which the unions then use to contribute to those politician's campaigns who support more pay/benefits and an expanded unionized government workforce.
There's little incentive for the government to drive a hard bargain with the unions, and significant motive to do just the opposite and "buy" the union worker's votes/support for expanded government, heavier taxes, and more union powers. The only check on this is exactly what is happening now in WI, OH, etc etc.
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion â" when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing â" when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors â" when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws donâ(TM)t protect you against them, but protect them against you â" when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice â" you may know that your society is doomed." -Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Ayn Rand even in 1957 saw where the Progressive movement was steering the country. GWB, McCaine, and BHO are all Progressives. That's why BHO's policies aren't much different than GWB's.
The larger a government is, the more corruption there will be. You want a government that's truly of, by, and for the people?
Make it small and weak enough to fear the people.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson
A government large enough to give the people everything is also large enough to take everything away if the people displease it.
Every new government entitlement and social program is another chain the government uses to take away freedom. With every added program or entitlement there comes additional taxes, bureaucracy, laws, and regulations to strip away ever-more freedom and opportunity.
Every politician that pushes for some new entitlement is no better or different than the crack dealer standing on the corner offering some school kid a free rock.
People need to quit being so eager to suck on the government crack pipe. The Chinese are tired of financing our habit.
You really ought to study your history a little more, and I say this as someone at least sympathetic to your claim. Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, titans all, were no less ruthless than today's corporate executives, and all of them started over 150 years ago. The government was drastically different then, but don't delude yourself into thinking that it was less manipulable, or that these men didn't take advantage of every loophole and extralegal arrangement they could get their hands on. Nor should you think that politicians were all upstanding individuals who would never collude with massive corporations; such deals are the backbone of the American economy, then just as much as now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to vilify Vanderbilt et al., they were all philanthropists and very smart men, but that does not mean they weren't among the most ruthless businessmen to ever walk this Earth
I'm well aware of the era of the late-1800s "Trusts" that monopolized large segments of the emerging modern industrial base in the US. Government responded with landmark anti-trust legislation, some in the form of the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts among the better-known measures, which were instituted to curb these emerging threats to freedom and the emerging modern industrial economy.
With the emergence of the Progressive movement as a significant political power in the late 1890s and early 1900s and the election of Woodrow Wilson, Progressives began incrementally and selectively and effectively gutting certain portions and selectively enforcing these new curbs on corporate power for their own advancement and the advancement of the Progressive agenda that has carried on to this day as Progressives now make up large portions of both major political parties.
Just look at the media and cable/broadcast industry with single corporations owning both content creation and distribution that has been one of the prime motivators of the proposals for Net Neutrality.
A CEO should be held responsible for the actions of the company they run. Isn't that one of the reasons they earn those multi-million dollar pay packets.
Of course not, silly person!
They earn those millions because they won the "race-to-the-bottom" against all the other corrupt, amoral corporate executives competing for the position by being the most ruthless and amoral in their pursuit of money and power.
It's rather like a twisted "executive Darwinism" that's encouraged and enabled in the US by corrupt Progressive politicians in BOTH parties that have abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law starting about 100 years ago and having grown worse every year since because people can't be bothered to pay attention, educate and inform themselves, and then do something about voting them out.
my taxpayer money goes towards your ambulance, police, and hospital care
That logic could be used to regulate pretty much any & every facet of citizens' lives, as pretty much everything one does affects one's health in some way or another.
"I'm sorry citizen, but you may not legally assemble & protest. Public protest increases your risk of injury from possible violence from other protesters and/or police crowd-control actions, and/or possible long-term health risks from tear gas and thus increases the average healthcare costs to taxpayers."
"I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"." - "Edgar Friendly" played by Dennis Leary in the movie "Demolition Man"
In summary, 94% of economic historians disagree with you
No, they don't disagree with *me*. The disagree with historical fact. They simply wish to revise-out and dismiss one of the major designers of the failed New Deal that exposes Progressive falsehoods.
All taxes redistribute wealth by definition.
All *progressive* taxes redistribute wealth by definition. They are a form of economic/class discrimination.
Taxes that pay for government offices and government salaries are the cost of government. Taxes to build and maintain roads & bridges are infrastructure costs. Taxes to pay for schools are education costs. Taxes to support the military are defense costs. These are not wealth redistribution.
Taxes that support subsidies and social programs are wealth redistribution. Taxes to encourage or discourage certain behaviors are social engineering. Taxes aimed at "economic justice" are wealth redistribution.
Every time you bring this crap up, I just provide another reference as to why you're completely wrong and you move on and make another absurd claim.
No, you make specious and intellectually-dishonest claims not backed by historical fact, then fall back on the Progressive debate tactic of accusing others of what you yourself are attempting to do.
I don't need Fox News to teach me history. It's there to be read from *original sources*...not from some grant-riding Progressive ivory-tower type who publishes his own fantasy re-interpretation of historical facts and events...by anyone that cares enough to seek out the truth rather than simply trying to defend and promote their agendas.
If you're happier to bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge facts and history in favor of your personal and comfortable world view, then that is on you.
Just don't act shocked or insulted when the rest of us who are not inside your reality-distortion field ignore and dismiss your opinions as a result, and move ahead with actually solving problems without your input.
Yeah, the new deal as a failure sure is "revisionist history". It's certainly not how history was written originally.
Yes, yes it was how things were originally. Even FDR's ally and his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified it was a failure. Speaking before the House Ways and Means Committee in May, 1939 said:
"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ⦠I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ⦠I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ⦠and an enormous debt to boot."
