Not true in terms of their choice. Economies have changed. In many cases people aren't able to make a living doing what their parents or grandparents did.
And "They see working indoors as a plus." Please.
I agree with not feeling guilty about where you were born. But we in the First World are lucky and privileged in so many ways which we haven't earned, either. We can work hard and have the best lives we can with what he have to start with, and that's what we can feel good about - because that's what we've done.
Actually that's not historically accurate. The first world, which mostly means Europe and the US, developed our economies based on slave labor and exploitative colonization. That's awful and evil, but that's also the simple facts of the matter.
A lot of that slave labor and colonization was financed through capital investment, it's true.
And it is tremendously naive to think that trade with 3rd world countries, even in the current era, is 100% mutually beneficial even in the present.
If I hold a gun to your head and offer $5 for your car, and you take the $5 rather than get shot, was that trade mutually beneficial? Perhaps more beneficial than getting nothing or being shot - but you are still not receiving fair value.
Note that this is not how ALL of our trading with 3rd world nations occurs - or even most. But it is definitely SOME and we are making a mistake to think that first world nations or their corporate entities don't act like this when they want to.
For examples, google about Shell's actions in Nigeria, and King Leopold's exploitation of Africa in the 1800's...
...if we had packed up years ago, how long would it have taken to have the next 9/11 with their new nuke program funded by the high price we pay for oil.
"THeir"? Who's they?
1) ****Saddam Hussein was not involved with Al Qaeda or 9/11****.
2) I'll say it again: ****Saddam Hussein was not involved with Al Qaeda or 9/11****.
3) Even if he was, Saddam Hussein HAD NO NUKE PROGRAM. He had as many amazon robots with laser eyes than he had nukes. Which is none. Zero. Zip.
Think about it. Who is supplying the crude. Did the cost to pump it really skyrocket?
They're charging the hell out of us, that's for sure. But "who is supplying the crude" are mostly our alleged allies, Saudi Arabia and OPEC.
Cutting and running and leaving them alone with the pile of money is not someting I am willing to not pay attention to.
But right now, we are leaving them alone - because Iraq isn't setting the price of oil. It's Saudi Arabia and OPEC. Clear?
The domestic spying thing is just and extension of keeping an eye on the danger....
There is not one reason why we couldn't have the exact same amount of domestic surveillance, WITH Warrants.
Warrants could be gotten up to 72 hours after surveillance started, even.
For anyone who think the Oil tax is a good idea, don't forget this is a world economy. If the price to sell in the US market goes up, it's easy to cut shipments.
But you just said the price isn't high because of the pump - you said it was because the sellers overseas were raising the price.
So, by that same logic, a gas tax won't raise costs enough to matter worth a damn. (Which I think is true.)
Which is why Bill Clinton was *not* convicted of perjury *or* contempt.
The byzantine rules of the US court system *allow* you to lie *IF* the question you are asked has no bearing on what you are being charged with.
Therefore, his lying under oath about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case was not perjury, because his relationship with Lewinsky had no bearing on Paula Jones' accusations.
Don't blame me or Bill Clinton. That's the law.
Bush has a *Clear* fixation on historical legacy. He is always talking about how history will view him.
Probably this is him wishing and hoping for a vindication of his reign, 'cause his approval ratings been in the dumps for 2 years now.
If so, he's ignoring the evidence once again. Some president has to be the worst ever; according to 98% of historians he's taken the lead in that race.
"Well I have to take the customers specs to the engineers...well I don't actually do it myself
I either have my secretary do it --or it gets faxed directly to them.
"LOOK--I'M A PEOPLE PERSON DAMMIT! I HAVE PEOPLE SKILLS! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!"
So the fact that it's actually better for a nation's health to pool money and resources - for education, police departments, a military, etc. - that doesn't matter to you?
Because we all share in the cost of these and other services, everyone in this country is *individually* healthier *and* wealthier *and* safer, *AND* the economy as a whole better off, *AND* the nation as a whole is more secure, both internally and externally.
