World Politics

[redtreviso]

I am moving to Canada.

They might not have you. eh?

 

[Anonymous]

No, purposely naming your movement after an event that in the American mythos is closely associated with the beginning of the American Revolution is, I would say, very much symbolically revolutionary.

But don't take my word for it:

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/03/fort_lauderdale_tea_party_kilcullen.php

"Revolution or die". Nice slogan.
Call me unpatriotic, but I think it's insane and really, really, really stupid to be so blindly and rigidly affixed to a document that was written by a handful of people nearly 300 years ago. The US Supreme Court deciding cases in 2011 based on their interpretation of what exactly the Founding Fathers meant or would've wanted is beyond absurd.

Times change. Let's change with them.

To that end, yes, absolutely, we should dump an outdated and outmoded presidential system that may have worked in the past but has become ossified to the point of not only being rendered essentially nonfunctional but almost total irrelevant in the modern world.
Ah the slippery slope. Isn't this the same argument conservatives use for, well, everything? Gun control, gay marriage - oh my, where does it all stop? Odd, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France - they've had no problem deciding where to stop. Are you suggesting that Americans aren't bright enough to figure it out?

Also, "socialized housing"?? I'm starting to get the sense that you really have no idea what we're arguing for or how the countries that we hold up as models - Canada, for eg - are actually structured or function.

"Unfettered: to free from restraint; to liberate". Isn't that exactly the conservative goal? So yeah, I used it in the context of mocking the conservative view of capitalism, which was maybe a bit immature.

But the world is a much, much different place and it's evolving quickly, and we're not evolving with it. We may recover, but "recover" is a relative term, and more likely we'll slowly start sliding backward because we're so resistant to institutional change and so culturally and politically (both Dems and Repubs) inflexible.

Actually, that's already starting to happen - we're already a decade or more behind Europe in the green energy/economy sector and in the transformation to alternative energies, probably the single most important sector of the future global economy.

Ah that old canard. BS, that's just a conservative excuse.

I thought it was pretty clear - regardless of what you or I believe or want, no society will exist for very long with the kind of growing gap between the very small minority of rich and the vast majority who become poorer as we're seeing happening in the US. Such societies always end in social upheaval and/or radical transformation of one sort or another. Question is, do we exert a bit of control over that transformation by instituting regulatory and social measures to act as safety valves, or do we just cross our fingers and close our eyes to the possibility and hope it doesn't come to pass? The rest of the world isn't taking any chances and choosing the former route. Absolutely no reason we couldn't as well.

Call me unpatriotic, but I think it's insane and really, really, really stupid to be so blindly and rigidly affixed to a document that was written by a handful of people nearly 300 years ago. The US Supreme Court deciding cases in 2011 based on their interpretation of what exactly the Founding Fathers meant or would've wanted is beyond absurd.

Times change. Let's change with them.

The constitution is a living, breathing document argument. I really don't know what to say to this. Pathetic point of view.

Ah the slippery slope. Isn't this the same argument conservatives use for, well, everything?

Nope. How about answering the question? Socialized medicine, safety nets... what about housing? Don't dither, tell me your opinion and why.

I'm starting to get the sense that you really have no idea what we're arguing for or how the countries that we hold up as models - Canada, for eg - are actually structured or function.

It's likely I understand far more than you seem to think, but I have no desire to change your interpretation. In fact, it's the standard arrogance of leftists everywhere to think they are the smartest people in the room. By all means, carry on...

"Unfettered: to free from restraint; to liberate". Isn't that exactly the conservative goal? So yeah, I used it in the context of mocking the conservative view of capitalism, which was maybe a bit immature.

So I'll take this to mean there really isn't legal unfettered capitalism in the US and you are using this rhetoric as nothing more than a talking point. I'd ask you to think for your self but I'm not sure it would have much effect.

But the world is a much, much different place and it's evolving quickly, and we're not evolving with it.

I'm not so sure. We look more and more like Europe every day. I live in Cali. There was a nice Vanity Fair article recently pointing out some of our issues (see Greece). I think we evolved quite a bit (from what made this country hum).

Actually, that's already starting to happen - we're already a decade or more behind Europe in the green energy/economy sector and in the transformation to alternative energies, probably the single most important sector of the future global economy.

Yes. Probably more than a decade. France gets a bunch of it's power from nuclear. I'm all for nuclear and have been all along. In fact, I'm a "all of the above" guy. I understand that the energy at market prices, particularly oil (for the moment), is the key to economic activity all over the world.

no society will exist for very long with the kind of growing gap between the very small minority of rich and the vast majority who become poorer as we're seeing happening in the US. Such societies always end in social upheaval and/or radical transformation of one sort or another.

The wealthy are usually less impacted by economic downturns. As the middle and below bear the brunt of economic hardship the wealthy don't feel it. I suppose that's one nice benefit of having lots of zeros in your bank account.

The key to solving this dilemma is an expanding economy. The current administration has no idea how to make this happen... and I have a news flash for you: Additional taxation on earned wealth will not expand the economy, but then that's not really the goal, is it?

 

[VeloCity]

The constitution is a living, breathing document

The Constitution only means what at least 5 out of the 9 members of the Supreme Court think it means at a given time, which means it's entirely dependent on the composition (liberal vs conservative) of the Court at that time (and in many cases, roughly half of Americans are going to disagree with whatever the SC's interpretation of the Constitution may be). Unless Congress disagrees. Then they overrule the SC and the Constitution means the exact opposite of what the SC thought it meant. Or in cases where the Executive decide the Constitution is meaningless and they can go ahead and dispense with Constitutional "niceties" altogether and do whatever the f**k they want (take a bow Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Yoo, etc). And then there's things such as the 2nd Amendment, which is so vague that no one can figure out what the hell it's supposed to mean and we're still arguing over what the framers meant 250 years later.

But anyway, back to your point: doesn't the very fact that it's a "living, breathing" document - ie one that can be interpreted to mean just about anything anyone wants it to mean depending on the social, cultural, and/or political conditions, mores, and views of the time or to justify a preconceived position - simply serve to underscore its irrelevancy? Don't know about you, but seems to me that something that can be used to justify virtually all things to all people doesn't really have much value.

Nope.

Yep. You guys use the slippery slope argument for everything.

How about answering the question? Socialized medicine, safety nets... what about housing? Don't dither, tell me your opinion and why.

I did answer the question. I'll repeat: I'd like to see the US move in the direction of countries like Canada, which - if you knew anything about Canada, which apparently you don't, cause then you'd have realized that I did answer the question - doesn't have "socialized" (in the context that you're using it) housing.

But even so, it's also a pointless question - ALL housing in the US is already "socialized" to one degree or another.

It's likely I understand far more than you seem to think, but I have no desire to change your interpretation. In fact, it's the standard arrogance of leftists everywhere to think they are the smartest people in the room. By all means, carry on...

Then maybe you'll stop resorting to inaccurate stereotypes.

So I'll take this to mean there really isn't legal unfettered capitalism in the US and you are using this rhetoric as nothing more than a talking point.

As I explained, it was a rather juvenile attempt at using it as a rhetorical device by playing off the utopian view of capitalism that so many conservatives have.

