Oddly enough, having a functioning mostly free market process makes those things cheaper, and thus more available to the poor than they were, say, a century ago. Even discounting things that didn't even exist back then. Socialist systems which seek to eliminate wealth disparity, tend to make everyone equally poor and miserable. It's been demonstrated that people are willing to destroy their own money to destroy larger amounts of someone else's money that has more (this is unarguably irrational), so I don't think we'll ever get away from attempts to bring everyone down.
Health care was a huge progressive item. He passed it and worked hard to get something through, with the intent of getting a foot in the door to make something more progressive later. Congress when drafting it had to compromise with blue dog democrats, but also added compromises with hypothetical conservatives instead of the actual members of cognress at that time, then complained about opposition from those members of congress whose actual current positions were ignored. It wasn't all this way, but some progressives like to pretend the conservatives got everything they wanted and still voted no. they didn't. It's not really a logical complaint anyways. It's perfectly logical to see a bill, think it's a bad bill, suggest amendments to make it less bad and get them, but nonetheless vote against the final product.
Cap and trade... supported by Obama, didn't make it pass congress.
Wiretaps, torture, gitmo, Patriot Act: These are the areas i usually classify him as bush's lite. Same great policies, half the outrage. (the word great is not intended as an endorsement by me)
Taxes. He opposed extending bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but caved in order to extend the vastly more expensive bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Sound like he was on the progressive side and compromised.
You did note a couple of other issues where he has taken the progressive side. I think immigration might be another one, but I'd have to check what the general progressive position is. The fair pay act also qualifies, although it didn't really require him to take a stand.
Bush was often lambasted by actual conservatives for being too much of a liberal. See any debate by conservatives about NCLB for example.
I would argue that obama is a pragmatist progressive. Yes, the strident purist progressives are dissapointed. That doesn't make him not a progressive. Arguably, he is a pure centrist who only pushes progressive goals at all as a means to power.
To paraphrase: Damn it, we paid them for services, we should be able to tell them how to run their business!
The problem with the right of way corridors is that you chose to give them those in the first place rather than make them pay for it and allow others to do the same thing. As for the airways, there was a burgeoning homestead system being developed for airways way back before the government short circuited things.
Behold the no true progressive... err, i mean scotsman fallacy. I will agree that on some issues, Obama is more bush light than McCain might have been... but he generally supports progressive ideas, and your overly emphasized "only" is not really accurate.
Actually, both numbers are both rational and real..333=333/1000. Pi, on the other hand, is real but not rational.
The confusion isn't between two different types of numbers, it's between two different methods of expressing numbers, and confusing the representation for the number.
Defensive and retaliatory use of force are not coercive (I don't think this is the right adjective actually) force. Basically as soon as someone uses force to coerce another actor in the name of profit, they voluntarily give up the right to be free from such forces themselves.
I did make a jump from laissez-faire capitalism to free markets, which is what the requirements I listed apply to. That may have been a mistake, but many people use free markets and laissez-faire capitalism as synonyms. Another way to state it is that the initiation of force steps outside the market, so laissez-faire no longer applies.
Option 2 would have been the intellectually honest option. When you repeat an experiment (i.e. get more data) and it contradicts the first, you don't assume the first was correct just because it's inconvenient to throw out all the conclusions you based on it in the first place.
They also need to know that the claim for the warmest year is based on adjusted temperatures. The USHCN and GHCN both show a warming trend in the adjustments for the past century that is larger than that shown in the raw temperatures. This directly casts suspicions on the extent of warming. The shape of the adjustments as plotted for USHCN is interesting, as it it's very close to a quadratic equation (could be spurious, but excel gave r=.9896) with the low point set in such away as to reduce the high points at 1934 and 1921 to be significantly lower than 1998, instead of just barely higher. I've posted a graph for GHCN before. I think I also posted USHCN data before, but I'm not certain. I added 520 to the adjustments just to put it in the same general area as the temperature data for comparison.
I calculated this data after it was pointed out that the GHCN adjustments for at least one station added warning, realclimate accused the poster of cherry picking, then chose a supposedly random subset of stations. I was suspicious that they were cherry picking as well, so I went and checked what happened if you used all stations. It wasn't that hard to do, it it was clear that yes, the adjustments add a warming trend, so it would appear that they also cherry picked.
Except, of course, we didn't put saddam there. Your point about Iran stands. Although I would call the Shah a better ruler than the theocracy that followed him, Mossadegh should not have been overthrown just because we didn't like him.
Ahh... I saw the word impose and assumed an imposition on other people. My apologies.
Are you assuming that violation of the N.A.P. is not in anyone's enlightened self interest? In the context of the discussion, regarding competing self interests, I think my assumption was reasonable even if incorrect.
No, it doesn't. Laissez-faire capitalism explicitly requires that no coercive force, violence, or fraud be used by any actors in the markets. That's perfectly compatible with having a means of punishing actors who attempt to initiate force in some fashion.