Or do you just not believe that public education, police, a military, etc. etc. improve things for the whole nation? I can show you facts that disprove that belief, if facts will sway your opinion.
1. He opposed the invasion of Iraq as a terrible idea.
2. Once the invasion happened, he said that now that we're there, we have to do it right. And getting it done right means having some soldiers there, for a certain amount of time.
3. After the Bush administrations rosy promises failed utterly, he stated he wanted to scale down US presence. That's still in line with point 2: doing it right.
4. More recently, as things in Iraq are clearly getting worse and our presence there is increasingly causing problems for us there, in the Middle East and around the world, he wants to more actively remove our troops. He still thinks he can do this, while doing it right - and do that much more quickly than the Bush/GOP.
All of this is consistent with positions 1 and 2. The invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea that would lead to horrible mess. Now that this mess was made anyway, we have to extricate ourselves carefully. That's just acknowledging reality, to me.
There's also no "provide public education" clause, or "provide police departments", or "provide roads", etc.
We do those things because it's in our best interest, whether we're poor *or* wealthy.
As for costing a bloody fortune - more than we're spending now, on insurance companies? Who are gouging all sides - patients, doctors *and* hospitals?
Other nations spend half or less what we do, and their citizens live longer and healthier lives. I see no logical reason why can't do just as well as those nations, or better.
There are specific historical examples for all of those. I just didn't feel like writing a treatise.
1. There used to be separate police departments in NYC. One for the city, and the state. If the "free market is always teh awesomest" theory was correct, this competition would have created increased efficiency, innovation, service, etc.
Instead it was so destructive that sometimes criminals escaped, because the departments were brawling in the street.
2. There also used to be multiple different fire companies in each major US city. All literal companies - privately owned and operated. Free market ideal, right? Oughta be better for everyone, right?
But they would naturally mark the buildings that hired their services. And if a building didn't have their mark, they would just let it burn. (You can still see these bronze plaques in the walls of older buildings in Boston and Philadelphia).
And if your landlord was too cheap to hire a fire company - well, you shoulda chosen to be born rich. Sorry your grandma got all crispy - nothing personal, just business.
This was destructive for the whole city *and* the cities' workers, and thus also for the cities *economies* and *businesses*. So private fire companies were abolished, and centrally run fire departments were created instead.
So, regulation of the free market in this case, was actually good for business. That shouldn't be possible according to the "free market uber alles" theory. See how that might reveal a flaw in that theory?
3. And now, armies. Let's look at nations that have multiple armies. "Free market is always teh awesome" theory would say that that'd be great for the country right? But it turns out that each army gets most interested in their own profit, and rip the country apart.
From the above examples, I think you can see that a free market solution isn't always the best.
The "demand" is constant, with or without "government intervention" - because people don't want to get sick and die! Medicare isn't driving up that demand - are you kidding me? How many people are like, "Oh wow! Medicare pays for cancer treatments! I don't really need chemo, but why not? Sounds fun!"
As for paperwork - like there's no paperwork for Insurance Companies? A lot of doctor offices hire someone specifically just to deal with that alone.
So if you're defining "Free Market" as "utterly without government intervention" - then ok, sure. This isn't a free market. Also, there never has been a free market in history, ever.
But if your theory is that it's nasty, mean old government regulation that's driving up health costs - that simply doesn't fit the facts.
Insurance company costs have skyrocketed since 2000. But there's been no increase in government regulation of insurance companies *or* health care in general.
What could be the difference? I submit to you that Insurance companies decided they could make more money, and then did so.
By all means, please show me some other factor that could have had this same effect. Otherwise, this is a perfect illustration of why de-regulating *this* market will not solve *this* situation. It can only make it worse.
There is "regulation" on insurance companies, to the extent that there are laws which they are hopefully held to. That doesn't mean they aren't raping to the limit of the law. And sometimes over it.
And without that regulation, there would be no limit on what they could (and would) do.