You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own history and facts.
What a pathetically sophomoric understanding. By that definition ALL modern economics is socialism since every viable economic system includes taxes that are collected and spent, thus redistributing wealth.
Straw man. I never said all taxes are bad. Stop putting words in my mouth. Almost by definition, a progressive income tax is redistribution of wealth. In Karl Marx' "Communist Manifesto", read the steps he outlines to establish Communism in a nation. In particular reference steps 2 and 3.
Both are meant to redistribute wealth and destroy Capitalism. Number 2 look familiar? That's the "Death Tax" that's been so recently pushed by Progressives.
The rest of your post is nothing but ad-hominem attacks which indicate you've run out of arguments. Typical Progressive debate tactic. Shout down and personally attack those who dare expose the Progressive lies and revisions of history. Good to see nothing has changed, and Progressives haven't gotten any smarter.
Unfortunately, no. The New Deal was not an illusion, more like a nightmare. It prolonged the Great Depression for years, and may have continued if not for WW2. Progressives love to revise history around the New Deal (and the Great Society as well).
Regarding wealth redistribution you state;
No, that would be socialism.
In regards to basic economics, it's a distinction with little difference. They both advocate taking wealth by threat of force from one group and give it to another. This has never worked for any significant length of time for any major power. See: USSR.
but right now wealth is what matters
Wealth always has and always will matter. It is a basic part of being human. Right up there with self preservation and procreation. There is no such thing as "too rich". Wealth is not zero-sum. Creating wealth does not deprive others of wealth.
This idea of being "too rich" is pure class-warfare socialist/communist propaganda designed to create unrest. The only ones that promote these type of class-warfare memes are either the "convenient idiots" or those who wish to start unrest and violence for political/ideological reasons.
Governments and leaders eventually become corrupted. It's inevitable. It has always been so, and will remain so as long as we are recognizably human. The ONLY possible way to avoid the worst of the consequences is to ensure, as the authors of the Constitution attempted to do (and did an amazing job that is still in context even today), that the central government remains as small & weak as possible while carrying out extremely limited but necessary duties, and keep most of the governing as local as possible. This makes it more difficult to corrupt large sections of the government and country.
The key to prosperity is to harness through capitalism the inherent desire of all people to acquire wealth and better themselves and their families through their labor and innovation. Capitalism has done more to raise the standard of living and quality of life for more people than any other system in history.
A central government is not capable of effectively managing an economy on the scale of the US unless it gathers all control of production and wealth-creation to itself. Even then, it is extremely inefficient and wasteful. The former Soviet Union is an excellent example. This all removes individual freedom and incentive, effectively nearly castrating the ability of that society to prosper.
This Progressive move away from local governance to central over the last ~100 years is the root cause of the majority of our domestic, economic, and diplomatic troubles that we find ourselves dealing with over the last century and up to today.
But we did not learn from history and since Reagan we've been back on the same economic path until things came to a head with the banking and housing collapses.
That "same economic path" has been a Progressive path since the New Deal and the Great Society. Wealth redistribution has never worked. Never. Never, ever, ever, ever.
Wealth redistribution is nothing more than lowering everyone's personal wealth and standards of living to the lowest common denominator no matter how much or little one contributes to society and the economy.
You cannot equalize outcomes without removing individual freedom and the incentive to create wealth.
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with wealth redistribution is that eventually you run out of other people's money because they no longer have any incentive to create wealth.
The only thing the government can do is impede job creation and economic growth, or get out of the way so the private sector can.
I wonder if your realize what you wrote. Only the government can impede job creation or let the private sector impede job creation?
I suggest reading what I wrote again, only this time with comprehension as the goal. There's a difference between "government can only" and "only government can".
The government absolutely can help job creation and often does.
Government job creation in the private sector through subsidies typically last only as long as the subsidies do. It also ties up money & credit in the government that the private sector could use to create wealth & jobs. Government can only consume or transfer wealth, it cannot create it.
Modern descendants of Keynesian economics make up the most popular macroeconomic theories taught today.
By that logic does that mean that Windows, since it's the most popular, is the best operating system?
Popular !== correct or best.
Keynesian economics, I would contend, is popular among those on the Left simply because it can be used to justify the spending they desire to move their agenda forward. It has never been shown to work on any significant scale or over any significant length of time.
Government spending intended to create jobs suffers from the "broken window" fallacy.
"Cutting government spending basically means punching the economy in the nose."
Government does not create jobs nor grow the economy in any meaningful and lasting way. The only thing the government can do is impede job creation and economic growth, or get out of the way so the private sector can.
Keynesian economics has been proven not to work. Even JFK understood this.
Try a radio-controlled model airplane. They've been used as camera drones before. After all, that's all those government/military drones are anyway...just a scaled-up version of Junior's RC model plane.
An RC model plane would also be a likely candidate as an improvised anti-drone weapon. You really wouldn't even need any explosives or weapons onboard. Just fly the RC model into the drone's propeller. To make it even more effective, attach some lengths of relatively high strength piano wire or nickel-steel electric guitar string to trail behind the RC model in order to entangle the drone's prop.
Of course, after the first anti-drone RC plane action the government will then proceed to outlaw RC airplanes in the US as terrorist weapons.
Just look at what's happened to amateur/model rocketry in the age of terrorism.
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are empowered by the Executive Branch whose jurisdiction covers all of the US and it's territories. Get over yourself.