I'm not so sure. We look more and more like Europe every day. I live in Cali. There was a nice Vanity Fair article recently pointing out some of our issues (see Greece). I think we evolved quite a bit (from what made this country hum).

We look less and less like Europe every day, mainly because they're looking long term while we - because of our silly political system - only focus on the short term. And that's not a Republican or Democratic thing, it's systemic. That's the problem, and why we need to move beyond the political system that we currently have. A parliamentary system isn't perfect by any means - obviously no system is or we wouldn't be discussing this - but it is more effective in responding to both current and future issues than is our presidential system.

Yes. Probably more than a decade. France gets a bunch of it's power from nuclear. I'm all for nuclear and have been all along. In fact, I'm a "all of the above" guy. I understand that the energy at market prices, particularly oil (for the moment), is the key to economic activity all over the world.

Nuclear isn't the future, nor is oil or natural gas, or coal. Nor is it what I was talking about. Europeans understand this, and are starting to make the transition away from traditional energy sources (see Sweden, for eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Sweden_an_Oil-Free_Society) by adopting a combination of renewables and energy conservation. Which we aren't really doing, and conservatives aren't in the least bit interested in doing.

In other words, and generalizing a bit, European leaders at least get it and are taking it seriously. Our leaders - especially the Republicans, but also to a lesser degree Obama and the Dems - aren't, and as a result we're falling further and further behind.

The key to solving this dilemma is an expanding economy. The current administration has no idea how to make this happen

The problem with conservatives is that they rarely look at the bigger picture. Resources being finite, expansion has an end point. Then what? Unlimited growth, which is the very basis of our economic system, is a fantasy. This is what Europeans (and to a lesser extent, Canadians) are starting to realize, and why they're moving away from consumption-based economies and toward systems based on alternative energies, green economies, and sustainability. And why, in the long run, we're being left behind.

and I have a news flash for you: Additional taxation on earned wealth will not expand the economy, but then that's not really the goal, is it?

Well actually yes, it will, if the additional revenues are spent properly. That's the whole point of stimulus spending. But again, that's short-term thinking - for how long do we keep "expanding the economy"?

 

[Anonymous]

The constitution is a living, breathing document argument. I really don't know what to say to this. Pathetic point of view.



Nope. How about answering the question? Socialized medicine, safety nets... what about housing? Don't dither, tell me your opinion and why.



It's likely I understand far more than you seem to think, but I have no desire to change your interpretation. In fact, it's the standard arrogance of leftists everywhere to think they are the smartest people in the room. By all means, carry on...



So I'll take this to mean there really isn't legal unfettered capitalism in the US and you are using this rhetoric as nothing more than a talking point. I'd ask you to think for your self but I'm not sure it would have much effect.



I'm not so sure. We look more and more like Europe every day. I live in Cali. There was a nice Vanity Fair article recently pointing out some of our issues (see Greece). I think we evolved quite a bit (from what made this country hum).



Yes. Probably more than a decade. France gets a bunch of it's power from nuclear. I'm all for nuclear and have been all along. In fact, I'm a "all of the above" guy. I understand that the energy at market prices, particularly oil (for the moment), is the key to economic activity all over the world.



The wealthy are usually less impacted by economic downturns. As the middle and below bear the brunt of economic hardship the wealthy don't feel it. I suppose that's one nice benefit of having lots of zeros in your bank account.

The key to solving this dilemma is an expanding economy. The current administration has no idea how to make this happen... and I have a news flash for you: Additional taxation on earned wealth will not expand the economy, but then that's not really the goal, is it?

I was introduced to an argument about a couple of months ago regarding this "strict constructionist" idea touted by Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and obviously you. I knew the case involved, but had never put together this simple premise that destroys your argument:

The problem with your entire philosophy regarding "strict construction" is that the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on things like the health care mandate, and any other legislative enactment isn't enumerated in the constitution. The ability of the "strict constructionists" on the court to even rule on such matters was derived from Marbury v. Madison. They determined that they had the power of Judicial Review. It isn't ENUMERATED in the constitution in any form or language.

Yep, that's right, the ability of Scalia to rule in cases like the ones involving the health care mandate originated NOT in the constitution, BUT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING DOCUMENT. If it weren't, and they could only review based on the powers contained in the Constitution, then the idea of Judicial Review could NEVER HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE. Marbury v. Madison will have to be overturned, and if done will result in a very interesting case indeed. In that case, the Supreme Court use Judicial Review to determine that it no longer has the power of Judicial Review because any intellectually honest adherence to this "strict constructionist" bullsh!t necessitates that they apply the principle in all cases. That being the case they must apply it to the principle of Judicial Review, which means they will be dividing by 0.

See, the argument from Marbury was that "arising under" allowed Judicial Review (in essence because the document was a living one that could contain powers NOT ENUMERATED). BUT THE FATHER OF THIS "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST" BULLSH!T (MADISON...THE ONE QUOTED ON BY ALL THE "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST" "SCHOLARS") SAID THAT IT DIDN'T.

The fact is that if you read the cases decided by the Supreme Court, even these "strict constructionists" use the idea of a living document when it suits their needs. Scalia does it, Thomas does it, Rehnquist did it, Roberts does it, Alito does it, they ALL HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL do it. They ALL legislate from the bench.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Anonymous]

The Constitution only means what at least 5 out of the 9 members of the Supreme Court think it means at a given time, which means it's entirely dependent on the composition (liberal vs conservative) of the Court at that time (and in many cases, roughly half of Americans are going to disagree with whatever the SC's interpretation of the Constitution may be). Unless Congress disagrees. Then they overrule the SC and the Constitution means the exact opposite of what the SC thought it meant. Or in cases where the Executive decide the Constitution is meaningless and they can go ahead and dispense with Constitutional "niceties" altogether and do whatever the f**k they want (take a bow Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Yoo, etc). And then there's things such as the 2nd Amendment, which is so vague that no one can figure out what the hell it's supposed to mean and we're still arguing over what the framers meant 250 years later.

But anyway, back to your point: doesn't the very fact that it's a "living, breathing" document - ie one that can be interpreted to mean just about anything anyone wants it to mean depending on the social, cultural, and/or political conditions, mores, and views of the time or to justify a preconceived position - simply serve to underscore its irrelevancy? Don't know about you, but seems to me that something that can be used to justify virtually all things to all people doesn't really have much value.

Yep. You guys use the slippery slope argument for everything.

I did answer the question. I'll repeat: I'd like to see the US move in the direction of countries like Canada, which - if you knew anything about Canada, which apparently you don't, cause then you'd have realized that I did answer the question - doesn't have "socialized" (in the context that you're using it) housing.

But even so, it's also a pointless question - ALL housing in the US is already "socialized" to one degree or another.

Then maybe you'll stop resorting to inaccurate stereotypes.

As I explained, it was a rather juvenile attempt at using it as a rhetorical device by playing off the utopian view of capitalism that so many conservatives have.