So I do agree that we would be better off without health insurance co's entirely. But we need some way to pool money as a society to cover individual health cost, or our society will suffer.
Some treatment just costs too much money. And if our workers can't afford that treatment, they'll die. But if we distribute that cost, we can all have a healthier nation *and* economy, because our workers can live longer, produce more, have more money and time to educate themselves for shifting economic needs, etc. etc.
This is similar to how we pool our money to make interstate roads, because having them benefits *all* of us rich and poor.
Well, look at it this way: US median income for *family households* is 60K/yr. For married couples, $69k
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html
Can you imagine raising and maintaining a **family** on 70K?
From that perspective, 100K/yr *is* rich. It means you don't have to choose between a CD and a meal.
They're insuring against sickness because it can be a disaster, even if it's cured.
Say you're the breadwinner for a family, and one paycheck away from losing your house. Then your kid gets sick. If it's treated early, it can keep from being pneumonia - but if you leave it alone, it could become pneumonia and potentially kill your kid.
You can't afford to pay the treatment and keep your house - so your kid lives, and now you're homeless?
So you get insurance - but your insurance charges you out the @$$, and dumps you as soon as you start to cut into their profit margin with your pesky wanting-to-live-and-keep-your-house needs.
Happens all the time in the US. Doesn't happen in Europe or Canada.
He condemned the war in the middle of a primary battle for his State Senate seat, at a time when even suggesting the President could be wrong was spun as treason.
And, please show how he 'flipped' on the war during his run for Senate?
a) not all tax cuts benefit. Case in point, our current cuts for people who don't need it - and thus won't necessarily spend it on the economy.
b) Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, in order to balance the budget while simultaneously cutting taxes and increasing spending for the poor and middle class. Result? The first reduction of the national debt in decades, simultaneous with unprecedented prosperity for all.
2. Which means McCain will be as bad for the economy as the current President, or worse.
3. So? If you have a problem with their facts, show how they're wrong. But just because you may not like a website's politics, doesn't automatically mean their facts are wrong.
The "thriving free market" of insurance co's is raping us.
Much like the "thriving free market" of multiple private highways, police departments, fire departments, armies etc. was also raping us, before we centralized them within state, local and fed governments.
History itself contradicts the notion of free markets = always automatically awesome. That's because it's simply wrong, even if it's comfortable.
Unless the government controls all hospitals and doctors as government run facilities and employees, it can't properly assess and control costs. No, not necessarily true.
Insurance companies manage to assess and set the basic costs for everything, just fine. And they don't run the facilities and the employees.
There is simply nothing insurance companies can do, that can't be done by a US government agency. And the US agency also won't have to be parasitically siphoning off profit, denying coverage if someone's life-saving treatment is too expensive, and in other ways screwing hard-working people.
Most things (sociological cultures, individual businesses, the economy at large) act like bioforms: they self-manage to an optimal state via evolution and adaptation, The economy is not self-managed. It is regulated, and with good reason - we've tried less restricted self-management and it gave us the great depression. And our current housing woes are also due to decreased regulations - please look this up.
But it's unarguable that our current setup is optimal for insurance companies. They are providing absolutely no needed service while sucking us dry.
Sure, that'd be great. But one thing at a time.
First we have to get the sociopathic GOP power-addicts out - and slow down the *increasing* of executive power.
Then we can work on reducing executive power with the less- sociopathic Democratic power-addicts.
But first things first...
I think the record shows rather conclusively, that in a contest of lesser evils, the GOP-aligned have proven themselves to be the greater for the last 8 years.
And as for technology policy, it certainly seems that Obama is quite a bit more rational. In fact, I'm curious what area you think Obama has been less rational. What with McCain not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shiite, accusing Iran of sponsoring Al Qaeda, declaring the Iraq war won multiple times in the past 4 years, supporting tax cuts that have been proven to be detrimental to our budget and economy...
You know?
