Those bad, bad liberals are ruining our lives

Email Print posted by LORD FOUL

10/08/2006 10:00:33 PM EST Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

Written in a local paper by RAY WEINMANN JR>

   Joe gets up at 6 am and fills his coffee pot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

   With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

   All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance. Now joe gets it too.

   He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

   In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some cry-baby liberal fought for his right to know what he is putting on his body and how much it contained.

   Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some enviromentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

   He walks on the goverment-provided sidewalk to a subway station for his government subsudized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributer.

   Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employers pays these standards because joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

   If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get workers compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
   It is noon time and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

   Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state-funded university.

   Joe is home from work. he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with taxpayer funded roads.

   He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

   The house didn't even have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

   He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

   Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keepsaying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit that Joe enjoys throughout the day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big goverment liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."


THIS ARTICLE IS ONE OF THE BEST AT SUMMING UP WHAT DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND ITS' PEOPLE. IT ALSO SHOWS WHAT A SHORT MEMORY AND GOOD PROPAGANDA CAN DO.
< Former Page: Sex With R-Rep. Foley | HOLY SHIT! DEMS TO WIN SENATE?! >
 Display:
Those bad, bad liberals are ruining our lives | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 hidden)
Those bad, bad liberals are ruining our lives (none / 0)
bump

by LORD FOUL on 10/09/2006 07:59:00 AM EST

Good Post (none / 1)

I had a similar "discussion " with our favorite troll...this sums up the total neocon-republican wisdom on the subject .

 "What the fukkk is the problem with you mutherfukking liberals, that you think other people should pay for all of your shiiittt!" Ken from TX

 

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 10/09/2006 01:23:45 PM EST

Ken (none / 0)
and like a true Republican he will be first in line to get his benefits and complain all the way to the bank

by LORD FOUL on 10/09/2006 02:49:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"and like a true Republican" (none / 0)
It sounds like you are inviting me to respond because you’re interested in my take on this subject. I wouldn’t want to disappoint.

Republicans are also in favor of clean water, clean air, safe bacon, safe shampoo, medical benefits, vacations, FDIC insurance, electricity, social security.

There’s no debate here. In fact, there never was a debate. We like electricity and we like to breathe. We are with you in solidarity on these issues.

The problem is that Democrats are still living in the 1880s. They think these issues are still on the front burner. They are unaware of the fact that nobody in American belongs to a union, unless they are cleaning toilets in a Las Vegas hotel.

That’s why with less than 30 days until the midterm election, Democrats are not offering a vision or an agenda. All they can talk about is Mark Foley.

This is how the Whig Party became extinct.

by KenTX on 10/10/2006 04:59:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
but (none / 0)
These issues should be on the front burner, as well as addressing terrorism in a realistic way (not in Iraq). There should also be a healthy respect for that quaint old notion of Diplomacy. I see that the few conservative posters on this site are some of the most active in discussing the Foley case. The "liberal media" seems to be mired in the Foley case to the depriment of other important issues like the facts about Bush prior knowledge of the 911 attacks. It is likely that what Democrats are really putting forward as their agenda, is going to be reframed and overshadowed by right wing distraction tactics.

by no way on 10/10/2006 05:26:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really (none / 0)
Pubs, like you fought Dems over these things for decades, including some today. Do you really think you will get clean air, when you let big business write your environmental policy? CO2 is good for you, saw it in an ad last week. I guess when Florida sinks under the sea it will somehow be Clintons' fault.

Pubs have attacked Unions with a vengence, the results:
Stagnant wages, Millions with no health care, attacks on Labor laws (40 hrs work wk) and pensions.

A recent report shows that our infrastructure and our electric grid are in deep need of fixing (they rated a D)

Social Security, as with all things, you want to hand this to the private sector. They cannot be trusted. Look at Enron but hey the quicker Pubs steal the money the quicker you can get rid of it entirely. Then the rich will have even more money and the middle class will be destroyed.

As far as Foley, if your party would clean up their house and TELL the TRUTH, this would already be over. Unfortunately the truth would damn Pubs to minority status.

by LORD FOUL on 10/10/2006 06:06:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When you lie we will catch you (none / 0)

Your " new ideas" haven’t changed since Goldwater ran.

Lets look at this misleading statement “Republicans are also in favor of clean water, clean air, safe bacon, safe shampoo, medical benefits, vacations, FDIC insurance, electricity, social security.

There’s no debate here. In fact, there never was a debate. We like electricity and we like to breathe. We are with you in solidarity on these issues.”

Here is Republican “solidarity”

Republicans are also in favor of Clean Water: That's why they cut the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund and changed the Environmental Protection Agency's policy to withhold Clean Water Act protections from headwater and seasonal streams. That’s also why the Bush administration instructed its agencies not to enforce Clean Water Act protections for many wetlands and small stream or why the EPA rescinds a rule imposing federal oversight of efforts by states to clean up waterways.


Republicans are also in favor of Clean air:  That’s why they proposed the “Clear Sky’s Act” that guts the Clean Air Act by allowing higher pollution levels, delays the enforcement of public health standards for smog and soot until the end of 2015, weakensthe mercury pollution level restrictions  from 5 tons per year by to an astounding 26 tons by 2010 and weakens  SO2 protections to allow 4.5 million tons of SO2 by 2010 -a  225 percent increase of pollution over the Clean Air Act.

Republicans are also in favor of Safe bacon,  safe shampoo :That’s why budget cuts proposed by Bush and the Republicans will reduce the number of FDA employees and hamper already-faltering enforcement efforts.

Republicans are also in favor of Medical benefits: That’s why Bush increased health care cost shares for veterans and cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care. Bushes contribution to health care…proposals medical savings accounts…giving drug companies a 600 billion dollar subsidy with the Medicare drug benefit.

Republicans are also in favor of Vacations: Ask Bush..he takes a lot of them  but Republicans are not in favor of workers apparently...they will need a vacation after they work all the unpaid overtime.Changes FLSA's overtime regulations making substantial modifications to the definition of an "exempt" employee. These changes were sought by business interests and the Bush administration to eliminate  overtime pay by reclassifing workers as “white colar “  .

 

Republicans are also in favor of FDIC Insurance: No argument there Neil Bush's depositors needed it. Neil served until 1988 as director of the Denver-based Silverado Banking, Savings & Loan Association, whose collapse in 1988 was investigated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.  He was one of 12 defendants, mostly former directors of Silverado, who agreed in 1991to pay $49.5 million to settle a $200 million negligence lawsuit brought by the FDIC. Although Bush denied any wrongdoing, the federal government imposed sanctions on him should he ever become involved in any other federally insured savings and loan or bank. Government officials estimated Silverado's collapse cost taxpayers more than $1 billion.

Republicans are also in favor of Electricity ( ask Enron) ,Bush opposed and the GOP congress voted down legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation's power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades.Bush Administration lobbied against it and the Republicans voted it down three separate times: First, on a straight party line in the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, then on a straight party line the U.S. House Rules Committee, and finally on a party line on the floor of the full House [Roll Call Vote #169, 6/20/01].