We look less and less like Europe every day, mainly because they're looking long term while we - because of our silly political system - only focus on the short term. And that's not a Republican or Democratic thing, it's systemic. That's the problem, and why we need to move beyond the political system that we currently have. A parliamentary system isn't perfect by any means - obviously no system is or we wouldn't be discussing this - but it is more effective in responding to both current and future issues than is our presidential system.

Nuclear isn't the future, nor is oil or natural gas, or coal. Nor is it what I was talking about. Europeans understand this, and are starting to make the transition away from traditional energy sources (see Sweden, for eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Sweden_an_Oil-Free_Society) by adopting a combination of renewables and energy conservation. Which we aren't really doing, and conservatives aren't in the least bit interested in doing.

In other words, and generalizing a bit, European leaders at least get it and are taking it seriously. Our leaders - especially the Republicans, but also to a lesser degree Obama and the Dems - aren't, and as a result we're falling further and further behind.

The problem with conservatives is that they rarely look at the bigger picture. Resources being finite, expansion has an end point. Then what? Unlimited growth, which is the very basis of our economic system, is a fantasy. This is what Europeans (and to a lesser extent, Canadians) are starting to realize, and why they're moving away from consumption-based economies and toward systems based on alternative energies, green economies, and sustainability. And why, in the long run, we're being left behind.

Well actually yes, it will, if the additional revenues are spent properly. That's the whole point of stimulus spending. But again, that's short-term thinking - for how long do we keep "expanding the economy"?

But anyway, back to your point: doesn't the very fact that it's a "living, breathing" document - ie one that can be interpreted to mean just about anything anyone wants it to mean depending on the social, cultural, and/or political conditions, mores, and views of the time or to justify a preconceived position - simply serve to underscore its irrelevancy? Don't know about you, but seems to me that something that can be used to justify virtually all things to all people doesn't really have much value.

You describe exactly what will happen as soon as you or anyone else begin crafting a new founding document every time the wind blows. And who shall have the ability to modify said document. You?

The constitution isn't the problem here.

I did answer the question. I'll repeat: I'd like to see the US move in the direction of countries like Canada, which - if you knew anything about Canada, which apparently you don't, cause then you'd have realized that I did answer the question - doesn't have "socialized" (in the context that you're using it) housing.

But even so, it's also a pointless question - ALL housing in the US is already "socialized" to one degree or another.

So to be perfectly clear, you don't believe in socialized housing. Or you do. Sort of. It's actually not at all clear.

But if you think the govt is the best source to provide your health care then shouldn't they provide a safe place for you to live? I mean, shelter is a pretty big deal and it's as much a right as decent healthcare. Don't you agree?

I own my home. I deduct the interest I pay on my mortgage (legal, btw) from my gross income. So, by that measure, do I live in socialized housing?

Yep. You guys use the slippery slope argument for everything.

Nope. It's used typically with devastating effect to illustrate absurdity. But not for everything.

Then maybe you'll stop resorting to inaccurate stereotypes.

You mean like conservatives are stupid, racist, bigoted, sexist, selfish, gun-happy homophobes?

We look less and less like Europe every day, mainly because they're looking long term while we - because of our silly political system - only focus on the short term. And that's not a Republican or Democratic thing, it's systemic. That's the problem, and why we need to move beyond the political system that we currently have. A parliamentary system isn't perfect by any means - obviously no system is or we wouldn't be discussing this - but it is more effective in responding to both current and future issues than is our presidential system.

Our system is broken not by design but by corruption. Corruption plagues all systems, including a parliamentary one. We need to reform corporate and big money donors ability to purchase political favor.

energy conservation.

That's really what you want, isn't it? Since the world's economies have a base need for energy this will basically reach your goal of no expansion. Okay, it's your world view. I understand.

Resources being finite, expansion has an end point.

I can guarantee you someone like Steve Jobs would never, ever subscribe to this way of thinking. Very few things are a zero sum game... certainly not the global economy.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Why is our economy really in trouble?

And what is the real reason that other countries can make better products for less money?

I'd say broken by design is just about right.

 

[Anonymous]

I was introduced to an argument about a couple of months ago regarding this "strict constructionist" idea touted by Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and obviously you. I knew the case involved, but had never put together this simple premise that destroys your argument:

The problem with your entire philosophy regarding "strict construction" is that the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on things like the health care mandate, and any other legislative enactment isn't enumerated in the constitution. The ability of the "strict constructionists" on the court to even rule on such matters was derived from Marbury v. Madison. They determined that they had the power of Judicial Review. It isn't ENUMERATED in the constitution in any form or language.

Yep, that's right, the ability of Scalia to rule in cases like the ones involving the health care mandate originated NOT in the constitution, BUT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS A LIVING DOCUMENT. If it weren't, and they could only review based on the powers contained in the Constitution, then the idea of Judicial Review could NEVER HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE. Marbury v. Madison will have to be overturned, and if done will result in a very interesting case indeed. In that case, the Supreme Court use Judicial Review to determine that it no longer has the power of Judicial Review because any intellectually honest adherence to this "strict constructionist" bullsh!t necessitates that they apply the principle in all cases. That being the case they must apply it to the principle of Judicial Review, which means they will be dividing by 0.

See, the argument from Marbury was that "arising under" allowed Judicial Review (in essence because the document was a living one that could contain powers NOT ENUMERATED). BUT THE FATHER OF THIS "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST" BULLSH!T (MADISON...THE ONE QUOTED ON BY ALL THE "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST" "SCHOLARS") SAID THAT IT DIDN'T.

The fact is that if you read the cases decided by the Supreme Court, even these "strict constructionists" use the idea of a living document when it suits their needs. Scalia does it, Thomas does it, Rehnquist did it, Roberts does it, Alito does it, they ALL HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL do it. They ALL legislate from the bench.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

This is what I responded to;

Call me unpatriotic, but I think it's insane and really, really, really stupid to be so blindly and rigidly affixed to a document that was written by a handful of people nearly 300 years ago. The US Supreme Court deciding cases in 2011 based on their interpretation of what exactly the Founding Fathers meant or would've wanted is beyond absurd.

Times change. Let's change with them.

I took this to mean the constitution should basically scrapped in favor a more flexible document. The poster is also advocating a change to a parliamentary system (something I don't believe would be found to be constitutional).

The problem with your entire philosophy regarding "strict construction"

Why don't you lay out my "strict construction" philosophy for me? I don't believe I've discussed my constitutional philosophy here, but maybe I'm wrong.

Again, the poster was intimating the tea party to be revolutionaries. My response was to say they are not revolutionaries but have an adherence to an originalist interpretation of the US Constitution (straight out of Wki). Revolutionary? Uh, no.

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and obviously you.

That's some pretty distinguished company you've got me in there... thanks, I guess?

 

[redtreviso]

""Conservative Scalia and liberal Breyer differ on their constitutional approaches, yet they both like to talk about the law and fell easily into their usual banter and joking.

Scalia, as is his way, got off the sharpest lines. "I'm hopeful that the 'living' Constitution will die," he said, referring to Breyer's view that the Constitution should be interpreted to meet the needs of changing times. Scalia believes the Constitution should be interpreted in its 18th century context.
""

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet

livestream too

 

[redtreviso]

HEY FREEPER SLICE LENGTHWISE!!!!!!!