An imposition is inherently incompatible with the non-agression principle. Terminology matters. One of the flaws I see in many people's thinking is the confusion between coercion and persuasion, between acting to harm and choosing not to help. Your terms play into that confusion I think.
You may perceive them as selfish, fascist, power-obsessed, and moronic. That does not make it so. Since you use a universal claim which is easily proved false be showing an exception, I question your ability to judge the thinking abilities of others, so the moronic bit is especially in need of verification. Power obsessed I might be willing to consider for most comments which quote Rand, based on my own experience, but that could just be that when discussing Ayn Rand's philosophy, power is relevant to the topic. Fascist is provably false in my experience, as said followers appear to be focused on freedom and never seek power over others except in defense. Selfish, again, I'm willing to consider, as her philosophy denies that altruism is good
Yes, they are, but that's irrelevant. Wang's paper is used in the literature and models to justify a small UHI effect. If his claims are based on fraudulent data, then papers which cite it are flawed.
Given that CRU relied on a paper by Wang, which claimed to use data from known good stations to provide a low estimate of UHI effect, and that Wang can't produce the station histories he claimed to rely on, I question your assumption that climate researches properly compensate for UHI.
Technology development is dependent on the assumption that reality exists and is consistent. Otherwise there is no reason to expect a design to keep working. I would accept reasonable confidence that we know what the rules actually are, but not that there aren't consistent rules. The strains of postmodern philosophy which pretend that there really is no objective reality are what I was thinking. I'm willing to believe that those strains are largely embraced by neophytes, but there are lots of those to be encountered.
The guy in the top picture was part of crashtheteaparty. Despite the people at the event disavowing any connection to him, he was included in a thinkprogress video which tried to tar them as racist. It does go both ways.
Incidentally, I don't think using government infiltrators is a fair response to the original comment. Do you have any examples of right wing activists?
Postmodern philosophy proposes that there are no universal answers, which is fundamentally incompatible with the development of technology. I'd be willing to argue that the main reason technophiles often don't care for philosophy has everything to do with postmodernism.
So you acknowledge that part of the problem is local government restricting rats nests of overhead wires? You may agree with their reason, but those restrictions do reduce competition.
Local fire departments are not federal creations. There are lots of things which the federal government isn't supposed to do that local governments can and do implement.
The Supreme court's interpretation is only an opinion, although generally respected by other legal entities. If the USSC declared that the sky was purple, that wouldn't make it so.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, meant to add this cite about the cash burning.
Actually, that's not true. Inflation adjusted income are up.
Oddly enough, having a functioning mostly free market process makes those things cheaper, and thus more available to the poor than they were, say, a century ago. Even discounting things that didn't even exist back then. Socialist systems which seek to eliminate wealth disparity, tend to make everyone equally poor and miserable. It's been demonstrated that people are willing to destroy their own money to destroy larger amounts of someone else's money that has more (this is unarguably irrational), so I don't think we'll ever get away from attempts to bring everyone down.
Health care was a huge progressive item. He passed it and worked hard to get something through, with the intent of getting a foot in the door to make something more progressive later. Congress when drafting it had to compromise with blue dog democrats, but also added compromises with hypothetical conservatives instead of the actual members of cognress at that time, then complained about opposition from those members of congress whose actual current positions were ignored. It wasn't all this way, but some progressives like to pretend the conservatives got everything they wanted and still voted no. they didn't. It's not really a logical complaint anyways. It's perfectly logical to see a bill, think it's a bad bill, suggest amendments to make it less bad and get them, but nonetheless vote against the final product.
Cap and trade... supported by Obama, didn't make it pass congress.
Wiretaps, torture, gitmo, Patriot Act: These are the areas i usually classify him as bush's lite. Same great policies, half the outrage. (the word great is not intended as an endorsement by me)
Taxes. He opposed extending bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but caved in order to extend the vastly more expensive bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Sound like he was on the progressive side and compromised.
You did note a couple of other issues where he has taken the progressive side. I think immigration might be another one, but I'd have to check what the general progressive position is. The fair pay act also qualifies, although it didn't really require him to take a stand.
Bush was often lambasted by actual conservatives for being too much of a liberal. See any debate by conservatives about NCLB for example.
I would argue that obama is a pragmatist progressive. Yes, the strident purist progressives are dissapointed. That doesn't make him not a progressive. Arguably, he is a pure centrist who only pushes progressive goals at all as a means to power.
We aren't losing manufacturing capacity, just manufacturing jobs.
To paraphrase: Damn it, we paid them for services, we should be able to tell them how to run their business!
The problem with the right of way corridors is that you chose to give them those in the first place rather than make them pay for it and allow others to do the same thing. As for the airways, there was a burgeoning homestead system being developed for airways way back before the government short circuited things.
Behold the no true progressive ... err, i mean scotsman fallacy. I will agree that on some issues, Obama is more bush light than McCain might have been... but he generally supports progressive ideas, and your overly emphasized "only" is not really accurate.
Actually, both numbers are both rational and real. .333=333/1000. Pi, on the other hand, is real but not rational.