 

Republicans are also in favor of Social Security. That’s pure horse shite….if so that’s why Bush cut taxes and proposes a half baked privatization plan.   “the deficit in Social Security over the next 75 years equals 0.7 percent of GDP according to the Social Security actuaries and 0.4 percent of GDP according to CBO.  By comparison, the cost over 75 years of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, if the tax cuts are made permanent and not eroded over time by the Alternative Minimum Tax, is roughly two percent of GDP.

In other words, if the tax cuts are made permanent, their cost will be three to five times larger over the next 75 years than the size of the Social Security shortfall.  Furthermore, just the cost of the tax cuts for the top one percent of the population — a group whose annual incomes average about $1 million — is roughly the same size as the Social Security shortfall (0.6 percent of GDP).

Even if one uses “infinite horizon” estimates, the cost of the tax cut still exceeds the size of the Social Security shortfall.  The projected cost of the tax cuts, if made permanent, is $18 trillion under this measure, as compared to the $10 trillion projection for the Social Security imbalance.’"

 

By the way no on gives a flying crap about what you think... 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 10/10/2006 04:36:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When you steal, I will catch you (none / 0)
Here’s another reason why we should be skeptical about information supplied by Mr Fred.

He routinely cuts and pastes without attribution. In fact, it appears he doesn’t have an original thought in his head.

His preferred sources are usually far left websites, completely lacking in credibility, so it is understandable why he might be reluctant to post links. But to use the work of other people, as if it were your own, indicates that Fred is probably the kind of person who thinks the world owes him a living.

Fred wants “the government” (or the taxpayers) to provide him with health care, prescription drugs, affordable housing, food stamps, child care, rental assistance, energy assistance, clothing allowance, counseling, and birth control. (OK, I’m happy to pay for the last one. We don’t need more Mr Freds.)

As for the tired, old argument about “spending cuts”, this one is easy to debunk. Every one of Fred’s supposed “spending cuts” in a federal program merely represents a slowing in the rate of spending increase. The federal government is not actually reducing spending of any government program. That is exactly the problem.

by KenTX on 10/10/2006 10:30:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Go for it dude (none / 0)
Instead of typing some idiotic blather that doesnt address one single point that was made. Why dont you go point by point and debunk what he posted????

 Im waiting

by ZenDiggity on 10/17/2006 09:54:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and because he's (none / 0)
a true repug, he'll be able push the weak, the old, the tired, and the infirm down so that he can be first...that, after all, is the nature of competition, which is so important to their wonderful way of life...or shall we call it social darwinism (oh, drats, that darwin fella is all wrong, i keeep forgetting)!

by boonegoddess on 10/10/2006 08:31:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
These trolls are not republicans (none / 0)
A true republican would be for zero deficits smaller governent  they would NOT attack another country without being attacked first. They would NOT be happy with trillions of dollars in debt  and alot of that in loans from China.

A true Republican would be in favor of natiional health care because it takes the enormous burden of paying for it OFF of the companies backs.. a real Republican would not be in favor of torture. I dont know what happened to the republican party. But its gone and been replaced with some power greedy neo facists that will like cheat steal manipulate . Do ANYTHING to stay in power and the middle class and country in general be damned. 

Who knows what  is running the country and the less than 30% who support them are. Facists? Christian fanatics some sort of blend of both?  In any event they are not republicans thats for damn sure.



by ZenDiggity on 10/17/2006 10:03:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
tax and spend liberals (none / 0)
On issues related to taxing and spending, I have learned to draw pictures for liberals, and keep it simple.

Here’s a pie chart that shows how the average consumer spends his money. Note that roughly 43% of his paycheck goes to paying taxes. We don’t need to burden the consumer with more taxes, because it’s harmful to the economy.
tax


Here is the 2006 Federal Budget. Note that federal spending will soon reach $3 trillion dollars per year! Since we’re currently running a budget deficit of around $245 billion per year, it should be easy to find spending cuts in $3 trillion of spending to balance the budget.

Here’s another pie chart. It shows how the federal government spends money every year. Note that more than half of the money is spent in the form of entitlement checks. This is where Democrats come from.
spend

Look at this article. 

Even The Very Liberal New York Times now admits that tax cuts are working to spur the economy and generate increased federal tax revenue.

WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.

And that sentiment was echoed by Larry Kudlow, the well-known commentator from CNBC. (Why is it that virtually all business leaders and leading economists are extremely bullish on the Bush tax cuts?) 
“Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland and Belgium.”

larry


 

by KenTX on 10/17/2006 11:13:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You don't understand (none / 0)

OMG! Pictures. It's like you've completely changed my mind about everything... no wait, I'm not at all moved.

See, KenTX, you just don't get it. You're wrong about a few things. One of the biggest things you are wrong about is liberals. You simply don't understand the liberal viewpoint.

I can tell you, just like every other conservative, you're points are impressive on the surface. But, when you look below it all falls apart. See, you think liberals are stupid, but really you're just unable to understand them. I'll try to help you out, but, you're gonna have to use all of your brain here.

First, of all, your cute pie chart. Who does this pie chart represent? The "average" taxpayer? There is no such thing. When you break it down by income levels, you can see that taxes for the middle and lower classes are going up--while wages are being held stagnant--and taxes for the higher income brackets are going down--while their non-wage-based incomes are going up. You can see this here: http://www.faireconomy.org/ Taxes/HTMLReports/Shifty_Ta x_Cuts.html

You see, getting back $600 total in 6 years, while paying hundreds more for other things (health care, gas, etc.) means that the average consumer /loses/ under the Repugnant scheme. But, I guess if they package it up as a "tax cut" then you'll swallow it.

While the economy seems to be doing better lets just look at the reality of things. It took six years, two wars, huge contracts to clean up two huge national disasters (Katrina and 9-11), and a HUGE national debt to get this "wonderful" economy. And, who's feeling all of this magic economy? The average American? Don't think so. Check the polls.

Secondly, the only thing I've seen you do right so far was to take your second pie chart from the National Priorities Project. You see, as far as I can tell, this is a site telling us how our money is being spent wrong. I suppose if you live in Repugnantsville, you would blame not the people controlling the country, but Clinton for that.

You see, liberals don't think we should spend money stupidly. I'm sorry, but we don't. Nor do we want to just take "your" money away. The whole tax issue is a different issue for liberals because if the money is being spent wisely (on Education, Poverty, Consumer Protections, Roads, Firehouses, Environment, the list goes on) then we are basically fine with it. Nobody likes taxes, but we understand that we live in a society that has benefits that are distributed in various amounts to all of the citizens. We can disagree that too much goes here and not enough goes there, but the idea that the wealthy are burdened by taxes is ridiculous. The more money you have, the more the system benefits you and the more you stand to lose by not supporting it. Your factory burns down it costs you more money than you'd pay in taxes to be certain there was an operational firehouse down the road. Or that there are roads so that your workers can get to that factory. Or that those workers had educations funded in part by tax dollars.

But things like the Iraq War are just stupid. And this site--which we can now both agree is good place to get information--tells us that we could be spending a lot more wisely. Again, under your guys watch, you in Texas (you are from Texas, right? The TX don't stand for taxes, does it?) are spending $30.9 Billion of your taxes toward the war. Here's your state's stats, I think you should spend less time drawing pictures and more time reading: http://nationalpriorities.o rg/auxiliary/maps_files/ira qsept06/TX.pdf

Again, despite what you may think, the Repugnants are controlling the country right now; have been for the last six years. They cost you this money. Not Democrats. Sure sure, I'm not completely happy with the Dems for caving under Repugnant stupidity, but hey, the Dems still have a lot more good ideas.