""The absolutely incredible and historic opportunity presented to you has now been squandered. Governor, what was the point? You accomplished great things (for which I thank you) after resigning but keep in mind that the reason for the support was that people believed you were going to run for President yourself. Do you honestly believe that people and supporters surfaced for any other reason? You allowed the 'illusion' to continue knowing full well you were not going to run..

Some people uprooted their lives and some, spent their savings because of the belief they had in you. You would have been one of the greats Governor; you could have help to right this magnificent ship we call the United States of America, but instead, like any other politician, you hide behind others and use them as your excuse to not run.

Your fellow countrymen/women called on you and you led all of us on a wild goose chase ending with a wimpish letter declining to run. I'm sorry for you; I’m more sorry for my country. I’m glad & eternally grateful that men going into World War II didn’t refuse because their children begged them not to go; we’d all be speaking german now and ignoring the slaughter of undesirables if they had.

Family loyalty is a wonderful thing Governor, but without our mangificent country the family unit will be reduced to nothing.

President Palin would have been far more effective than Citizen Palin. In the end it turns out that you are just another politician.
"""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2789120/posts

 

[rhubroma]

who can win here? Should the Wall Streeters agree to stop making money? Or should they march on and agree instead to keep raking it in and fully embrace somebody taking it directly or indirectly for redistribution? The current protesters if allowed to get even a handful of the hundreds of demands, affordable housing, healthcare and jobs,equal pay(?whatever that means?) who will pay for either scenario?
I have come to realize that deficit spending has always been part of my life. I grew up in a boom town where the schools, roads,sewer,water and parks,ect all were installed in advance of the population and done w bond money. Like my parents I have financed all my real estate and after my early 20's all my cars, motorcycles,bicycles, and other expensive purchases have been made with other than a lump sum payment.
Lots of young protesters did not do any worst case scenario thinking about what would happen if they took on 100,000+ in debt before entering the work force. Well it's worst case and lots of people are sleeping in parks and yelling about the stinky state of things. Taking temp cash from the people who currently have it is short sighted and is not a long term solution for things like income, healthcare and education. If you are 25 w a masters and think that there is anything that can be given to you at 25 that will get you rolling or sustain you until 75 or 80, and then into your retirement you are high, really, really high.
The world has changed so rapidly that nobody could foresee it globally as things have gone from dream to reality. Not so many years ago, an ipod,computer, expensive clothes and activities were all things to be saved for. The last 25 years ,America has erased that from our collective mind. We get everything on demand. In many places that I have lived in the last 10 years I sit side by side at bars, cafes,bike shops, clothing stores and car dealers,ect, and on and on with people that are students and young people that have a mindset that everything is automatic, hand it to me. When I was in school I would have never thought of buying a new car or an 6000 dollar bicycle. If protesters have looked at things pragmatically and see that power is not in Washington but instead is really Wall St and think they can skip the practices of elected government everybody is in for even more disappointed than they currently feel. Banking is changed w laws,not Halloween masks and sleeping bags, may get things started but political power will make the change.

Here I agree with you. The problem of course is that laws that would limit too much the range of banking practices, even if the system is in need of a fundamental overhaul, will never be passed under the current regime. Thus attempts by protesters to force hands are not only necessary but required: Halloween masks, sleeping bags and all. My what a conformist you are.

Too much greed has taken over and the politicians are owned by those with every vested interest to keep the system where it's at for as long as they have the necessary pressure to bear in getting government to pretty much concede to them everything they want.

If there is something useful and needed in the protesters pleas, it is a call for ending this type of grotesque system, because it has taken democracy out of the state.

The ridiculous attempts to vilify the no-Wall Streeters, by hyping up calls to kill the rich are, therefore, puerile and base (which have become the typical attitudes of today's right who have no principle to build on). If anything the rich and mighty have been killing society for decades, even if the credit boom in your lifetime has seemed to indicate otherwise. In fact the illusory and toxic aspects of having the banks own everything, so that private citizens have to essentially turn over all of their wages (which have not been increasing) to them the moment the paychecks come in, has now begun to rear its ugly head after the housing market blew up and the recession hit.

This is why I espouse a radical shift in the way people perceive wellbeing, which is other than the depraved materialism they have been weaned on, and what it means to live truly free and with real liberty, because nobody that is owned by a bank is either free nor has liberty. Neither can democracy exist under such a regime.

The credit boom that has buoyed the consumer economy over the last decades has been, therefore, a deceptive scam that has enslaved the working class to the banks and has painted a rather bleak future for the emerging generation, who feels that it has less opportunities than their parents and grandparents had, while having to assume the massive debts that it inherited from them.

Such people are naturally quite irate. To therefore paint them as a bunch of spoilt hypocrites or dangerous fanatics, when in fact it is the system protagonists against whom they are protesting today who are hypocrisy and fanaticism personified, is merely grotesque and ridiculous. And it demonstrates a total blindness to the obvious, apart from being an appalling distortion tactic based upon an ideological position.

Once again there needs to be a new and radical mentality created. How this is to be done I don't know, only that it must be done.

We all need to embrace our own mortality and "happy downsizing", whereas government needs to regulate the banks and Wall Street in ways that protect the middle and lower classes from its most predatory and exploitative practices.

I also think the globalization that's driven by financial capitalism needs to be totally rethought, which probably means returning to some form of local and protectionist market system for humanities own good. This should also be accompanied by programs that support more international cooperation, not more competition, and ones that develope renewed appreciation for local cultures and local environments while cultivating a higher global awareness. Finding a way to make what in the present culture is contradictory work, seems to me to be a visionary path to follow.

This is a form of globalization I can live with.

 

[redtreviso]

Too much greed has taken over and the politicians are owned by those with every vested interest to keep the system where it's at for as long as they have the necessary pressure to bear in getting government to pretty much concede to them everything they want.

It is really come to the point where wall street doesn't have to actively pollute the political system. They can just threaten it outright as if they are THE superpower, their own nation..Don't grovel at our feet? We'll turn the credit markets upside down and crush those silly indexes you watch, but we care little about into nothing.

The big submission was Bush in september 08.. Hell.. that was inaugural day..The ceding of power.

 

[rhubroma]

....



Nope. How about answering the question? Socialized medicine, safety nets... what about housing? Don't dither, tell me your opinion and why.



It's likely I understand far more than you seem to think, but I have no desire to change your interpretation. In fact, it's the standard arrogance of leftists everywhere to think they are the smartest people in the room. By all means, carry on...



So I'll take this to mean there really isn't legal unfettered capitalism in the US and you are using this rhetoric as nothing more than a talking point. I'd ask you to think for your self but I'm not sure it would have much effect.



I'm not so sure. We look more and more like Europe every day. I live in Cali. There was a nice Vanity Fair article recently pointing out some of our issues (see Greece). I think we evolved quite a bit (from what made this country hum)...