The confusion isn't between two different types of numbers, it's between two different methods of expressing numbers, and confusing the representation for the number.
Defensive and retaliatory use of force are not coercive (I don't think this is the right adjective actually) force. Basically as soon as someone uses force to coerce another actor in the name of profit, they voluntarily give up the right to be free from such forces themselves.
I did make a jump from laissez-faire capitalism to free markets, which is what the requirements I listed apply to. That may have been a mistake, but many people use free markets and laissez-faire capitalism as synonyms. Another way to state it is that the initiation of force steps outside the market, so laissez-faire no longer applies.
Option 2 would have been the intellectually honest option. When you repeat an experiment (i.e. get more data) and it contradicts the first, you don't assume the first was correct just because it's inconvenient to throw out all the conclusions you based on it in the first place.
They also need to know that the claim for the warmest year is based on adjusted temperatures. The USHCN and GHCN both show a warming trend in the adjustments for the past century that is larger than that shown in the raw temperatures. This directly casts suspicions on the extent of warming. The shape of the adjustments as plotted for USHCN is interesting, as it it's very close to a quadratic equation (could be spurious, but excel gave r=.9896) with the low point set in such away as to reduce the high points at 1934 and 1921 to be significantly lower than 1998, instead of just barely higher. I've posted a graph for GHCN before. I think I also posted USHCN data before, but I'm not certain. I added 520 to the adjustments just to put it in the same general area as the temperature data for comparison.
I calculated this data after it was pointed out that the GHCN adjustments for at least one station added warning, realclimate accused the poster of cherry picking, then chose a supposedly random subset of stations. I was suspicious that they were cherry picking as well, so I went and checked what happened if you used all stations. It wasn't that hard to do, it it was clear that yes, the adjustments add a warming trend, so it would appear that they also cherry picked.
Except, of course, we didn't put saddam there. Your point about Iran stands. Although I would call the Shah a better ruler than the theocracy that followed him, Mossadegh should not have been overthrown just because we didn't like him.
Ahh... I saw the word impose and assumed an imposition on other people. My apologies.
Are you assuming that violation of the N.A.P. is not in anyone's enlightened self interest? In the context of the discussion, regarding competing self interests, I think my assumption was reasonable even if incorrect.
No, it doesn't. Laissez-faire capitalism explicitly requires that no coercive force, violence, or fraud be used by any actors in the markets. That's perfectly compatible with having a means of punishing actors who attempt to initiate force in some fashion.
An imposition is inherently incompatible with the non-agression principle. Terminology matters. One of the flaws I see in many people's thinking is the confusion between coercion and persuasion, between acting to harm and choosing not to help. Your terms play into that confusion I think.
You may perceive them as selfish, fascist, power-obsessed, and moronic. That does not make it so. Since you use a universal claim which is easily proved false be showing an exception, I question your ability to judge the thinking abilities of others, so the moronic bit is especially in need of verification. Power obsessed I might be willing to consider for most comments which quote Rand, based on my own experience, but that could just be that when discussing Ayn Rand's philosophy, power is relevant to the topic. Fascist is provably false in my experience, as said followers appear to be focused on freedom and never seek power over others except in defense. Selfish, again, I'm willing to consider, as her philosophy denies that altruism is good
IHBT, IHL (but I had fun responding...)
Yes, they are, but that's irrelevant. Wang's paper is used in the literature and models to justify a small UHI effect. If his claims are based on fraudulent data, then papers which cite it are flawed.
Given that CRU relied on a paper by Wang, which claimed to use data from known good stations to provide a low estimate of UHI effect, and that Wang can't produce the station histories he claimed to rely on, I question your assumption that climate researches properly compensate for UHI.
Technology development is dependent on the assumption that reality exists and is consistent. Otherwise there is no reason to expect a design to keep working. I would accept reasonable confidence that we know what the rules actually are, but not that there aren't consistent rules. The strains of postmodern philosophy which pretend that there really is no objective reality are what I was thinking. I'm willing to believe that those strains are largely embraced by neophytes, but there are lots of those to be encountered.
The guy in the top picture was part of crashtheteaparty. Despite the people at the event disavowing any connection to him, he was included in a thinkprogress video which tried to tar them as racist. It does go both ways.
Incidentally, I don't think using government infiltrators is a fair response to the original comment. Do you have any examples of right wing activists?
Postmodern philosophy proposes that there are no universal answers, which is fundamentally incompatible with the development of technology. I'd be willing to argue that the main reason technophiles often don't care for philosophy has everything to do with postmodernism.
So you acknowledge that part of the problem is local government restricting rats nests of overhead wires? You may agree with their reason, but those restrictions do reduce competition.
Bush never actually said that. The only source for that quote is from Capitol hill blue.
Local fire departments are not federal creations. There are lots of things which the federal government isn't supposed to do that local governments can and do implement.
The Supreme court's interpretation is only an opinion, although generally respected by other legal entities. If the USSC declared that the sky was purple, that wouldn't make it so.