Why is it that I spend 2/3 of my dollars on the military, health costs, and interest on the debt? The things that liberals talk about constantly are: lets spend our money more wisely on the military, get the deficit down, and come up with a better plan for health care.

So, I guess, thanks for making my points for me.

Third--before I go further into your post (I mean, I'm kinda getting tired already of having to talk about your cr_ap)--let's take up the issue of what we should be spending our money on.

I am sick to death of hearing that we spend so much on "entitlement" programs. I gotta tell you what is the fundamental difference between you and me: every time it comes down to hurting or helping people, I'm going to vote to help them. Every time. The other side of the coin for what liberals want to spend your money on? Education, infrastructure, housing, environment, etc. All of the things that make up that other 1/3 of where my money goes. And, every time someone votes Repugnant, we move further away from that goal and more towards handouts to the military, corporate welfare (billions to drug companies, credit card companies, energy companies, insurance companies; which all drive up the cost of our lives as non-taxes), and finally to countries like China--whom we owe our debt. 

Don't tell me I want to spend all of your money because I'm a liberal. Look at where your so-called-conservatives spend your money. Like I said in different post on this site: wake up man!

By the way, a lot more people are in unions than you give credit for. I myself am in a Clerical and IT Union. See it's not just "people who clean toilets in Las Vegas". I don't clean toilets. I mean I almost think you're trying to being cleverly sarcastic by pretending you think this to be true, when really you're just one of us liberals showing how stupid Repugnants are.

So, I guess the last thing I'll say for now is that I wish you no harm, man, really. But, quite honestly, I do hope one day you can appreciate the joys of cleaning toilets for $5 an hour. I hope you one day have to figure out how to stretch your "entitlement" welfare check to feed you family. I hope one day you feel what it's like not to have health care when you can't breathe because of you asthma. Not because I wish you harm, but only because maybe then you could actually understand how wrong you have been. Then you might just think twice at the ballot box.

I guess it doesn't really matter, because everyday more and more people are waking up to this reality. I wouldn't bet on you holding on to Congress for much longer.

jason.

by SleepyJay on 10/24/2006 07:48:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Legend of Sleepy Jay (none / 0)
“I myself am in a Clerical and IT Union.”
Wow! Really? I never would have guessed? I suppose your federal government clerical job provides a lot of negotiated nap breaks according to union shop rules. Good for you “Sleepy Jay”!

But I’ll bet it kinda pisses you off that salaries in Corporate America are growing rapidly, while you are stuck in a dead end job with zero growth potential. Is that why you’re so angry at the achievers who are pulling the wagon in this country, so parasites like you can enjoy an easy ride?

“You see, getting back $600 total in 6 years, while paying hundreds more for other things (health care, gas, etc.) means that the average consumer /loses/ under the Repugnant scheme.”
People who pay huge taxes have enjoyed huge tax savings over the last six years. You’ll have to take my word for it. By comparison, people who pay very little income tax have received smaller dividends.

I realize you think it’s a good idea for taxpayers to subsidize health care, gas, food, transportation, etc, etc for the average consumer.

“The whole tax issue is a different issue for liberals because if the money is being spent wisely (on Education, Poverty, Consumer Protections, Roads, Firehouses, Environment, the list goes on)”
Yes indeed. The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on. As a matter of fact, there is no end to the government spending you are willing to support, because you work for the fukking government.

“We understand that we live in a society that has benefits that are distributed in various amounts to all of the citizens.”
Wait a minute. This is starting to sound familiar: “From those according to their ability, to those according to their needs.” Was that Karl Rove or Karl Marx?

“The things that liberals talk about constantly are: lets spend our money more wisely on the military, get the deficit down, and come up with a better plan for health care.”
Get the deficit down? Now you’re talkin’! Are you in favor of drastic spending cuts?

“I gotta tell you what is the fundamental difference between you and me: every time it comes down to hurting or helping people, I'm going to vote to help them. Every time.”
Yeppir! I’ll bet you hated that Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Welfare recipients could still receive their entitlement check, but they had to sit in a school desk and listen to boring lectures for 40 hours every week. Somehow, miraculously, they were all able to find jobs the very next week.

This was probably one of your former government jobs. Handing out checks to the welfare bums.

by KenTX on 10/24/2006 09:57:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your first picture may have been true in the 50's (none / 0)

4% for health care? not likely, more like 50% or more for those who have it at all.

Of course if you push that burden to the employer, and the employer includes it in his figuring of how much to pay the employee, thus paying less, then you can hide the real price the employee is paying, but then if you did that you would have to remove most of the taxes that are hidden as well.

 Or rather you would do that with honest numbers, but then the Bush Administration has been skewing the numbers at every possibility, so perhaps you got them there after all.

by FreeDem on 04/12/2007 12:04:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Try a different picture (none / 0)

This is  data  from  the United Nations



Lowering child mortality and raising life expectency are kind of what medicine is all about. The size of the dots is the number of doctors per person.

Do you notice something special about all the countries doing better than us? Like that almost all have Health care as a normal part of government, and a few closest to us (like the UK) have it as a special part of government

And that all those old Soviet bloc countries have private Medical care now.

This is another snapshot


You will notice here how things have changed over time. I highlighted China so as to keep it from being confused with Portugal and Costa Rica that all start about the same way back from where the US was in 1960.

But many European countries pass us (Portugal being most dramatic)but also interesting is what happened in China in 1987 and Costa Rica in 1990 , and when you look it is when each abandonded Public Health and progress stopped or slowed to a crawl.

Now you can say that while they may have better health they are worse off financially, and many are for a variety of reasons but as you can see from a different take I had done earlier the European countries that are better in health are not much worse in income.

They are also moving ahead (some by a lot) while the US is hardly improving. And seeing how many more folk  are being dumped off of healthcare, when the data catches up we may well see we are going backwards.

Taxes are like the cost of everything else, it is not so much about how much but what you get for the money, and who pays the prices and who gets the goodies, and none of the graphs shows the whole picture, yours or mine.

One thing happens, and there is a change  does not mean that the happening was even vaugely related to the change. The price of gasoline does far more than Federal Taxes about shoving money in or out of the economy, likewise partying on your seed corn will make fat times till the bill comes due. That doesn't make Laffer Curves any less laughable.

by FreeDem on 07/13/2007 12:06:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question (none / 0)
I noticed that you highlighted Japan on your chart. How does the life expectancy of Japanese Americans compare to that of the Japanese? If a person with Japanese ancestry can expect about the same life expectancy in either medical system, it might not be the medical system that is to blame for the difference in the statistics you chose for your graphs. On the other hand, if there is a statistically significant difference, it may be due to dietary and lifestyle factors.

by Twba on 07/13/2007 02:18:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Japanese life expectancy (none / 0)
I'll get you started on the Japanese life expectancy question with this:

The Honolulu Heart Program studies began in 1965 with a cohort of 8006 Japanese American men and is still continuing. Much of what we know about the health and aging of Japanese Americans is based on the several hundred publications that have come out of the studies of these men, and now some women, as they age.