The Executive branch doesn't have those powers. It would be up to Congress to add those powers to those it has already given the FCC. The Executive cannot legislate and/or create new powers and laws.
Then again, the Executive branch (both 'R' and 'D') of late has had a nasty habit of bypassing Congress completely through Executive Orders and regulation-creep whenever those pesky People and their representatives get in the way. And all three branches have had a real problem with granting themselves powers not granted them in the Constitution the last 100 years. The Constitution *is* a "living document". That's what the amendment process is for. It was intentionally made hard to change *for a reason*. Political expediency is not a valid reason to bypass or plain ignore the Constitution.
Company I work for builds portable satcoms sytems. I can pull up in my VW Jetta, pull the cases holding the terminal out of my trunk, and get you 4mbps of connectivity inside of 10 minutes, from anywhere. As a bonus, if I was powering it off of the inverter, I'd get about 72 hours of run-time.
I'm an amateur radio operator myself, but to claim it's useful for Emcom in the modern era is laughable. It's a great hobby, lots of really fascinating experimentation now that we're getting computer litterate amateurs out there. (WSPR, WJST, Olivia, other digital modes come to mind
That's great and all, but overlooks one important fact; there are not nearly enough satcomm units and they don't have nearly the penetration amongst the general population that amateur radio does. If amateur radio is so outdated and useless, then why does it still play such prominent life-saving roles in disasters like Katrina and the recent Haiti earthquake? What if the disaster somehow affects the satellites and/or ground stations?
As I recall, it was nearly a week after Katrina before any useful satcomm links could be set up in the disaster area, and even then amateur radio operators continued to provide many ongoing emergency communication services where possible to avoid swamping the emergency satcomm systems set up by FEMA and others as well as filling in local gaps in emergency communications.
Another thing is that one good EMP burst will fry a majority of communications (and everything else) based around solid-state devices that hasn't been hardened. Even though a majority of amateur radio equipment currently in use is solid-state, there are surprisingly-large numbers of hams that keep vintage vacuum-tube radio equipment around and functioning for nostalgia and tinkering. Much of this old equipment would be unaffected or suffer only minor damage, especially since a large portion would likely not be connected to power or antennas normally.
When the fecal matter really hits the rotary circulation device and all other communications are down, hams will be the one lifeline to the outside world and help, as well as provide local communications for immediate coordination of local emergency personnel and resources.
The Gibson guitar plant used to be there. There was also a company that made band saws for cutting metal parts.
Many former Gibson employees left behind in Kalamazoo after Gibson moved to Nashville Tennessee went to work for Heritage Guitar. Kalamazoo amplifiers were also made in Kalamazoo (duh!), as both Gibson and Kalamazoo Amplifiers were owned by C.M.I. (Chicago Musical Instruments). Kalamazoo Amplifiers were only made from 1965 to 1967 and have become sought-after vintage amplifiers for their unique sound. Selmer UK also became a CMI-owned company by the early 1970s.
ProCo Sound, most famously maker of the "RAT" guitar distortion pedal as well as LifeLine instrument cables, is also located in Kalamazoo. I worked there for a period in the '80s.
These companies are struggling under the current Michigan plus Federal tax and regulation environment. I've been hearing rumors about some of these companies fleeing as well. Some supposedly considering fleeing the USA altogether. "Kellog's of Battle Creek" now has only a token presence in Battle Creek with much of its' production transferred to Mexico and elsewhere (I wonder how many "special" cereal boxes containing "special powder frosting" cross the border to the US?).
It's far too soon yet and there are far too few details regarding Snyder's plans available to make any judgments. However, Michigan *must* sharply change its' business climate *and* dramatically reduce state spending & tax rates if it is not to become a failed wasteland of desperately-poor & unemployed, barely able to exist while suffering under crippling crime & murder rates, failing infrastructure, and little to no assistance or social services available from a bankrupt state government.
One other change Michigan *must* make is to become a "right-to-work" state. The choke-hold that Unions in general and public-service unions in particular have on the state government, both in terms of government-union corruption as well as the punishing financial burden of the unfunded public-service pensions, is guaranteed to drive Michigan into default while driving away jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
...the spectrum in use by HAMs in the 400 MHz range would be athe spectrum in use by HAMs in the 400 MHz range would be auctioned off to commercial interests
Every time the government takes away more bandwidth and spectrum coverage from the Amateur Radio Service, it puts everyone in the USA in greater danger of dying in a disaster as it impedes the ability to provide essential life-saving disaster/emergency communications when other communication systems and infrastructure fail..
Any time there's a disaster or emergency where all other communications infrastructure is down, Hams are there providing essential outside communications links to state and national resources outside of the disaster area as well as providing/assisting with local rescue communications & coordination.
All the groundwork and integration into local, state, national, and worldwide emergency/disaster response and relief infrastructure has been done. Officials in charge when emergencies or disasters occur already have plans in place coordinating with amateur radio clubs in nearly every county and state in the USA as well as significant numbers across many nations (most nations??-too lazy to search) worldwide.
Disaster and emergency response departments and officials across the US and in many other countries along with amateur radio operators rehearse emergency response, planning, coordination, and effectiveness every year with an event called "Field Day".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Day_(amateur_radio)
This is one thing that *works* in our dysfunctional society, works very well, and has been working for many decades. Best of all, it does it better than anything else that's been tried while having the virtue of having the parts of the system that would cost the government the most provided by civilian volunteers.