Well the path toward building a common European economic system, based on the same financial capitalism as it is practiced in the US, will probably mean that everyone (except for a select and privileged few) gets poorer. And this is what is happening in America too, under the neoliberal capitalist regime that has now gone global: namely, in the future we will see an ever widening gap between the rich and a middle class that becomes increasingly more numerous and decidedly poorer. Under the fanatical liberal (in the economic sense) obsession to make the markets grow, the peripheral Euro states have gotten themselves bogged down in debt, which, coupled with the poor economy we’re in, has made the deficits go beyond the acceptable European parameters. Though this isn’t a problem with the social state or public services, as the market fundamentalists especially in America for ideological reasons like to put the blame on, but with the type of mad financial capitalism that has been practiced since globalization has set in in my honest opinion. So a common myth about Europe's rise in public debt is that it is the product of a fiscal policy that runs contrary to neoliberal economic philosophy which America (and many capitalists in Europe) has championed. In fact, just the opposite is true. The reality is that the peripheral euro zone states, like Spain and Ireland, which previously had low public debts with respect to their deficits, received large bank loans when the common euro currency replaced the national ones.

Those funds were not largely spent within the public sector, though, but primarily within the private one and particularly in the real estate market. When the recession hit the demand consequently diminished and when the boom in loans brusquely dried-up as a result, a crisis was born that was both economic and fiscal. Following the ideology of eternal market growth and the logic of financial capitalism, coupled by violent recession, the crisis sent the state budgets profoundly in the red. In the meantime the cost of emergency in extremis interventions of the banks brought about an unforeseen increase in the now gloated public debts. One of the results of which has been a decline in investors' trust in the national bonds of the peripheral states, made worse by a large dose of speculation at the world’s financial exchanges.

Whereas Greece should be treated as a separate issue. It’s true that the country has an elephant sized public work sector that is in need of moderate downsizing, but this was not the main reason for the disaster, but the corruption and inefficiency of the Greek political class as well as the fact that tax evasion among the rich and non-state employed is rampant. For Greece was actually encouraged and pressured by US foreign policy makers to borrow more against its already staggering debt, which was of course facilitated by the banks and accepted by thoroughly mendacious politicians, in the belief that with structural reforms the Greeks could turn those loans into profit to help lower its debt. But what really has taken place is a situation that has bread speculation on Greek state bonds that has crippled the country, which essentially means that all the checks the government needs to pay out to make the country run (that includes workers’ salaries and pensions) risk not being released if Greece goes into default. Yet there will be banks and hedge funds that stand to make a killing at the financial markets if that happens. So basically the pocket book of an entire nation has been gambled with at the market, after that state following the same market logic was egged on and abetted by its superiors to take on more loans. This is why the Greek protesters were rightly so irate. Larger powers than they promoted rampant corruption and greed, because this is what financial capitalism essentially propagates, to cause a disaster that the common class had little to do with, but that will suffer the greatest for it.

All of this means that the problems Europe is facing today aren't in any way connected to the social state, but by internal and external pressures to embark upon a mad, precipitous rush toward financial capitalism and speculation, where everything is done hastily because of greed and without ever carefully considering where one is going or why. In fact I was reading the other day about how the banks and the hedge fund investors stand to make a killing on Greece's sovereign debt at the expense of the German tax payers and, of course, of the public services for Greeks. Add this to the long list of reasons why the financial apparatus is irrevocably hostile to the public interests. It isn't that a social democratic state is too expensive, but that the private sector and the government have squandered and misused all the funds.

Whereas to quote Gregod: "since the dollar is the de facto reserve currency, the US which has the highest debt of them all could use this to its advantage to borrow its way out of the current economic crisis and help pay down some of its debt", unlike Greece. "Unfortunately this is politically untenable because republicans (and some democrats) are opposed to any increased spending. It is therefore foreseeable an American future of continued political and economic stagnation. Ultimately this will probably lead to the rest of the world having to forgive some US debt; in effect, bail out America at other countries' expense."

But I’m starting to think even beyond this because the financial markets and all the lobbying has reduced the Western democracies to utter shams. Even the protesters in the States these days leave us little hope that anything will change. It’s like George Carlin said of the business and financial plutocrats “they own the f-ing country and guess what they don’t care about you. You don’t count!...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRQvK2-iqQ&NR=1

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I for one believe that in the short term these protests are going to satisfy a few people emotionally, but will have nearly zero impact on a political or legislative, or economic for that matter, level. Zip. There is so much money entrenched into politics, so much collusion between the super wealthy and politicians, it just isn't going to happen. I think even if the protests continue, and some turn violent, they at most would help fuel a large sweep in Congress next year. But even then, there will be little change. The new set of politicians will be corrupted with money, just like the current set. There could be some window dressing in fancy named legislation, but I see little change.

It is my honest, blunt opinion at this point that there will be no serious change until the superwealthy/political powers in control are faced with destruction of their livelihood, be that by hook or by crook. And at the rate things are going, I won't be surprised to see that happening.

...The most recent list included a demand that Citizens United be overturned... It is so destructive to our rights as individual citizens that it is mind boggling.

Very true. And if when you are an attorney, and if you pursue this with your career, you'll change the world.

I remember a columnist (for most newspapers in India) commenting that journalists are glorified stenographers.

Having worked in the media, this is an oversimplification. Most nearly every media outlet is corporate owned, and run by for-profit businesses, usually with greedy short-sighted shareholders and CEOs. Typical Corporate America. There is very little investigative journalism left, that is true. The days of Edward Murrow are all but over. And it is true that probably 90% of all news is regurgitated from some other media outlet, with another 7% chasing press releases, following politicians around for sound bites with hardly asking a question, when they're not following police scanners, security cams, and answering phones. But just like a lot of other career jobs, there are still quite a few very dedicated and skilled people in that profession, as entrenched as the industry may be.

By the way, Palin won't run, even as an independent. Though Rubio could run as VP for Romney. He has "worthy" neocon/TP credentials, and is the top money raiser in Congress of Koch money. And as I said folks, it's money, money, and more money. They can never get or have enough, no matter how they get it.

 

[redtreviso]

""RYAN J. REILLY OCTOBER 7, 2011, 11:56 AM 273 0
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) told the audience he was at the Values Voters Summit “every year because I’m a value voter.”

He then suggested that “value voters” should also pay attention to the husbands and wives of the people actually on the ballot.

“When you look at someone to determine whether they’d be the right person for public office, look at who they lay down with at night and what they believe,” Santorum said.

“Who is the person at their side who has been the closest counselor to that person?” Santorum said.""

If they are wearing diapers, you know it's a Republican

 

[Anonymous]

Again, the poster was intimating the tea party to be revolutionaries. My response was to say they are not revolutionaries but have an adherence to an originalist interpretation of the US Constitution (straight out of Wki). Revolutionary? Uh, no.

So you are a believer that a judge must then interpret legislative enactments as though the document is "living" when the original text does not provide clear and specific language necessary to apply a particular provision. Good, that is a much more reasonable interpretation. So you will then agree with Judge Graham (who clerked for Scalia and is considered a very conservative judge) of the 6th Circuit who said that the Commerce Clause (because it does not give rise to a readily applicable interpretation regarding the healthcare mandate) would permit the health care mandate based on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and the relevant case law (where many times Scalia has himself upheld a VERY BROAD application).