The cohort of Japanese men in the Honolulu Heart Program studies has a life expectancy that is longer than their counterparts in Japan, and Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world. [LINK]

Are you sure that universal socialized medicine is the way to maximize life expectancy?

by Twba on 07/16/2007 01:41:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You wanna live forever? (none / 0)
Specifically, Okinawa has the longest life expectancy.  And I think that's because they eat a lot of fucked up vegetables.

by OneHitKill on 07/16/2007 09:34:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not just Japan (none / 0)
"Are you sure that universal socialized medicine is the way to maximize life expectancy?"

Japan is not alone out there ahead of the US, the point of the post is that all the countries out ahead of us have universal socialized Medicine, and most have Swedish style social focus in everything. The lower child mortality is perhaps more telling as that does not have a genetic issue involved.

Play a bit with the gadget, and you will see how the world is passing us by in lots of issues.

by FreeDem on 07/31/2007 07:07:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Statistics (none / 0)
The child mortality figures are problematic too. There is a lifestyle correlation with higher infant mortality. Those charts are often comparing apples and oranges. Like the study that shows that Japanese men live just as long in America as they do in Japan, there are studies that show that child mortality is no worse when compared to similar populations in other nations. The world is not passing us by.

Americans live 75.3 years on average, fewer than Canadians (77.3) or the French (76.6) or the citizens of any Western European nation save Portugal. Health care influences life expectancy, of course. But a life can end because of a murder, a fall or a car accident. Such factors aren't academic -- homicide rates in the U.S. are much higher than in other countries.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.

And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50%; the European rate is just 35%. Esophageal carcinoma: 12% in the U.S., 6% in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2% here, yet 61.7% in France and down to 44.3% in England -- a striking variation. [LINK]

by Twba on 07/31/2007 08:54:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You can see the same thing in many paths (none / 0)

Your link just states stuff, but has no backing for it to check out, but you can run the UN data from many perspectives, and it shows the same thing.

Yes you can see Rawanda send its life expectency down to 25 during the killing time or the devastating effects of Aids in many African Countries, but that makes them unpleasant places to live there as well.

With all the talk about how bad Canada or the UK is  you will notice that they are closer to the US than any other country with Socialized medicine. The fact that they have strong Right Wing parties, who deliberately maim the system so that they can say it is not working, shows up as well.

Look at the effect over time, Costa Rica was improving fast until they had a CIA backed Government elected (I had to research that, half the Bush family went to the Inaurgaral) They immediately privatized many formerly Socalized sectors (including health) and you can see the kink in the formerly smooth growth, just as you can see the kink in China.

China's health system was never good, but the rate of improvement dropped dramatically when they quit socializing it . Even Cuba (not shown but you can get the gadget and see) starts back with China and Costa Rica in the 60's waaay behind the US at that time and grows so fast it passes the US around 2001, as indeed do many countries (most dramatically Portugal as shown).

As murder and mayhem have gone down untill recently, they cannot account for the much slower improvement that you claim is why the US is behind. Your argument and your links assertions fall apart on the Data.

by FreeDem on 08/10/2007 07:27:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Pathfinder (none / 0)
Your argument and your links assertions fall apart on the Data.

But the data keep piling up. Study after study show that the US is better at fighting cancer than Britain. You can watch animated circles move around a graph all you want, but socialized medicine is not the panacea that you think it is.

Your graphs don't break down the two Americas. Since about half of all dollars spent on medical care come from the government, we already have socialized medicine. Who fares better, a person on Medicaid or private insurance? If you don't know the answer to that question, you don't know if socializing the other half of America's health care will improve statistical outcomes.

by Twba on 08/10/2007 11:26:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Twba lands a right to the eye. (none / 0)
“Your graphs don't break down the two Americas. Since about half of all dollars spent on medical care come from the government, we already have socialized medicine. Who fares better, a person on Medicaid or private insurance? If you don't know the answer to that question, you don't know if socializing the other half of America's health care will improve statistical outcomes.”


I’ve always admired the way Twba punk slaps his opponent with elegance, style and panache. We’ve been over this issue time and again, so I will reintroduce an oldie but goody from a few months ago.

Let’s consider health insurance for two, relative to other living expenses for two. I’m going to throw out some quick numbers for the sake of conversation that are going to make me look more stupid than George H.W. Bush (41) in front of a supermarket bar code reader. Corrections are most appreciated.

Car payments - $600/month

Auto insurance - $200/month

Gasoline - $400/month

Housing rental/mortgage - $1000/month

Utilities - $250/month

Food - $900/month

Health Insurance - $500/month

State and Federal Taxes - $2400/month

All of these items are necessities. Health care is no more important than food and shelter. So why aren’t people asking for single payer automobile insurance? Why shouldn’t the government simply pick up the tab for all car thefts and car wrecks?

Now, let’s take a look at what the Bush Health Care Proposal could do for Joe Sixpack.

The idea is to give Joe back some of that $2400/month that the government has been stealing from him every month. Then Joe can use the money to purchase health insurance.

And there you have it, Government-Provided, Single-Payer Health Insurance! The government provides you with your own money, and you are singularly responsible to pay the health insurance premium. The program cuts out the middle man, and allows the individual to shop for affordable insurance with a provider that is caring and compassionate and understanding and humanitarian and not in-it-just-for-the-money.

Let’s keep going. Suppose I can prove to you that the state of Texas pays more per pupil in public schools than private schools charge per pupil in tuition? Well I can prove it.

Do you see where this is going? The state of Texas would be smarter to pay for tuition (in the form of a voucher or tax credit) to send all poor children to private schools, and then give tax deductions to incentivize middle class people to send their children to private schools.

The moral to the story: We don’t need government provided schools or government provided health care.

by KenTX on 08/10/2007 05:03:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You got Health & Taxes mixed up (none / 0)

When health taxes to the Insurance company was even available it was soaring past $1,500 a month and adding 30% a year, well past my mortgage or any federal taxes.

It is true that leaving people who only believe in personal piracy, and not doing anything for others that is not pried out of their hands with a crowbar, in charge of doing anything positive for society is a serious negative outcome. But that is true no matter what bureaurcracy you are talking about.  

A 30% VS 2% management overhead, no controls or accountability, and every negative you can invent about all the countries doing better than us, choice, wait times, approvals etc are worse in the US, plus many more that are problems only found in US style health care systems.

Frequent changes of plans by employers (without worker advise or consent) cause endless hassles and dangers as previous drugs or doctors become disallowed.  Forget the wait, the very possibility of life saving surgury refused or perhaps denied after the fact is a frequent cause of homelessness and death because bankruptsy laws are also changed.

It is true that with enough money you can get decent care, but the US is falling behind even there. You can get better care in Thailand these days than the US and at a quarter the price.

Like the US of course that is only available to the rich, and no good whatever to the Thai people who generally get worse, or nonexistant care at higher rates than the US, and thus worse life and child mortality stats.

by FreeDem on 08/14/2007 07:49:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
seems you're numerically challenged (none / 0)
"You got Health & Taxes mixed up. When health taxes to the Insurance company was even available it was soaring past $1,500 a month and adding 30% a year, well past my mortgage or any federal taxes."