Selling off *entire bands* assigned to amateur radio to finance some politician's, special-interest's, or political party's boondoggle is akin to the late paratrooper-trainee that decided to sell parts from his emergency chute to get a tattoo that read "Always Prepared".
I always thought the goal here was NOT to win the "Darwin Award"?
The even-scarier part is that the erosion of bandwidth and frequency ranges available to amateur radio has been going on for decades and has only accelerated.
Technology advances have made up for a lot, but the reductions in available bandwidth and spectrum coverage impact the ability to perform the emergency and disaster duties we depend on them to provide when things go really bad.
Strat
When listening to half of a conversation, just remember not to laugh too loud when the person says something really stupid. They are likely to accuse you of eavesdropping on what they consider to be a private conversation, oblivious to the fact that half the world can hear them.
Screw that! If I'm trapped with some idiot that insists on making/receiving a call while riding public transportation, inflicting their one-sided conversation loudly upon everyone else, I'm hauling out a scratchpad and scribbling down notes while looking then straight in the eyes!
If the police are called, I simply tell them I'm only following the DHS recommendations I saw in Walmart (if you see something, say something), since I didn't have any choice in whether I overheard the idiot with the phone or not.
Strat
Which sort of makes my point for me. If the power source needs a diesel backup that's going to be used often enough (ie some/most of the winter?), then it's not it's not as viable a source of renewable energy as that same diesel running on synthetic fuel would be. Unfortunately, there is not (yet) a viable large scale production capacity for synthetic fuel. Equally unfortunate is that people and research funding bodies have this solar pathology tattooed on their brains.
I'm mostly in agreement. Another point that few people think about concerning alternate energy plans that incorporate the idea of localized, i.e. per-residence or facility generation as in rooftop solar cells, is how does one provide for emergency situations such as storms & earthquakes where many thousands may be without power.
No big utility company vehicles and manpower out to restore power. This will put the poor, old, and lower-income people at higher risk.
The recurring cost and initial then ongoing infrastructure development cost that the government would have to provide would be absolutely huge, probably exceeding those of the health care plan, and thus require the government to take even more money from the people in taxes and fees.
I'm all for alternate energy. It's silly for an intelligent species to put all their civilization's energy production technology-base eggs in one basket.
However, it's equally insane to force a move to non-viable sources or those simply not advanced enough at this point in our technological development to do the job in a more economically viable manner than the existing sources. It must do the job *much cheaper and in a much more practical manner* in order to make the cost incurred in any massive changeover not cause economic and infastructure/logistic disaster.
I just haven't seen anything up to this point that wins on all those points you made as well as those I've stated. It will come in it's time when it's cheap and practical enough to be a better solution than what we have now to most people without needing any government subsidies and/or mandates. Doing otherwise is to do great harm to the entire population both in terms of economics and in the standard of living even to include food costs.
I, and likely most other people, don't think our standard of living is too high. I'm sure you don't either.
Strat
For them to charge you with attempting to blind the camera, they have to admit they were using it in an illegal fashion and that you were protecting yourself from their illegal and warrantless invasion of privacy.
No, they don't and won't.
IANAL, however, on more than one occasion I've seen how things like this are typically handled in court.
Most judges this would come before would probably not allow any of those facts into the record. The judge would almost certainly narrow the scope of the evidence & testimony that he allows to be presented and rule it irrelevant to the fact that you vandalized government property. Only the facts concerning whether the damage actually occurred & the cause, and who did it, would likely be allowed.
They can't have citizens getting all uppity and demanding *justice*. He will happily point out that you are being judged in a court of *law*, not justice. They will view your actions as defiance of, and lack of respect for, their authority and seek to make an example of you to discourage others.
You *might* get extremely lucky if you've got the resources for a long series of appeals and a top-notch legal team. If you're just a low- to high-middle-income type, the best you can hope for is to plea-bargain it out and hope for restitution and probation over jail time.
Your best strategy would be to leave the camera alone, hire a good lawyer, document everything, and then file a lawsuit to have the camera moved or pointed elsewhere.
It isn't nearly as satisfying as blinding the camera with geek "skillz", but at least it doesn't involve an overly-"affectionate" cellmate named Bubba and "soap-on-a-rope".
Strat
The whole point of backscatter/mm-wave scanners are that they don't penetrate much more than clothing.
If that's true, then that's not what they are talking about here. From TFA:
The system would use multiple cameras mounted on a so-called Z Backscatter Van to covertly scan moving pedestrians for potential threats, McCall said. A Z Backscatter Van is a mobile threat detection system that uses X-Rays to quickly scan through vehicles and buildings for hidden explosives and contraband.
Any x-ray system capable of scanning through buildings is surely powerful enough to expose a fetus to x-rays.
/sarc Sure, if we were talking about *normal* x-ray radiation.
*This* radiation is magic government-approved anti-terrorist radiation, so it *can't* be harmful to Patriotic Americans(TM).
If you get cancer from these backscatter scanners, it obviously means you were against government-run healthcare, public-sector unions, and the economic stimulus bills, not to mention being a racist homophobe. /sarc
Strat
I can deal with nosy people.
How about nosy people that employ well-armed and coordinated forces able to track you down, imprison, and/or kill you if you make them unhappy?
There's a big difference between the power over your life and freedom held by some random busybody vs that of a government.
Strat
What has the medieval warming to do with global warming? Nothing ofc as it was very certainly not man made. Unfortunately we do not even know what caused it. So bringing it in any argument regarding CO2 makes no sense at all.