Glad to have you aboard!!

 

[redtreviso]

Lets burn some witches and install anti aircraft missiles in our backyards..

Fat Tony would be ok with it..

 

[VeloCity]

The constitution isn't the problem here.

In many ways it very much is. We're so tied to the mythology and tradition (and the legality) of this piece of paper written 300 years ago that we don't have the political flexibility to adapt to a rapidly changing world. It might have been fine when the US was the behemoth that called the shots, but we're not in that position anymore and we're probably not ever going to be again.

But if you think the govt is the best source to provide your health care then shouldn't they provide a safe place for you to live? I mean, shelter is a pretty big deal and it's as much a right as decent healthcare. Don't you agree?

Which just reinforces that you really do have no idea how those countries function, nor how health care is organized in those countries. Hint: governments don't choose where you live any more than they choose your doctor.

I own my home. I deduct the interest I pay on my mortgage (legal, btw) from my gross income. So, by that measure, do I live in socialized housing?

I think you're conflating "subsidized housing" with "socialized housing". "Socialized housing" in the context that I used the term has many, many meanings and connotations beyond the economic. So totally random and in no particular order: when you bought that house, and if you ever plan to sell it, you by federal law have to adhere to the Fair Housing Act (a truly socialist measure), your home has to meet certain building codes and restrictions set by the federal government, any substantial changes require a government-issued building permit, there are any number of federal laws that prohibit you from doing certain things as a homeowner, the construction workers who built your house were protected by OSHA (a federal safety program), part of the taxes that you pay are used to fund HUD and other federally-subsidized housing programs, your neighborhood is protected by government-run police and fire departments and serviced by public transportation, etc etc etc. And I'm assuming you got your mortgage through a bank, which is probably insured by the FDIC.

Really, there's no aspect of your home - from construction to addressing to taxes to protection to what you can and can't do as a homeowner - that doesn't fall under the auspices of one "socialized" measure or another, ranging from federal laws to homeowner association rules and regs. Which is essentially true of every facet of American life, whether conservatives want to acknowledge it or not.

Nope. It's used typically with devastating effect to illustrate absurdity. But not for everything.

Odd, then, that even some conservatives ask why conservatives resort to using it all the time:

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/why-do-conserva.html

You mean like conservatives are stupid, racist, bigoted, sexist, selfish, gun-happy homophobes?

Conservatives have to accept the fact that your side does attract that element of society, just like our side tends to attract the dreamy-eyed pie-in-the-sky social utopians. It's not fair - left or right - to say that those elements define us, but we can't deny that they exist, either.

Our system is broken not by design but by corruption. Corruption plagues all systems, including a parliamentary one. We need to reform corporate and big money donors ability to purchase political favor.

The problems run far deeper than that. What we're starting to see over the past couple of decades is the limitations of the presidential system - it's inherent inflexibility (the electoral college, for eg). Which is aided and abetted by a growing societal inflexibility as well. We're fast becoming the cranky old geezers of the world.

That's really what you want, isn't it? Since the world's economies have a base need for energy this will basically reach your goal of no expansion. Okay, it's your world view. I understand.

What I want is unlimited oil and no GHGs so I can drive my car whenever I want as far as I want or to hop on a plane and fly cheaply to Tahiti. What I understand is that the real world doesn't work that way, that resources are not unlimited, that an economic system based on growth and expansion is unsustainable, that there's no silver bullet energy-source replacement waiting in the wings, and that we're irreversibly altering our climate (and oceans) for short-term convenience and gain that will in the long run end up costing us immensely. I also understand that we can mitigate the impacts of future crises through the enactment of some basic proactive measures such as energy conservation and reducing GHG emissions. Measures which conservatives, who can't see beyond Exxon-Mobil's bottom line, are totally against.

I can guarantee you someone like Steve Jobs would never, ever subscribe to this way of thinking. Very few things are a zero sum game... certainly not the global economy.

I can't say that I really care much what Steve Jobs may or may not have thought about anything.

Ironic that you should bring up Steve Jobs in the context of resource limitations, though. Look up rare earth minerals and cell phones sometime.

 

[Anonymous]

In many ways it very much is. We're so tied to the mythology and tradition (and the legality) of this piece of paper written 300 years ago that we don't have the political flexibility to adapt to a rapidly changing world. It might have been fine when the US was the behemoth that called the shots, but we're not in that position anymore and we're probably not ever going to be again.
Which just reinforces that you really do have no idea how those countries function, nor how health care is organized in those countries. Hint: governments don't choose where you live any more than they choose your doctor.

I think you're conflating "subsidized housing" with "socialized housing". "Socialized housing" in the context that I used the term has many, many meanings and connotations beyond the economic. So totally random and in no particular order: when you bought that house, and if you ever plan to sell it, you by federal law have to adhere to the Fair Housing Act (a truly socialist measure), your home has to meet certain building codes and restrictions set by the federal government, any substantial changes require a government-issued building permit, there are any number of federal laws that prohibit you from doing certain things as a homeowner, the construction workers who built your house were protected by OSHA (a federal safety program), part of the taxes that you pay are used to fund HUD and other federally-subsidized housing programs, your neighborhood is protected by government-run police and fire departments and serviced by public transportation, etc etc etc. And I'm assuming you got your mortgage through a bank, which is probably insured by the FDIC.

Really, there's no aspect of your home - from construction to addressing to taxes to protection to what you can and can't do as a homeowner - that doesn't fall under the auspices of one "socialized" measure or another, ranging from federal laws to homeowner association rules and regs. Which is essentially true of every facet of American life, whether conservatives want to acknowledge it or not.

Odd, then, that even some conservatives ask why conservatives resort to using it all the time:

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/why-do-conserva.html

Conservatives have to accept the fact that your side does attract that element of society, just like our side tends to attract the dreamy-eyed pie-in-the-sky social utopians. It's not fair - left or right - to say that those elements define us, but we can't deny that they exist, either.

The problems run far deeper than that. What we're starting to see over the past couple of decades is the limitations of the presidential system - it's inherent inflexibility (the electoral college, for eg). Which is aided and abetted by a growing societal inflexibility as well. We're fast becoming the cranky old geezers of the world.

What I want is unlimited oil and no GHGs so I can drive my car whenever I want as far as I want or to hop on a plane and fly cheaply to Tahiti. What I understand is that the real world doesn't work that way, that resources are not unlimited, that an economic system based on growth and expansion is unsustainable, that there's no silver bullet energy-source replacement waiting in the wings, and that we're irreversibly altering our climate (and oceans) for short-term convenience and gain that will in the long run end up costing us immensely. I also understand that we can mitigate the impacts of future crises through the enactment of some basic proactive measures such as energy conservation and reducing GHG emissions. Measures which conservatives, who can't see beyond Exxon-Mobil's bottom line, are totally against.

I can't say that I really care much what Steve Jobs may or may not have thought about anything.

Ironic that you should bring up Steve Jobs in the context of resource limitations, though. Look up rare earth minerals and cell phones sometime.

In many ways it very much is. We're so tied to the mythology and tradition (and the legality) of this piece of paper written 300 years ago that we don't have the political flexibility to adapt to a rapidly changing world.