Take a look at what the average consumer pays in state and federal taxes. The number is around 44% of his gross income. By contrast, health care is less than one tenth of that number.

pie

I have Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance plan for my family of four, and the coverage is outstanding. I don't pay anywhere near $1500/month. 

You need to go back and check your math.

The only entity screwing you is the government.

by KenTX on 08/14/2007 11:02:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
health insurance (none / 0)
In re-reading this thread, it's interesting how a simple pie chart, along with some numbers outlining a typical family budget can completely destroy the liberal argument with respect to government-provided health care.

If the GOP can make the 2008 election about socialized medicine and surrender to al Qaeda, then I think we're havin' a conversation. This is gonna be better than gay marriage in 2004!

by KenTX on 08/14/2007 11:15:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Imaginary average (none / 0)

What "average" taxpayer is that?  I don't know ANYONE who pays that much.  That pie chart supports your anxieties the same way a blurry photo of a street lamp proves the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft.  Keep in mind that a pie chart instantly loses value in the hands of an inexperienced analyst, just like large breasts instantly lose value on an obese woman.

by OneHitKill on 08/14/2007 11:47:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I hope you never discover the real Health system (none / 0)

If employed by a large company and reasonably healthy the heath care system looks quite good. The actual costs of insurance are buried from you, and you are a positive cash flow for the insurance company because you use less than you pay for. You are OK with this because you believe that should you actually really need the coverage it will be there.

Unfortunately those of us that have actually needed the care have seen the real story. I did not make the $1500 a month up! By law they had to sell me the insurance and not drop me outright, and by law they could not raise the premium more than 30% a year. Unfortunately that is exactly what they did.

Mine was not a case of a single huge expense, but a continuing cost that will kill me years early as I am without care at all now as I cannot afford any of it.

For those with a sudden expense (or me should that happen) the costs are simply shifted by denying the claim, of claiming that the problem is something else till it is too late. This they did to a dear friend by telling her that her bone cancer was "Just Arthritis' and she should just "Live with it".

She didn't.

by FreeDem on 11/27/2007 09:24:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Medicaid is hardly worse than many (none / 0)

Most folk on Medicaid have many other issues, even getting to a doctor can be problematic without a car for instance, but it is hardly worse than many HMO's.

The comparable to the best health insurance is would be what Congress gets. They are not rushing out to buy health insurance because it is better than Government care. No congressman would ever go bankrupt because they were denied all that great cancer cures because it was "Experimental".

In every third world country there are "two countries" a few rich folk and vast numbers of very poor. That is more or less the point, Rich folk do well anywhere, even in horrid places like Haiti, or Nigeria, but that is not exactly what most of America aspires to be.

When I was a kid America was very proud to not be like that and promised to be less like that in the future. Before they were hijacked.

by FreeDem on 08/14/2007 08:10:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Health care, religion and the environment (none / 0)
FreeDem wrote: Most folk on Medicaid have many other issues, even getting to a doctor can be problematic without a car for instance, but it is hardly worse than many HMO's.

You avoided answering the question. Who fares better: a person on Medicaid or private insurance? You have been arguing that socialized medicine will improve American life expectancy and child mortality statistics. Are Americans who are privately insured suffering worse child mortality than the Americans already receiving socialized medicine?

It's good that you brought up the fact that people have other issues besides whether or not their health care is socialized. Too bad you didn't think of that before claiming that the animated circles on the graph indicate that only one issue is responsible for improving health statistics. Don't you think it's possible that rates of tobacco use and obesity and sedentary lifestyles may have more to do with differences in average life expectancy than who pays the doctor bills?

The comparable to the best health insurance is would be what Congress gets.

Government would go bankrupt if it provided everyone with the gold-plated medical benefits enjoyed by Congresscritters. In fact, government is on the brink of bankruptcy due to the rising costs of medical care for regular folks.

In every third world country there are "two countries" a few rich folk and vast numbers of very poor. That is more or less the point, Rich folk do well anywhere, even in horrid places like Haiti, or Nigeria, but that is not exactly what most of America aspires to be.

And America is not like that. There are many rich people in America who can afford luxuries. There are many poor people who are provided medical care by taxpayer financed government programs. There is also a huge middle-class that is not shrinking, regardless of what you've heard to the contrary.

The rich can afford escalating medical costs. The poor don't pay for their medical care, so their escalating costs are borne by others anyway. The middle-class is too wealthy to qualify for the programs that pay for the medical care of the poor, but not wealthy enough to buy the same services that the rich do. The solution is not to raise taxes and shunt the middle-class into socialized medicine that is worse than what they now have access to. The solution is to deregulate the health care market and let competition bring better service at lower costs.

But let's not assume that there is a miracle within easy reach. High tech medical devices, new pharmaceuticals and highly trained medical staff are all extremely expensive. The best doctors and nurses will never be cheap. There are limits to the money that can be saved without resorting to severe rationing.

The best option for the middle-class is low cost, high deductible health care insurance. But that option is not popular because most people want someone else to pay their medical bills. Sorry, there is no free lunch or free medical care.

A 30% VS 2% management overhead, no controls or accountability, and every negative you can invent about all the countries doing better than us, choice, wait times, approvals etc are worse in the US, plus many more that are problems only found in US style health care systems.

Many Americans have health insurance from nonprofit firms like Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross. Extensive government regulation of the medical industry is hardly "no controls or accountability." I'm not inventing negatives about Britain and Canada. It's a bold claim that wait times are worse in the US. Do you have a link to a peer reviewed study that backs up that claim?

OneHitKill wrote: The existence of the environment can be proven.  The existence of God cannot.

Religion has never been about proving the existence of god. It has always been about controlling people. Gore doesn't prove catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Al Gore wants to control people no less than Ayatollah Pat Robertson wants to control people.

by Twba on 08/17/2007 08:01:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Far too much bs to reply adequetly (none / 0)

Your world is not anything like where I live. Not for profit Insurance, just means that all the 30% overhead goes to managers, instead of most of it, the rules are written by the insurance industry, and I have provided many links.

 Public vs private health care , what cost?

 life expectancy vs health spending chart

 The Gapminder World 2006

 N C H S - FASTATS - Life Expectancy

 Health for money2006.pdf (application/pdf Object)

 Life and Death in the Land of Opportunity

 OECD Health Data 2007: Statistics and Indicators for 30 Countries

 family database

by FreeDem on 11/27/2007 10:45:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sad (none / 0)
You took about three months to respond and that little link dump is all you could come up with?

by Twba on 12/07/2007 09:45:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Truth... (none / 0)

by DeCee on 10/09/2006 02:05:03 PM EST

ad (none / 0)
They need to start using it again. With an added caption, If you don't blame a Republican

by LORD FOUL on 10/09/2006 02:51:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oooops (none / 0)
By the way no one gives a flying crap about what you think...

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 10/10/2006 04:39:43 PM EST

Tricky the tree hugger (none / 0)
Joe gets up at 6 am and fills his coffee pot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

I've heard Dick Nixon called many things, but a tree hugging liberal? Maybe you're right.