Cynicism can be fun and easy. But if you read the article, I think a pretty clear difference emerges right away:
- The guy for Obama answers with well-thought out specifics based on Obama's white paper.
- The guy for McCain talks in generalities, says something that is demonstrably wrong at least once, and, when challenged by Julian Sanchez on a rather dodgy statistic he throws out, doesn't even respond.
To put this entirely in geek terms, if these candidates were software projects looking for investors - the Obama salesman has a solid PRD and technical spec, and the McCain salesman has vaporware.
My little brother was in a traffic accident. His ribs were broken and one had punctured his lung, causing it to collapse.
A cop showed up at the scene and:
- refused my bro's request for the cop to get some of the broken car out of the street
- allowed my little brother to get up and pick up the broken stuff himself - with a punctured lung! And thankfully no spinal injuries - but this is why accident victims are supposed to stay still for paramedics
and out of his car before the ambulance got here
- ignored my bro's request to contact his family
- took the other car's story, not my little bro's, and then wrote my little bro a ticket and sped off.
Some cops care. Some cops don't give a crap. Many cops (especially in small towns) have to justify their salaries with tickets, and the only benefit they have is to throw their weight around. They should be rewarded for their bad behavior with a quick trip to the unemployment line.
You know, the opposite can be true, too. Because science is so specialized, it might be that someone outside the narrow range of this particular field of physics may have access to info from another field that resolves it.
I'm reminded of linguistic scientists who proposed ways to map genetic drift over thousands of generations, by treating DNA as if it was a language.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true in terms of their choice. Economies have changed. In many cases people aren't able to make a living doing what their parents or grandparents did. And "They see working indoors as a plus." Please. I agree with not feeling guilty about where you were born. But we in the First World are lucky and privileged in so many ways which we haven't earned, either. We can work hard and have the best lives we can with what he have to start with, and that's what we can feel good about - because that's what we've done.
A lot of that slave labor and colonization was financed through capital investment, it's true.
And it is tremendously naive to think that trade with 3rd world countries, even in the current era, is 100% mutually beneficial even in the present.
If I hold a gun to your head and offer $5 for your car, and you take the $5 rather than get shot, was that trade mutually beneficial? Perhaps more beneficial than getting nothing or being shot - but you are still not receiving fair value.
Note that this is not how ALL of our trading with 3rd world nations occurs - or even most. But it is definitely SOME and we are making a mistake to think that first world nations or their corporate entities don't act like this when they want to.
For examples, google about Shell's actions in Nigeria, and King Leopold's exploitation of Africa in the 1800's...
Which is why Bill Clinton was *not* convicted of perjury *or* contempt. The byzantine rules of the US court system *allow* you to lie *IF* the question you are asked has no bearing on what you are being charged with. Therefore, his lying under oath about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case was not perjury, because his relationship with Lewinsky had no bearing on Paula Jones' accusations. Don't blame me or Bill Clinton. That's the law.
Bush has a *Clear* fixation on historical legacy. He is always talking about how history will view him. Probably this is him wishing and hoping for a vindication of his reign, 'cause his approval ratings been in the dumps for 2 years now. If so, he's ignoring the evidence once again. Some president has to be the worst ever; according to 98% of historians he's taken the lead in that race.
Better late accountability than none - it sets a precedent for future Presidents.
"Well I have to take the customers specs to the engineers...well I don't actually do it myself I either have my secretary do it --or it gets faxed directly to them. "LOOK--I'M A PEOPLE PERSON DAMMIT! I HAVE PEOPLE SKILLS! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!"
Because we all share in the cost of these and other services, everyone in this country is *individually* healthier *and* wealthier *and* safer, *AND* the economy as a whole better off, *AND* the nation as a whole is more secure, both internally and externally.
Or do you just not believe that public education, police, a military, etc. etc. improve things for the whole nation? I can show you facts that disprove that belief, if facts will sway your opinion.