More or less rapidly than the industrial revolution? How often do we adapt our founding document? Every election cycle? Every 90 days? What?

Which just reinforces that you really do have no idea how those countries function, nor how health care is organized in those countries. Hint: governments don't choose where you live any more than they choose your doctor.

Yeah, uh no. I'm pretty well versed in the medical system in Canada and the UK... getting up to speed with the french and Belgians.

So still no answer on the socialized housing? Let's say the govt proposes something similar to socialized medicine... Everyone's basic housing need is met and taxpayer funded. Not telling any individual where to live, but providing for basic housing. You for or against and why?

I think you're conflating "subsidized housing" with "socialized housing". "Socialized housing" in the context that I used the term has many, many meanings and connotations beyond the economic.

I'm conflating nothing. YOU said all housing was socialized to one degree or another. With a lengthy paragraph you proceed to demonstrate layers and layers of regulatory mish mash:

So totally random and in no particular order: when you bought that house, and if you ever plan to sell it, you by federal law have to adhere to the Fair Housing Act (a truly socialist measure), your home has to meet certain building codes and restrictions set by the federal government, any substantial changes require a government-issued building permit, there are any number of federal laws that prohibit you from doing certain things as a homeowner, the construction workers who built your house were protected by OSHA (a federal safety program), part of the taxes that you pay are used to fund HUD and other federally-subsidized housing programs, your neighborhood is protected by government-run police and fire departments and serviced by public transportation, etc etc etc. And I'm assuming you got your mortgage through a bank, which is probably insured by the FDIC.

When someone like me complains of regulatory burden being overbearing this (in part as you have missed multiple layers) is what we are talking about.

Really, there's no aspect of your home - from construction to addressing to taxes to protection to what you can and can't do as a homeowner - that doesn't fall under the auspices of one "socialized" measure or another, ranging from federal laws to homeowner association rules and regs. Which is essentially true of every facet of American life, whether conservatives want to acknowledge it or not.

Dude, we acknowledge it. Scream about it. Now, that does not mean that I want no govt. It means that 30 redundancies is probably 25 too many.

What I want is unlimited oil and no GHGs so I can drive my car whenever I want as far as I want or to hop on a plane and fly cheaply to Tahiti. What I understand is that the real world doesn't work that way, that resources are not unlimited, that an economic system based on growth and expansion is unsustainable, that there's no silver bullet energy-source replacement waiting in the wings, and that we're irreversibly altering our climate (and oceans) for short-term convenience and gain that will in the long run end up costing us immensely. I also understand that we can mitigate the impacts of future crises through the enactment of some basic proactive measures such as energy conservation and reducing GHG emissions. Measures which conservatives, who can't see beyond Exxon-Mobil's bottom line, are totally against.

I'll start conserving when Al Gore starts flying commercially and lives in a (as in one) 1800 Square Foot energy efficient home and walks everywhere he goes.

You are aware that every time you exhale you are contributing to the problem?

I know. Let's institute a breathing tax. We can get people to exhale less. We'll have to get a waiver for cycling though, as they are super polluters.

Yes, I am being facetious. In case you are wondering, I'm not yet convinced of the whole man-made global warming theory no matter how loud Al Gore screams.

I'd like to see us get away from fossil fuels. I'd like to snap my fingers and have cold fusion. But at least for now, we need energy. The most cost effective is fossil and that's the way it goes. At some point, we will go away from fossil but I'd like to see that happen sometime other than a near global economic meltdown and when there are viable alternatives that are clean and sustainable.

I can't say that I really care much what Steve Jobs may or may not have thought about anything.

Obviously.

 

[VeloCity]

More or less rapidly than the industrial revolution? How often do we adapt our founding document? Every election cycle? Every 90 days? What?

Not for me to decide. But imo it's archaic enough that an overhaul should be considered now.

Yeah, uh no. I'm pretty well versed in the medical system in Canada and the UK... getting up to speed with the french and Belgians.

Then you know they're more cost-effective, more efficient, involve less bureaucracy and red tape (and fewer lawyers), and result in healthier populations. More bang for your buck - isn't that what conservatives say they want?

So still no answer on the socialized housing? Let's say the govt proposes something similar to socialized medicine... Everyone's basic housing need is met and taxpayer funded. Not telling any individual where to live, but providing for basic housing. You for or against and why?

I've responded to that question repeatedly.

Let's try it this way:

The reason we on the left push for universal health care is because there are existing, viable models that the US could adopt now - there's nothing hypothetical about them, they're real, they've been proven effective, and they're better than the system we have at present.

Your question about socialized housing, on the other hand, is purely hypothetical and has nothing to do with reality, since there's no existing model of the type of socialized housing program that you're proposing. So even though I have answered it repeatedly by pointing out that there is no model on which to base a response, any "answer" to your question is going to be purely hypothetical anyway, and therefore completely irrelevant.

It'd be like me asking a libertarian to respond to a question about a libertarian society - any response he/she gave might be interesting as a purely intellectual exercise, but it would also be completely meaningless, since in the real world there's no such thing as a libertarian society and therefore no working model they could point to to justify their view.

In other words, it's a red herring. Let's stick to reality.

I'll start conserving when Al Gore starts flying commercially and lives in an (as in one) 1800 Square Foot energy efficient home and walks everywhere he goes.

Time for you to start conserving, then. Al Gore buys carbon offsets. He's carbon neutral. And he lives in one of the most energy-efficient houses in the country.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2224869...ets-green-kudos-home-renovation/#.To9lNJtT-4c

And while we're at it, he never claimed to invent the internet, either.

In case you are wondering, I'm not yet convinced of the whole man-made global warming theory no matter how loud Al Gore screams.

Then stop listening to Al Gore and start reading the scientific literature. He's been effective at raising awareness, but he's a politician, not a scientist. These guys are scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org

I'm an editor for a science journal. I review papers on climate research and their accompanying data every day. The evidence from every discipline - not just climatology but ecology, microbiology, oceanography, biogeochemistry, and so on - is overwhelming. There's a lot we still don't know about the science of climate change, that is certainly true, but one thing I can tell you unequivocally: it's real, it's driven by human activity, and the impacts, even according to the most conservative models, are going to be disastrous. Plug your ears all you want, it's not going away.

I'd like to see us get away from fossil fuels. I'd like to snap my fingers and have cold fusion. But at least for now, we need energy. The most cost effective is fossil and that's the way it goes.

The most cost effective in the short term. In the long term, the global reliance on fossil fuels is going to cost us dearly, and not just economically. Even now there are plenty of options - conservation, greater reliance on alternatives, electric vehicles that use solar stations for battery recharge, etc - but while conservatives in the US sit on their hands and blather on about the size of Al Gore's house, many of our economic competitors are well beyond that and are already starting to make the transition away from fossil fuels. In other words, they're planning for the future. Unless we start trying to catch up soon - which we won't, because of our calcified political system - they're going to be in much better shape than we will be.

At some point, we will go away from fossil but I'd like to see that happen sometime other than a near global economic meltdown and when there are viable alternatives that are clean and sustainable.