If we cannot determine what caused the Medieval warm period, how do we then know that any warming we are experiencing isn't the same thing? Or something else we don't yet understand?
Our sun has also been doing some unusual things such that other planets in our solar system have been warming. Is there even enough data from that available to be useful, and has it been tested & verified in current climate models?
With that much uncertainty, is it then worth doing significant damage to struggling economies (that also provide the food supply) and will require a lowering of living standards worldwide? How would one even go about enforcing the restrictions that would be necessary worldwide for any realistic plan to be effective in places like China, India, etc? An "eco-war" or "Gaia Crusade"?
For the price in human lives and living conditions/standards that would necessarily be paid by any of the current plans for combating "climate change", there must be much, much more in the way of solid data and advancements in the understanding of planetary climate systems and the analysis methods used.
Anything less is genocide based on taking a wager with unknown odds and with little real idea what ultimately may be lost or won.
Sorry, but humans at this point have simply not advanced enough in our understanding of planetary climatology, nor collected enough data, to start screwing with the only climate and ecology we have without a good possibility of nominating ourselves for a Darwin Award, and at great cost to get there.
"A man's got to know his limitations." -Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry
Strat
I was saying you can use averages for dissimilar work to make the claim that the public sector is better paid, or you can pick and choose positions to use as case studies. Both are misleading. One compares apples to oranges. The other makes the case that the outlying exception is a rule. Neither proves your point. And counter points based on better data are easy to come by. For example this and this.
*Those* are your cites?
Take a look at the people on the board of directors here: http://www.epi.org/pages/board/
I pretty much dismissed it after seeing all the union people on the board like this one:
Anna Burger
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Change-to-Win
Anna Burger is both a top ranking officer at SEIU, the nation's largest and fastest growing union, and chair of the Change-to-Win Labor federation.
Yeah, that's a non-biased source. /sarc
And the study cited in the Times-Union article you linked? Looked at who the people are behind that?
http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=42
Another stellar source of non agenda-driven information. /sarc
The least you could do is cite something that isn't completely discredited with only a single Google search and one or two mouse-clicks. What you cited is an intellectual insult to anyone that bothers to check.
C'mon. Ya gotta at least make taking apart your arguments take more effort than a half-dozen mouse clicks. I feel like you're not really trying. Long week, perhaps?
Ah well. I'm wasting my time. Your mind is obviously not open. I wish it were. For your own sake, not mine. Things are going to be awfully tough for you in the near future.
Good luck.
Strat
Government employees are paid mostly through taxes.
This is why they traditionally are paid lower than the private sector.
Say WHAT!?!? Paid *lower*!?!?
You'd better check your facts. On average, government workers...particularly those in public sector unions...are paid far, far better and get far, far better benefits than those doing equivalent work in the private sector.
Why do you think that hundreds of public sector unions are rushing to get exemptions from complying with the new health care laws?
A unionized city bus driver where I live *starts* at about $45K plus "Cadillac" bennies, and many retire after 20 years receiving upwards of $140K/yr plus full bennies. That's just insane.
The problem with government employees engaging in collective bargaining is that the "employer" (the government) is not bargaining with it's own money, but taxpayer's money. It will not "go out of business" if it pays too much to the workers. It simply raises *our* taxes. Which the unions then use to contribute to those politician's campaigns who support more pay/benefits and an expanded unionized government workforce.
There's little incentive for the government to drive a hard bargain with the unions, and significant motive to do just the opposite and "buy" the union worker's votes/support for expanded government, heavier taxes, and more union powers. The only check on this is exactly what is happening now in WI, OH, etc etc.
Modded "Troll"??
I guess that's another Leftist without an argument but with mod points.
The way the Fox News folks get their "public sector workers make more" number...
What has Fox News got to do with anything? I never mentioned Fox. I don't get my facts from Fox. Or MSNBC. Or from CNN. ABC, CBS, or NBC.
Here are a couple articles discussing the problem. The problem being, at it's root, that there is no compelling reason for government to restrain public sector union wages & compensation. Just the opposite, in fact. Politically, it builds an "unholy alliance" between politicians and public sector unions.
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-04-09-compensation_N.htm
The pay gap between government workers and lower-compensated private employees is growing as public employees enjoy sizable benefit growth even in a distressed economy, federal figures show.
Public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, the latest available data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says. Private-sector workers got $7.98 an hour.
Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour â" $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31.
The gap has been expanding because of the increasing value of public employee benefits. Last year, government benefits rose three times more than those in the private sector: up 69 cents an hour for civil servants, 23 cents for private workers.
Labor costs account for about half of state and local spending, according to BLS and Census data. Benefits consume a growing share of that, now 34%.
LA Business Journal: http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2010/dec/20/unions-push-public-pay-out-scale/
There is little question that the compensation, benefits and pensions of public sector employees exceed those of many private sector workers. Whatever the standard, compensation that is commonplace for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers in California is almost unheard of in the private sector.
Consider, for example, the city of Los Angeles. Its memoranda of understanding with public employee bargaining units are posted on the cityâ(TM)s website. There are more than 80 types of clerical positions. The pay range for these is, on average, $43,600 to $53,200 per year. In general, after five years employment, a secretary will earn $53,200, well above what the private sector generally pays.
The salaries of clerical workers are commensurate with those of other city workers. Child care associates, golf starters and salaried recreation workers all typically receive more than $40,000 a year to start and all other full-time, salaried city recreation positions receive more than $50,000 a year to start.