1. He opposed the invasion of Iraq as a terrible idea.
2. Once the invasion happened, he said that now that we're there, we have to do it right. And getting it done right means having some soldiers there, for a certain amount of time.
3. After the Bush administrations rosy promises failed utterly, he stated he wanted to scale down US presence. That's still in line with point 2: doing it right.
4. More recently, as things in Iraq are clearly getting worse and our presence there is increasingly causing problems for us there, in the Middle East and around the world, he wants to more actively remove our troops. He still thinks he can do this, while doing it right - and do that much more quickly than the Bush/GOP.
All of this is consistent with positions 1 and 2. The invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea that would lead to horrible mess. Now that this mess was made anyway, we have to extricate ourselves carefully. That's just acknowledging reality, to me.
There's also no "provide public education" clause, or "provide police departments", or "provide roads", etc. We do those things because it's in our best interest, whether we're poor *or* wealthy. As for costing a bloody fortune - more than we're spending now, on insurance companies? Who are gouging all sides - patients, doctors *and* hospitals? Other nations spend half or less what we do, and their citizens live longer and healthier lives. I see no logical reason why can't do just as well as those nations, or better.
1. There used to be separate police departments in NYC. One for the city, and the state. If the "free market is always teh awesomest" theory was correct, this competition would have created increased efficiency, innovation, service, etc.
Instead it was so destructive that sometimes criminals escaped, because the departments were brawling in the street.
2. There also used to be multiple different fire companies in each major US city. All literal companies - privately owned and operated. Free market ideal, right? Oughta be better for everyone, right?
But they would naturally mark the buildings that hired their services. And if a building didn't have their mark, they would just let it burn. (You can still see these bronze plaques in the walls of older buildings in Boston and Philadelphia).
And if your landlord was too cheap to hire a fire company - well, you shoulda chosen to be born rich. Sorry your grandma got all crispy - nothing personal, just business.
This was destructive for the whole city *and* the cities' workers, and thus also for the cities *economies* and *businesses*. So private fire companies were abolished, and centrally run fire departments were created instead.
So, regulation of the free market in this case, was actually good for business. That shouldn't be possible according to the "free market uber alles" theory. See how that might reveal a flaw in that theory?
3. And now, armies. Let's look at nations that have multiple armies. "Free market is always teh awesome" theory would say that that'd be great for the country right? But it turns out that each army gets most interested in their own profit, and rip the country apart. From the above examples, I think you can see that a free market solution isn't always the best.
The "demand" is constant, with or without "government intervention" - because people don't want to get sick and die! Medicare isn't driving up that demand - are you kidding me? How many people are like, "Oh wow! Medicare pays for cancer treatments! I don't really need chemo, but why not? Sounds fun!"
As for paperwork - like there's no paperwork for Insurance Companies? A lot of doctor offices hire someone specifically just to deal with that alone.
So if you're defining "Free Market" as "utterly without government intervention" - then ok, sure. This isn't a free market. Also, there never has been a free market in history, ever.
But if your theory is that it's nasty, mean old government regulation that's driving up health costs - that simply doesn't fit the facts.
Insurance company costs have skyrocketed since 2000. But there's been no increase in government regulation of insurance companies *or* health care in general.
What could be the difference? I submit to you that Insurance companies decided they could make more money, and then did so.
By all means, please show me some other factor that could have had this same effect. Otherwise, this is a perfect illustration of why de-regulating *this* market will not solve *this* situation. It can only make it worse.
And without that regulation, there would be no limit on what they could (and would) do.
So I do agree that we would be better off without health insurance co's entirely. But we need some way to pool money as a society to cover individual health cost, or our society will suffer.
Some treatment just costs too much money. And if our workers can't afford that treatment, they'll die. But if we distribute that cost, we can all have a healthier nation *and* economy, because our workers can live longer, produce more, have more money and time to educate themselves for shifting economic needs, etc. etc. This is similar to how we pool our money to make interstate roads, because having them benefits *all* of us rich and poor.