Ladies and gentlemen:

On the last day of the year 1970, I think it would be appropriate to make a very few remarks with regard to this piece of legislation that I will now be signing, the clean air act of 1970.

And I see in this room a few who were present in San Clemente on the first day of 1970 when I said that this would be the year of the environment, that it was now or never if we were to clean up the air and clean up the water in major parts of the United States and to provide the open spaces that are so important for the future generations in this country.

[LINK]

by Twba on 10/11/2006 01:30:07 AM EST

WTF? (none / 0)

That's it? You're gonna let KenTX get away with this:

His preferred sources are usually far left websites, completely lacking in credibility

 I wont. This is standard "I can't debate the facts, so I'll just pretend they don't exist."

 Come KenTX, you seem vaguely intellegent, how come you don't realize how the leaders you love so much are trying to destroy every facet of your life? Why do you insist on being ignorant in the face of facts?

You want to know how I know you're side is wrong? Listen to the people on the right who speak on these issues. Am I imagining things when I hear them recorded as saying one thing and then hear them again saying the exact opposite? What about when I listen to the people who supposedly represent you: Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, Coulter, etc.? Seems like all they bring to the table is illogical statements, hatred, bigotry, and over-blown, made up issues. Should I name a few? "War on Christanity", "Liberal Media", "Looney Left", "Gay Agenda". Let's take a look at the websites on your side. I don't see a "an original thought in [their] head." All I see is the word "liberal" and "f@#$ing" and that's about it.

But, isn't that just like a Repugnant? You think Dems are stuck in the 1880s because you ARE BLIND TO ANYTHING THAT IS REALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN YOUR COUNTRY. Your side claims that war, poverty, and pollution are just fine with Christianity. Torture, being spied on, and supreme executive authority are just fine for America (ever heard of the Constitution?).  How does all of that work? This is what the right currently stands for and if you can't see it, than it's really sad.

Biggest spending defecit EVER under your champion conserative Bush. Bah. Wake up or shut up.

jason. 

 

by SleepyJay on 10/17/2006 08:24:49 PM EST

Ken TX and the neocon nincom poops! (none / 0)
Ken says you liberals think everyone should pay for your shit!

As opposed to the rich white necons who believe that you can start a war, give tax cuts to the rich, and spend yourself into prosperity.  At least if the dems raise taxes they are spending money earned not borrowing and running up the deficit. Clinton left office and handed Bush a surplus! He (Clinton) still doesn't get any credit for the surplus!

If Clinton or Gore lost $9 billion in Iraq Ken TX would say we got impeach the president.

Republicans in the south use the race card just like the dixie crats used to.

How can you claim to be a Christian but hate others just because the color of thier skin? People can't control thier color, parents, etc.

by demzrule on 10/25/2006 08:52:58 AM EST

Covington? Florence? Newport? (none / 0)
"How can you claim to be a Christian but hate others just because the color of thier skin? People can't control their color, parents, etc."
 
Hey Einstein, let me straighten you out on a few points:

1. I have no religion or dogma.

2. I have some Mexican-American ancestry.

3. I have some Native-American ancestry.

4. My uncles are Japanese-American.

5. My nephews are Chinese-American.

6. I am comfortably affluent. You can be affluent also. All you need to do is quit waiting for the government to give you stuff, get off your dead ass, and get to work!

by KenTX on 10/25/2006 10:01:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Effluent we would believe... (none / 0)

 

That's rich...the only hyphenated Americans you know are the ones you drag behind your pickup truck  Work? thats funny too.When ? All you do is troll on TYT. Affulent? Effluent maybe certainly not affluent...if your as affluent you claim...you may have a doublewide and drink Milwaukee’s Best - Premium in between Ricki Lake reruns.

What a self serving buffoon...

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 10/25/2006 10:52:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Get lucky in Kentucky (none / 0)
Florence Y'all

by Twba on 10/25/2006 10:53:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Florence Y'all! (none / 0)
So let me get this straight? Florence has the airport and the water tower, and Covington has the splendid view of downtown Cincy?

(I've always loved the fact that Cincinnati's state-of-the-art airport is really in Kentucky.)

by KenTX on 10/25/2006 01:12:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gaffney Y'all (none / 0)
According to more than one site (The internet wouldn't lie), the water tower used to say "Florence Mall," but it was changed to "Florence Y'all." My favorite water tower is in South Carolina.

by Twba on 10/25/2006 01:24:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
driven by many times (none / 0)
From the I-85 view, it looks like a big orange ass.

by KenTX on 10/25/2006 01:32:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Peachy (none / 0)
That's why it's my favorite.

by Twba on 10/25/2006 01:46:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Conservatism vs. Liberalism. (none / 0)

One could make the argument that the majority of the ideas and programs that either the Conservatives or NeoCons have come up with are:

Unrestricted benefits to the Corporate and Rich.

Destruction of the Church-State Boundaries for the Religious Right.

Degradation and Regulation of Philosophy and Science except those of immediate financial application.

Initially: restrictions on all who disagree.

Secondarily: persecution of those “Nonbelievers”, starting first with the poor and defenseless.

Finally: deploy massive force against the “Strong Nonbelievers”.

Employing Fear to advance all of the above.


Likewise one could justifiably propose that Liberals or Progressives:

Favor raising the ground level so that all enjoy the increasing riches of society.

Bountiful opportunities for the rich, middleclass and poor alike.

Defending democracy and liberties from all forms of tyrannies, including theocracies at home and abroad.

Providing an open “liberal” society where all are free to pursue bold new ideas while protecting their safety and health.

Encourage brotherhood and sisterhood among all people.

Respect the Planet Earth and all that makes it Good.

Employ Love to advance all of the above.

by ManningtonPhil on 10/25/2006 03:10:41 PM EST

First Church of Gaia (none / 0)
Respect the Planet Earth and all that makes it Good.

So, you oppose separation of state and the church of the environment? Theocracy is bad when done by conservatives but great when done by progressives?

by Twba on 10/25/2006 09:34:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting article (none / 0)
I can't say i totally agree with all he's saying, but the basic premise is sound.  Basically that we need an environmental movement but it has to be based on sound and verifiable science, not faith. 

Here is an interesting read for you since i know you're a thinking man.  http://media.anthropik.com/ pdf/greer2005.pdf .  I am not expecting you to take this as fact, but it seems like a reasonable thoeretical model for thinking about the rise and fall of civiliazations.  I also reccomend collapse by jared diamond and Limits to growth.  As an Engineer I try to remain as objective as possible and follow reason and objective scientific observations, but i have to admit sometimes even I can get cought up in a little bit of faith.  Although i do not have a regorous mathamatical proof of this hypothysis (i guess you can say i have faith in it) it seems ludacrist to me that inside a closed system (earth) that we can continue an infinite cycle of exponential growth (both population and economic) fueled by in exponentially increasing flow of raw materials and energy and resulting in an expoentially increasing flow of waste.  Something about the thermodynamics of this process just don't seem to compute.  This is my basis for my environmentalism and my support for sustainable development. 

by alphasigmookie on 10/25/2006 10:49:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Crichton's speech (none / 0)
It's actually the transcript of a speech I listened to on the radio. The Commonwealth Club gets some interesting speakers. Its home page says that podcasts are free, if you ever find yourself bored.