You were saying?
Strat
Government employees are paid mostly through taxes.
This is why they traditionally are paid lower than the private sector.
Say WHAT!?!? Paid *lower*!?!?
You'd better check your facts. On average, government workers...particularly those in public sector unions...are paid far, far better and get far, far better benefits than those doing equivalent work in the private sector.
Why do you think that hundreds of public sector unions are rushing to get exemptions from complying with the new health care laws?
A unionized city bus driver where I live *starts* at about $45K plus "Cadillac" bennies, and many retire after 20 years receiving upwards of $140K/yr plus full bennies. That's just insane.
The problem with government employees engaging in collective bargaining is that the "employer" (the government) is not bargaining with it's own money, but taxpayer's money. It will not "go out of business" if it pays too much to the workers. It simply raises *our* taxes. Which the unions then use to contribute to those politician's campaigns who support more pay/benefits and an expanded unionized government workforce.
There's little incentive for the government to drive a hard bargain with the unions, and significant motive to do just the opposite and "buy" the union worker's votes/support for expanded government, heavier taxes, and more union powers. The only check on this is exactly what is happening now in WI, OH, etc etc.
Strat
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion â" when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing â" when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors â" when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws donâ(TM)t protect you against them, but protect them against you â" when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice â" you may know that your society is doomed." -Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Ayn Rand even in 1957 saw where the Progressive movement was steering the country. GWB, McCaine, and BHO are all Progressives. That's why BHO's policies aren't much different than GWB's.
The larger a government is, the more corruption there will be. You want a government that's truly of, by, and for the people?
Make it small and weak enough to fear the people.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson
A government large enough to give the people everything is also large enough to take everything away if the people displease it.
Every new government entitlement and social program is another chain the government uses to take away freedom. With every added program or entitlement there comes additional taxes, bureaucracy, laws, and regulations to strip away ever-more freedom and opportunity.
Every politician that pushes for some new entitlement is no better or different than the crack dealer standing on the corner offering some school kid a free rock.
People need to quit being so eager to suck on the government crack pipe. The Chinese are tired of financing our habit.
Strat
You really ought to study your history a little more, and I say this as someone at least sympathetic to your claim. Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, titans all, were no less ruthless than today's corporate executives, and all of them started over 150 years ago. The government was drastically different then, but don't delude yourself into thinking that it was less manipulable, or that these men didn't take advantage of every loophole and extralegal arrangement they could get their hands on. Nor should you think that politicians were all upstanding individuals who would never collude with massive corporations; such deals are the backbone of the American economy, then just as much as now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to vilify Vanderbilt et al., they were all philanthropists and very smart men, but that does not mean they weren't among the most ruthless businessmen to ever walk this Earth
I'm well aware of the era of the late-1800s "Trusts" that monopolized large segments of the emerging modern industrial base in the US. Government responded with landmark anti-trust legislation, some in the form of the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts among the better-known measures, which were instituted to curb these emerging threats to freedom and the emerging modern industrial economy.
With the emergence of the Progressive movement as a significant political power in the late 1890s and early 1900s and the election of Woodrow Wilson, Progressives began incrementally and selectively and effectively gutting certain portions and selectively enforcing these new curbs on corporate power for their own advancement and the advancement of the Progressive agenda that has carried on to this day as Progressives now make up large portions of both major political parties.
Just look at the media and cable/broadcast industry with single corporations owning both content creation and distribution that has been one of the prime motivators of the proposals for Net Neutrality.
Strat
A CEO should be held responsible for the actions of the company they run. Isn't that one of the reasons they earn those multi-million dollar pay packets.
Of course not, silly person!
They earn those millions because they won the "race-to-the-bottom" against all the other corrupt, amoral corporate executives competing for the position by being the most ruthless and amoral in their pursuit of money and power.
It's rather like a twisted "executive Darwinism" that's encouraged and enabled in the US by corrupt Progressive politicians in BOTH parties that have abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law starting about 100 years ago and having grown worse every year since because people can't be bothered to pay attention, educate and inform themselves, and then do something about voting them out.
Strat
my taxpayer money goes towards your ambulance, police, and hospital care
That logic could be used to regulate pretty much any & every facet of citizens' lives, as pretty much everything one does affects one's health in some way or another.
"I'm sorry citizen, but you may not legally assemble & protest. Public protest increases your risk of injury from possible violence from other protesters and/or police crowd-control actions, and/or possible long-term health risks from tear gas and thus increases the average healthcare costs to taxpayers."
"I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"." - "Edgar Friendly" played by Dennis Leary in the movie "Demolition Man"
Strat
In summary, 94% of economic historians disagree with you
No, they don't disagree with *me*. The disagree with historical fact. They simply wish to revise-out and dismiss one of the major designers of the failed New Deal that exposes Progressive falsehoods.
All taxes redistribute wealth by definition.
All *progressive* taxes redistribute wealth by definition. They are a form of economic/class discrimination.
Taxes that pay for government offices and government salaries are the cost of government. Taxes to build and maintain roads & bridges are infrastructure costs. Taxes to pay for schools are education costs. Taxes to support the military are defense costs. These are not wealth redistribution.
Taxes that support subsidies and social programs are wealth redistribution. Taxes to encourage or discourage certain behaviors are social engineering. Taxes aimed at "economic justice" are wealth redistribution.
Every time you bring this crap up, I just provide another reference as to why you're completely wrong and you move on and make another absurd claim.