Well, look at it this way: US median income for *family households* is 60K/yr. For married couples, $69k http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html Can you imagine raising and maintaining a **family** on 70K? From that perspective, 100K/yr *is* rich. It means you don't have to choose between a CD and a meal.
They're insuring against sickness because it can be a disaster, even if it's cured. Say you're the breadwinner for a family, and one paycheck away from losing your house. Then your kid gets sick. If it's treated early, it can keep from being pneumonia - but if you leave it alone, it could become pneumonia and potentially kill your kid. You can't afford to pay the treatment and keep your house - so your kid lives, and now you're homeless? So you get insurance - but your insurance charges you out the @$$, and dumps you as soon as you start to cut into their profit margin with your pesky wanting-to-live-and-keep-your-house needs. Happens all the time in the US. Doesn't happen in Europe or Canada.
He condemned the war in the middle of a primary battle for his State Senate seat, at a time when even suggesting the President could be wrong was spun as treason. And, please show how he 'flipped' on the war during his run for Senate?
a) not all tax cuts benefit. Case in point, our current cuts for people who don't need it - and thus won't necessarily spend it on the economy.
b) Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, in order to balance the budget while simultaneously cutting taxes and increasing spending for the poor and middle class. Result? The first reduction of the national debt in decades, simultaneous with unprecedented prosperity for all.
2. Which means McCain will be as bad for the economy as the current President, or worse.
3. So? If you have a problem with their facts, show how they're wrong. But just because you may not like a website's politics, doesn't automatically mean their facts are wrong.
The "thriving free market" of insurance co's is raping us. Much like the "thriving free market" of multiple private highways, police departments, fire departments, armies etc. was also raping us, before we centralized them within state, local and fed governments. History itself contradicts the notion of free markets = always automatically awesome. That's because it's simply wrong, even if it's comfortable.
Sure, that'd be great. But one thing at a time. First we have to get the sociopathic GOP power-addicts out - and slow down the *increasing* of executive power. Then we can work on reducing executive power with the less- sociopathic Democratic power-addicts. But first things first...
I think the record shows rather conclusively, that in a contest of lesser evils, the GOP-aligned have proven themselves to be the greater for the last 8 years. And as for technology policy, it certainly seems that Obama is quite a bit more rational. In fact, I'm curious what area you think Obama has been less rational. What with McCain not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shiite, accusing Iran of sponsoring Al Qaeda, declaring the Iraq war won multiple times in the past 4 years, supporting tax cuts that have been proven to be detrimental to our budget and economy... You know?
- The guy for Obama answers with well-thought out specifics based on Obama's white paper.
- The guy for McCain talks in generalities, says something that is demonstrably wrong at least once, and, when challenged by Julian Sanchez on a rather dodgy statistic he throws out, doesn't even respond.
To put this entirely in geek terms, if these candidates were software projects looking for investors - the Obama salesman has a solid PRD and technical spec, and the McCain salesman has vaporware.
My little brother was in a traffic accident. His ribs were broken and one had punctured his lung, causing it to collapse. A cop showed up at the scene and: - refused my bro's request for the cop to get some of the broken car out of the street - allowed my little brother to get up and pick up the broken stuff himself - with a punctured lung! And thankfully no spinal injuries - but this is why accident victims are supposed to stay still for paramedics and out of his car before the ambulance got here - ignored my bro's request to contact his family - took the other car's story, not my little bro's, and then wrote my little bro a ticket and sped off. Some cops care. Some cops don't give a crap. Many cops (especially in small towns) have to justify their salaries with tickets, and the only benefit they have is to throw their weight around. They should be rewarded for their bad behavior with a quick trip to the unemployment line.
You know, the opposite can be true, too. Because science is so specialized, it might be that someone outside the narrow range of this particular field of physics may have access to info from another field that resolves it.
I'm reminded of linguistic scientists who proposed ways to map genetic drift over thousands of generations, by treating DNA as if it was a language.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some - not some farcical aquatic ceremony!