I haven't read the linked paper yet so I'll just toss out a few ideas and then get back to you later.

I also have not read Jared Diamond's Collapse, but I read a few reviews and found this article very interesting.

Earth is not a closed system. It is heated by a nearby nuclear fueled furnace that will continue to burn for a few billion more years. Also, the human population is not growing exponentially. Population is already shrinking in Japan and Russia. It will soon start shrinking in other nations. World population is projected to peak in a few decades.

I'm not scared of diminishing resources. In a relatively free market, rising prices signal that demand is outpacing supply. In response, people seek an alternative to the scarce commodity. Civilization did not collapse when whale oil became scarce, we sought and found an alternative. I see no reason to think that we will not find an alternative to petroleum and every other finite resource.

As for faith in a free market, just like a scientist has to remain open to the possibility that the theory of evolution is incorrect, I am always open to the possibility that there is a better economic system. Just as no explanation of the origin of species is better than the theory of evolution, no economic system yet conceived is better than the free market.

by Twba on 10/26/2006 11:12:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
good article (none / 0)
Good article, i think i've actually heard the rat hypothysis about the collapse of easter island and it seems reasonably plausable.  Although very interesting, I by no means believe diamond's work is gospel, it is afterall merely social science (soft science to us snobby engineers).  However, the subject of collapse and the underlying physics and thermodynamics that cause it are of great interest to me. 

You are correct about the earth not being a completely closed system, i simplified my model there to keep my posting short.  More accurately a society may only maintain exponential growth (in population OR industrial production) as long as it can exponentially expand it's energy input.  This input can come through depleting reservoirs of stored energy (forests, oil, coal, natural gas, uranium), or it can glean useful energy from a renewably source (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal).  At some point the exponential growth cycle will be limited by the energy flow.  If the society is reliant purely on stored reserviors of energy, those reserviours will eventually become depleted and cause the society to crash.  However, if the society is reliant upon purely renewable energy, it can expand up to the limit of the energy input into the system and maintain that level of population and energy use up until the sun blows up or burns out.   

by alphasigmookie on 10/26/2006 01:42:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Blinded by science (none / 0)
(soft science to us snobby engineers).  However, the subject of collapse and the underlying physics and thermodynamics that cause it are of great interest to me.

Don't misunderestimate the importance of culture in collapses. Why did the Norse colony collapse when the Inuit survived in Greenland? The Inuit culture adapted to withstand the harsh conditions of the Little Ice Age. The Norse culture did not evolve. Until your studying of physics begets a wayback machine, we'll never really know why the Norse chose a cultural dead end.

by Twba on 10/26/2006 02:42:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
front row seat (none / 0)
Oh definitly, the choices a society makes have a lot to do with culture.  I guess I'm more focused on the consequences of those decisions, which can be more easily objectively analyzed.  I am however very interested in is the choices that our society will make over the next 20-50 years.  They will very likely determine whether we go the way of the Norse colony or the Inuit peoples.  I agree with you that our capitalists system gives us a leg up on other previous societies, but I am not yet going to go on blind faith that it will safely steer us clear of tragedy all by itself. 

by alphasigmookie on 10/26/2006 03:10:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Double duty (none / 0)
I agree with you that our capitalists system gives us a leg up on other previous societies, but I am not yet going to go on blind faith that it will safely steer us clear of tragedy all by itself.

Too true, those Jurassic free traders were coasting along nicely with adjustable rate mortgages until a huge meteor crash. Even Alan Greenspanosaurus couldn't stop the bubble from bursting.

...comfortable using the same old playbook.

I'd guess there are a couple dog-eared pages in KenTX's playbook.

by Twba on 10/26/2006 04:00:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
extinct (none / 0)
Failure to adapt has sealed the fate of many peoples, nations, businesses, species, cultures, and political parties.


The Norse, the Whigs, and the Democrats were always comfortable using the same old playbook.

by KenTX on 10/26/2006 03:16:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The facts are well studied (none / 0)

Until your studying of physics begets a wayback machine, we'll never really know why the Norse chose a cultural dead end.

The reason was that the Norse were believers in a fantasy.

Their religion said that they had to eat only a restricted list of animals, and when things got tough instead of rethinking their position, they built a huge new Church to beseech their fantasy daddy to come save them, and starved while food frolicked in their front yard.

The Inuit, having no such crazy notions, did just fine.

Moral: Thinking will get you by with no Religion better than Religion will get you by with no thinking. 

by FreeDem on 05/04/2007 08:21:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Crichton (none / 0)
Thinking will get you by with no Religion better than Religion will get you by with no thinking.

Well, you've come back to this thread again. Did you read the entire transcript of Crichton's speech?

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all -- what more and more groups are doing is putting out lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that. [LINK]

by Twba on 05/04/2007 10:17:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately Crichton is doing Orwell, and badly (none / 0)

I see little "religion of environmentalism". Unfortunately the only people capable of politicizing science have Chrichton as their spokesman.

Your average person or group of persons can't spend a few million dollars on pseudoscience, and then spend millions more to astroturf it into the public square. But oil companies can and do.

Unfortunately the only scientific whores they could find were the same used up old whores the Tobacco folks tossed aside, from back when they were playing that same game.

At every step of the way It is the Gang Of Pirates that is assaulting not just science , but the underlying education, logic and reason itself. 

by FreeDem on 06/05/2007 10:21:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Enviro-theology (none / 0)
I see little "religion of environmentalism". Unfortunately the only people capable of politicizing science have Chrichton as their spokesman.

The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise.

When we do rise, it will fill our spirits and bind us together. Those who are now suffocating in cynicism and despair will be able to breathe freely. Those who are now suffering from a loss of meaning in their lives will find hope.

When we rise, we will experience an epiphany as we discover that this crisis is not really about politics at all. It is a moral and spiritual challenge. At stake is the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth. [LINK]

You have to be blind not see a little religion in that quote. And make no mistake, that author has always had as his goal the politicization of science.

by Twba on 06/06/2007 05:06:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Liberals have always favored Reality (none / 0)

That Al Gore thinks that killing the planet is immoral, is not much of a surprise, it kinda like "is".

To make the leap from that to saying that it is worship or belief of an actual Goddess Gaia is more than stupid. The Gaia Hypothesis is a name like the the asteroid Eros is a name, a cultural reference, but not any sort of belief in a diety.

Like other sane folk Gore uses his Christianity to inform his opinion, but not as something to ram down the throats of others.

by FreeDem on 07/31/2007 07:30:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Theocracy (none / 0)
How do you consider environmental ism a religion? Because 1 man eupamistically calls it so?

If so-called Evangelicals pulled their head out of the old testement and read the new testement they would realize that Jesus was a liberal

I guess the scientists make up their facts, then make up more facts to back up their facts.

Do you piss in the water that you drink, No? Why?

If you don't pollute your own water why would you allow industry to do it?

I guess if George told you your pee was safe to drink you would do that too?

by LORD FOUL on 10/26/2006 08:36:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You see secular means atheist, which means...... (none / 0)

... Devil Worship. That is why these scientists keep naming stuff after Greek and Roman Gods. I mean instead of naming some asteroid something like Asteroid #4765 they named it Eros because they thought that they were driven mad with lust every time it rotated.