As I said before, that's wishful thinking - there is no silver bullet in the wings that will replace fossil fuels. We need to stop waiting for someone, somewhere to find one and start moving forward with the technologies that are already at hand.

I know that conservatives hate to hear this, but there's a better than decent chance that you're going to be in for a very big shock if you think we're going to be able to sustain our lifestyle beyond the next couple of decades.

 

[Anonymous]

Not for me to decide. But imo it's archaic enough that an overhaul should be considered now.

Then you know they're more cost-effective, more efficient, involve less bureaucracy and red tape (and fewer lawyers), and result in healthier populations. More bang for your buck - isn't that what conservatives say they want?

I've responded to that question repeatedly.

Let's try it this way:

The reason we on the left push for universal health care is because there are existing, viable models that the US could adopt now - there's nothing hypothetical about them, they're real, they've been proven effective, and they're better than the system we have at present.

Your question about socialized housing, on the other hand, is purely hypothetical and has nothing to do with reality, since there's no existing model of the type of socialized housing program that you're proposing. So even though I have answered it repeatedly by pointing out that there is no model on which to base a response, any "answer" to your question is going to be purely hypothetical anyway, and therefore completely irrelevant.

It'd be like me asking a libertarian to respond to a question about a libertarian society - any response he/she gave might be interesting as a purely intellectual exercise, but it would also be completely meaningless, since in the real world there's no such thing as a libertarian society and therefore no working model they could point to to justify their view.

In other words, it's a red herring. Let's stick to reality.

Time for you to start conserving, then. Al Gore buys carbon offsets. He's carbon neutral. And he lives in one of the most energy-efficient houses in the country.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2224869...ets-green-kudos-home-renovation/#.To9lNJtT-4c

And while we're at it, he never claimed to invent the internet, either.

Then stop listening to Al Gore and start reading the scientific literature. He's been effective at raising awareness, but he's a politician, not a scientist. These guys are scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org

I'm an editor for a science journal. I review papers on climate research and their accompanying data every day. The evidence from every discipline - not just climatology but ecology, microbiology, oceanography, biogeochemistry, and so on - is overwhelming. There's a lot we still don't know about the science of climate change, that is certainly true, but one thing I can tell you unequivocally: it's real, it's driven by human activity, and the impacts, even according to the most conservative models, are going to be disastrous. Plug your ears all you want, it's not going away.

The most cost effective in the short term. In the long term, the global reliance on fossil fuels is going to cost us dearly, and not just economically. Even now there are plenty of options - conservation, greater reliance on alternatives, electric vehicles that use solar stations for battery recharge, etc - but while conservatives in the US sit on their hands and blather on about the size of Al Gore's house, many of our economic competitors are well beyond that and are already starting to make the transition away from fossil fuels. In other words, they're planning for the future. Unless we start trying to catch up soon - which we won't, because of our calcified political system - they're going to be in much better shape than we will be.

As I said before, that's wishful thinking - there is no silver bullet in the wings that will replace fossil fuels. We need to stop waiting for someone, somewhere to find one and start moving forward with the technologies that are already at hand.

I know that conservatives hate to hear this, but there's a better than decent chance that you're going to be in for a very big shock if you think we're going to be able to sustain our lifestyle beyond the next couple of decades.

Not for me to decide. But imo it's archaic enough that an overhaul should be considered now.

Agree to disagree.

Then you know they're more cost-effective, more efficient, involve less bureaucracy and red tape (and fewer lawyers), and result in healthier populations. More bang for your buck - isn't that what conservatives say they want?

Depends on what data you are looking at. I've said it before, if you bring the WHO study into this argument then be prepared to defend their methodology.

and they're better than the system we have at present.

Your opinion and very debatable. Rationing, end of life, cancer, cost containment... there are challenges with every system. USA is where it's at if you are ever diagnosed with cancer.

Your question about socialized housing, on the other hand, is purely hypothetical and has nothing to do with reality, since there's no existing model of the type of socialized housing program that you're proposing. So even though I have answered it repeatedly by pointing out that there is no model on which to base a response, any "answer" to your question is going to be purely hypothetical anyway, and therefore completely irrelevant.

Untrue. There's a fair amount of socialized housing in this country today. Section 8 housing provides for more than 2 million households right now.

For the fourth time... If this were proposed (which no doubt it will be at some point) will you defend the idea of socialized housing (as a basic right) the way you are defending socialized medicine?

Al Gore buys carbon offsets.

Yes he does. And he sell the **** out of them too. Made hundreds of millions of dollars creating a false solution to a problem that may not exist (in the way he portrays it).

Al Gore is a capitalist in the finest tradition of the most wildly successful snake oil salesman. And he's a D-Bag to boot, just ask Tipper.

it's real, it's driven by human activity,

It's real and no one knows for certain what's what (just yet). But assuming you are correct, what of the vast Asian rice fields, Chinese economic expansion (pollution), the Indian economic expansion (pollution), vast cattle farms... I mean, it's methane that's the real problem, right?

I'm sure you are familiar with the opposition to your declaration above so I'm going to side with the idea that, to the extent it's possible, we should diverge from fossil fuels when it's possible to do so.

And he lives in one of the most energy-efficient houses in the country.

You mean the $9,000,000 villa in Montecito?

As I said before, that's wishful thinking - there is no silver bullet in the wings that will replace fossil fuels. We need to stop waiting for someone, somewhere to find one and start moving forward with the technologies that are already at hand.

I think we are doing that now. See Solyndra.

Look, I'm a "all the above" guy, but cap and trade is a fraud and will have zero effect on the global situation even if you are right. It is crippling our economy with no global benefit. Sheer brilliance (for the Al Gore's of the world).

I know that conservatives hate to hear this, but there's a better than decent chance that you're going to be in for a very big shock if you think we're going to be able to sustain our lifestyle beyond the next couple of decades.

No, it's not for the next couple of decades, the lifestyle of the 1990's is over right now. That much is clear.

 

[redtreviso]

No, it's not for the next couple of decades, the lifestyle of the 1990's is over right now. That much is clear.

Thanks to your kind

 

[blutto]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-POLdhhuq0...LMNo/s1600/WHO_INCREASED_THE+debt_82456_n.jpg

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, to hear the conservatives talk, they'd say Reagan's debt was Carter's fault, and Clinton benefited from sound policies by Reagan and Bush, etc.

But this can of course be flipped. I mean, how much of the current economic situation is Obama or Bush's fault? Depends on who you ask.

 

[redtreviso]

Well, to hear the conservatives talk, they'd say Reagan's debt was Carter's fault, and Clinton benefited from sound policies by Reagan and Bush, etc.

But this can of course be flipped. I mean, how much of the current economic situation is Obama or Bush's fault? Depends on who you ask.

Bush was one big aug6 PDB over and over for 8 years..Any warnings were met with "why do you hate america?" "don't you remember 911?" The denial that there was a problem needing to be dealt with is typical of Bush and Cheney's ummmm habits or "FORMER" habits..Unregulated derivative exposures growing to 11 times the total value of the stock market????? DUH...not a peep except to brag how more americans were buying homes.