No, you make specious and intellectually-dishonest claims not backed by historical fact, then fall back on the Progressive debate tactic of accusing others of what you yourself are attempting to do.
I don't need Fox News to teach me history. It's there to be read from *original sources*...not from some grant-riding Progressive ivory-tower type who publishes his own fantasy re-interpretation of historical facts and events...by anyone that cares enough to seek out the truth rather than simply trying to defend and promote their agendas.
If you're happier to bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge facts and history in favor of your personal and comfortable world view, then that is on you.
Just don't act shocked or insulted when the rest of us who are not inside your reality-distortion field ignore and dismiss your opinions as a result, and move ahead with actually solving problems without your input.
Strat
Yeah, the new deal as a failure sure is "revisionist history". It's certainly not how history was written originally.
Yes, yes it was how things were originally. Even FDR's ally and his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified it was a failure. Speaking before the House Ways and Means Committee in May, 1939 said:
"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ⦠I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ⦠I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ⦠and an enormous debt to boot."
You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own history and facts.
What a pathetically sophomoric understanding. By that definition ALL modern economics is socialism since every viable economic system includes taxes that are collected and spent, thus redistributing wealth.
Straw man. I never said all taxes are bad. Stop putting words in my mouth. Almost by definition, a progressive income tax is redistribution of wealth. In Karl Marx' "Communist Manifesto", read the steps he outlines to establish Communism in a nation. In particular reference steps 2 and 3.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/manifesto/176-2.html
"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."
Both are meant to redistribute wealth and destroy Capitalism. Number 2 look familiar? That's the "Death Tax" that's been so recently pushed by Progressives.
The rest of your post is nothing but ad-hominem attacks which indicate you've run out of arguments. Typical Progressive debate tactic. Shout down and personally attack those who dare expose the Progressive lies and revisions of history. Good to see nothing has changed, and Progressives haven't gotten any smarter.
Strat
The new deal was an illusion?
Unfortunately, no. The New Deal was not an illusion, more like a nightmare. It prolonged the Great Depression for years, and may have continued if not for WW2. Progressives love to revise history around the New Deal (and the Great Society as well).
Regarding wealth redistribution you state;
No, that would be socialism.
In regards to basic economics, it's a distinction with little difference. They both advocate taking wealth by threat of force from one group and give it to another. This has never worked for any significant length of time for any major power. See: USSR.
but right now wealth is what matters
Wealth always has and always will matter. It is a basic part of being human. Right up there with self preservation and procreation. There is no such thing as "too rich". Wealth is not zero-sum. Creating wealth does not deprive others of wealth.
This idea of being "too rich" is pure class-warfare socialist/communist propaganda designed to create unrest. The only ones that promote these type of class-warfare memes are either the "convenient idiots" or those who wish to start unrest and violence for political/ideological reasons.
Governments and leaders eventually become corrupted. It's inevitable. It has always been so, and will remain so as long as we are recognizably human. The ONLY possible way to avoid the worst of the consequences is to ensure, as the authors of the Constitution attempted to do (and did an amazing job that is still in context even today), that the central government remains as small & weak as possible while carrying out extremely limited but necessary duties, and keep most of the governing as local as possible. This makes it more difficult to corrupt large sections of the government and country.
The key to prosperity is to harness through capitalism the inherent desire of all people to acquire wealth and better themselves and their families through their labor and innovation. Capitalism has done more to raise the standard of living and quality of life for more people than any other system in history.
A central government is not capable of effectively managing an economy on the scale of the US unless it gathers all control of production and wealth-creation to itself. Even then, it is extremely inefficient and wasteful. The former Soviet Union is an excellent example. This all removes individual freedom and incentive, effectively nearly castrating the ability of that society to prosper.
This Progressive move away from local governance to central over the last ~100 years is the root cause of the majority of our domestic, economic, and diplomatic troubles that we find ourselves dealing with over the last century and up to today.
Strat
But we did not learn from history and since Reagan we've been back on the same economic path until things came to a head with the banking and housing collapses.
That "same economic path" has been a Progressive path since the New Deal and the Great Society. Wealth redistribution has never worked. Never. Never, ever, ever, ever.
Wealth redistribution is nothing more than lowering everyone's personal wealth and standards of living to the lowest common denominator no matter how much or little one contributes to society and the economy.
You cannot equalize outcomes without removing individual freedom and the incentive to create wealth.
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with wealth redistribution is that eventually you run out of other people's money because they no longer have any incentive to create wealth.
Strat
The only thing the government can do is impede job creation and economic growth, or get out of the way so the private sector can.
I wonder if your realize what you wrote. Only the government can impede job creation or let the private sector impede job creation?
I suggest reading what I wrote again, only this time with comprehension as the goal. There's a difference between "government can only" and "only government can".
The government absolutely can help job creation and often does.
Government job creation in the private sector through subsidies typically last only as long as the subsidies do. It also ties up money & credit in the government that the private sector could use to create wealth & jobs. Government can only consume or transfer wealth, it cannot create it.
Modern descendants of Keynesian economics make up the most popular macroeconomic theories taught today.
By that logic does that mean that Windows, since it's the most popular, is the best operating system?
Popular !== correct or best.
Keynesian economics, I would contend, is popular among those on the Left simply because it can be used to justify the spending they desire to move their agenda forward. It has never been shown to work on any significant scale or over any significant length of time.
Government spending intended to create jobs suffers from the "broken window" fallacy.
Strat
"Cutting government spending basically means punching the economy in the nose."
Government does not create jobs nor grow the economy in any meaningful and lasting way. The only thing the government can do is impede job creation and economic growth, or get out of the way so the private sector can.
Keynesian economics has been proven not to work. Even JFK understood this.
Strat
Try a radio-controlled model airplane. They've been used as camera drones before. After all, that's all those government/military drones are anyway...just a scaled-up version of Junior's RC model plane.
An RC model plane would also be a likely candidate as an improvised anti-drone weapon. You really wouldn't even need any explosives or weapons onboard. Just fly the RC model into the drone's propeller. To make it even more effective, attach some lengths of relatively high strength piano wire or nickel-steel electric guitar string to trail behind the RC model in order to entangle the drone's prop.
Of course, after the first anti-drone RC plane action the government will then proceed to outlaw RC airplanes in the US as terrorist weapons.
Just look at what's happened to amateur/model rocketry in the age of terrorism.
http://www.space-rockets.com/arsanews.html
Drone Wars!
Coming soon to a high-surveillance metropolitan area near you!
Strat
The FCC has authority over the public EM spectrum (as given to them by Congress) such as radio. They have no authority over private cables owned by private companies purchased by private homeowners. Nor do they have authority to censor content on the private cables.
They are empowered by the Executive Branch whose jurisdiction covers all of the US and it's territories. Get over yourself.
The Executive branch doesn't have those powers. It would be up to Congress to add those powers to those it has already given the FCC. The Executive cannot legislate and/or create new powers and laws.
Then again, the Executive branch (both 'R' and 'D') of late has had a nasty habit of bypassing Congress completely through Executive Orders and regulation-creep whenever those pesky People and their representatives get in the way. And all three branches have had a real problem with granting themselves powers not granted them in the Constitution the last 100 years. The Constitution *is* a "living document". That's what the amendment process is for. It was intentionally made hard to change *for a reason*. Political expediency is not a valid reason to bypass or plain ignore the Constitution.
Strat
Company I work for builds portable satcoms sytems. I can pull up in my VW Jetta, pull the cases holding the terminal out of my trunk, and get you 4mbps of connectivity inside of 10 minutes, from anywhere. As a bonus, if I was powering it off of the inverter, I'd get about 72 hours of run-time.
I'm an amateur radio operator myself, but to claim it's useful for Emcom in the modern era is laughable. It's a great hobby, lots of really fascinating experimentation now that we're getting computer litterate amateurs out there. (WSPR, WJST, Olivia, other digital modes come to mind
That's great and all, but overlooks one important fact; there are not nearly enough satcomm units and they don't have nearly the penetration amongst the general population that amateur radio does. If amateur radio is so outdated and useless, then why does it still play such prominent life-saving roles in disasters like Katrina and the recent Haiti earthquake? What if the disaster somehow affects the satellites and/or ground stations?
As I recall, it was nearly a week after Katrina before any useful satcomm links could be set up in the disaster area, and even then amateur radio operators continued to provide many ongoing emergency communication services where possible to avoid swamping the emergency satcomm systems set up by FEMA and others as well as filling in local gaps in emergency communications.
Another thing is that one good EMP burst will fry a majority of communications (and everything else) based around solid-state devices that hasn't been hardened. Even though a majority of amateur radio equipment currently in use is solid-state, there are surprisingly-large numbers of hams that keep vintage vacuum-tube radio equipment around and functioning for nostalgia and tinkering. Much of this old equipment would be unaffected or suffer only minor damage, especially since a large portion would likely not be connected to power or antennas normally.
When the fecal matter really hits the rotary circulation device and all other communications are down, hams will be the one lifeline to the outside world and help, as well as provide local communications for immediate coordination of local emergency personnel and resources.
Strat
The Gibson guitar plant used to be there. There was also a company that made band saws for cutting metal parts.
Many former Gibson employees left behind in Kalamazoo after Gibson moved to Nashville Tennessee went to work for Heritage Guitar. Kalamazoo amplifiers were also made in Kalamazoo (duh!), as both Gibson and Kalamazoo Amplifiers were owned by C.M.I. (Chicago Musical Instruments). Kalamazoo Amplifiers were only made from 1965 to 1967 and have become sought-after vintage amplifiers for their unique sound. Selmer UK also became a CMI-owned company by the early 1970s.
ProCo Sound, most famously maker of the "RAT" guitar distortion pedal as well as LifeLine instrument cables, is also located in Kalamazoo. I worked there for a period in the '80s.
These companies are struggling under the current Michigan plus Federal tax and regulation environment. I've been hearing rumors about some of these companies fleeing as well. Some supposedly considering fleeing the USA altogether. "Kellog's of Battle Creek" now has only a token presence in Battle Creek with much of its' production transferred to Mexico and elsewhere (I wonder how many "special" cereal boxes containing "special powder frosting" cross the border to the US?).
It's far too soon yet and there are far too few details regarding Snyder's plans available to make any judgments. However, Michigan *must* sharply change its' business climate *and* dramatically reduce state spending & tax rates if it is not to become a failed wasteland of desperately-poor & unemployed, barely able to exist while suffering under crippling crime & murder rates, failing infrastructure, and little to no assistance or social services available from a bankrupt state government.
One other change Michigan *must* make is to become a "right-to-work" state. The choke-hold that Unions in general and public-service unions in particular have on the state government, both in terms of government-union corruption as well as the punishing financial burden of the unfunded public-service pensions, is guaranteed to drive Michigan into default while driving away jobs.
Strat