 Likewise instead of calling it "really complicated holistic idea about how the Earth dynamic system has a certain equilibrium that could be really different if it was disturbed" they called it Gaia, not because it was a shorter name but because they believed it was a goddess

by FreeDem on 05/04/2007 08:49:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
a little bit of faith (none / 0)
I think there is a little bit of "faith" in just about all political beliefs.  I don't think it would be too far of a stretch to believe that you have quite a bit of "faith" that a completely free market is the best of all possible economic systems.  I'm not arguing that point just pointing out that you probably don't have any hard, verifiable, scientific evidence to support that theory.  The point is not that "faith" is a bad thing by itself, the problem becomes when "faith" leads one to ignore or repress any and all evidence that is contrary to that which you believe.   

by alphasigmookie on 10/26/2006 08:52:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Belief in Scientific Results equals Theocracy????? (none / 0)

Secular is not anti Religion it is just something else besides religion. Murphy or Gaia are thought constructs, not God critters. Our Civilization Exists at all because some folk found a way to determine what what was real, that could lead to ways to improve life for everybody.

That the Church had a fantasy of beliefs from a flat earth, to a seven day creation along with some actual good ideas does not change the impossibility of the weird facts list, be it flat earth, frogs created from mud, or a seven day creation fantasy, each as provably wrong as the next.

But Secular Science is no more Antireligious than the Secular Chess clubs that have been used as an excuse to force schools to allow Evangelical clubs.

by FreeDem on 04/12/2007 12:29:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Research (none / 0)
Did you follow the link to understand the reference to environmental religion?

by Twba on 04/12/2007 12:44:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Followed the link (none / 0)

 Michael Crichton's argument that Enviornmentalists are a religion falls as flat as saying Creationism is a Science, the same arguments could be made that chess is a religion that makes it incompatible with Christianity.

Quite aside from Crichtons hopelessly chauvanistic view that all religions emulate Christianity, scientists (many of them Christian) expect actual data to prove their understanding as valid. This makes it a secular activity as in not related to any religion not Christianity, not Athiesm, not Earth Mother.

Like science through history there are many historical and religious references like naming a beetle  "Goliath" because it is big. In the same way the hypothesis that the earth has evolved a world wide homeostasis that keeps it in the best ranges, and that those forces are not absolute, has been named the Gaia Hypothesis as a label not a religion.

Unlike evolution it is not settled understanding, nor are all the forces involved worked out, but it is a structure for research to discover the nature and extant of the forces, at which time the now somewhat changed structure would become the Gaia Theory, but that would still not make it a religion.

I have argued elsewhere that there are possible things religion can do besides make up the kind of information science actually deals with, or as in the case with most atheists, deny any religion because their made up science was obviously wrong.

Just as science builds mental structures (like evolution or Gaia or even the idea of a species) to assist understanding and then does experiments to discover the validity, the structures are useful even if they are not scientifically valid, but allow a good result if treated that way.

That is the likely lesson Crichton slept through in his anthropology classes. The point he misses is that such structures can be created for selfish purposes as well, and it is only by claiming them divine revelation will folk go along.

by FreeDem on 04/18/2007 12:46:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Milk spit (none / 0)
The existence of the environment can be proven.  The existence of God cannot.  Look at me with a straight face and tell me that a Christian theocracy is a good idea.

by OneHitKill on 08/14/2007 11:50:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Re: CBPP - H.R. 4890 Worse Than You May Think (none / 0)
Birmingham hotel cheap tickets to California Athens hotel cheap flights to Minneapolis 5 star hotels airfares to Casablanca dublin hotels airfares to Arizona hotel bali cheap air ticket to Istanbul hotel am see cheap flights to Acapulco hotel bristol cheap flights to Houston hotel silvester cheap air ticket to Paris otel cheap air ticket to Barbados hotels in london cheap flights to Nevada Baltimore hotel cheap tickets to Montego Bay hotel reservation cheap tickets to Paris quality hotel cheap air ticket to SanDiego hotels in airfares to California hotel country house cheap tickets to Lisbon zur hotel cheap tickets to Mumbai Vancouver hotel airfares to Dubai marriot hotel cheap flights to Vancouver Chicago hotel cheap tickets to SanJuan hotel budapest cheap air ticket to Beijing Nairobi hotel hotel france hotel milano cheap flights to Texas

by dalbik on 01/12/2007 03:43:31 PM EST

Re: Best WiFi Hotels 2006 (none / 0)
<a href="http://airline.e xtra.hu/cheap-airline-ticke ts-Argentina.html"> Argentina tickets airline</a>

by dalbik on 01/24/2007 06:24:49 PM EST

Where do the values in Lord Foul's list come from? (none / 0)
As a daughter, granddaughter of politically mixed marriages, I read your list with interest.  Where do these values come from?  Who brought these various issues first tothe "table"?

(Tho my ancestry is all Scandinavian descent---it is mixed in that dems married reps...and even today, no party owns most of us. Most of my family are "agnostic" politically i.e. we are not really sure of either party. Many of us have faith in God but not in a party.)

Historically, Dems were earlier the party of "slavery" in the 19th century.  However , they, inthe 20th century have certainly brought some of the benefits listed.

But if you read up---some of these issues above were brought also (or sometimes--first) by some Republicans. 

The Republican party first came about resisting slavery--the biggest single human oppression of the 19th century in this country! And yes, I do agree that some in the Rep party (after Roosevelt) went back too far into the business world, and forgot the need for balance...equal justice for ALL.

Teddy Roosevelt brought some of these issues LOUDLY and POWERFULLY to the table FIRST...as the first President to LOUDLY in his own unique way--legitimize union bargaining (miners) break up major trusts, and do major conservation work. etc. etc. etc.  Some historians will even comment that some Presidents right after him actually passed more legislation, but what might have they done had not TR loudly, forcefully, and positively "set the tone" for early 20th Century activism???


And where do the root values come from?  What forces made the Roosevelt family (rich & privileged both Rep & dem sides) care about the poor? 

What made Teddy walk into NYC tenements to see for himself?

What made Teddy's niece Eleanor check out the treatment of the almst half million German POW's in the US for herself?

by vikingmother on 04/25/2007 09:16:39 AM EST

Historical is not now (none / 0)

There was a time when there was good and evil in both parties. Republicans had the "Captains of Industry" and the Democrats had the Bigots and Theocrats. Teddy Roosevelt, went off the Reservation and tried to bring down the worst Monopolists, but they bought off his assistant, Taft.

After Teddy's nephew brought the middle class back to life, all the forces of evil joined hands to take the country to ruin. One after another they infiltrated and subverted major American institutions from Southern Baptists to the Republican party, thus disturbing the party balance.

As a result now all the Evil is newly concentrated in the Gang Of Pirates. Not only the evils that always existed, but many new ones the country (and civilization) has not dealt with in a long time.

My  FreeDemocrat's Freedom blog has several discussions of this in detail, and there is even more where it says "Important data from others"

by FreeDem on 05/04/2007 09:15:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Those bad, bad liberals are ruining our lives | 71 comments (71 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: