Tuesday Night Open Mic for September 22, 2009

Open Mic 1Tuesday Night Open Mic is upon us again. I wanted to write last night. I really did. However, Mrs. Weapon needed me more than you guys needed me. So she won. For the record she is starting to improve. She is still pretty sore and she can’t be on her feet for more than a few minutes, but each day gets a little better. As always, I appreciate the well wishes from all of you, as does Mrs. Weapon. As I was reading news last night there were all these different things that I saw that I thought, “oh, that would be a good one for the ‘quick hit’ open mic style.” My hope is that I will be able to go back and find them all tonight. The upcoming days will see me addressing the race issue a bit further and continuing on with some good articles I have been working on. I am hoping in the coming couple of weeks to offer a couple of further pieces on health care and a couple more articles that help us to debate and define our positions going forward. Should be interesting.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    It Is Five Minutes To Environmental Midnight. We Need To Act – Urgently

    We are – at the same time – thrillingly close and sickeningly far from solving our planetary fever. The world’s leaders huddled in New York City yesterday to discuss man-made global warming, in a United Nations building that will soon be underwater if they fail. They all know what has to happen: their scientists have told them, plainly and urgently.

    As man-made warming rises up to 2.4 degrees Celsius, all sorts of awful things happen – whole island-states in the South Pacific will drown, for example – but we can stop it. If we turn off the warming gases, the temperature will stabilize. But if we go beyond 2.4 degrees, global warming will run away from us, and we will have lost the Stop button. The Amazon rainforest will dry out and burn down, releasing all the carbon stored in the trees; the vast amounts of warming gases stored in the Arctic will be belched into the atmosphere; and so three degrees will turn ineluctably to four degrees, which will turn to five degrees, and the planet will rapidly become a place we do not recognize.

    Read the entire article at the Huffington Post: Johann Hari: It Is Five Minutes To Environmental Midnight. We Need To Act – Urgently

    You know, We have talked through a lot of this global warming stuff in the past on this site. I am on the record saying that the global warming alarmists are 100% full of shit. I don’t buy it, not one single bit of it. And every person who does buy it ends up losing intelligence points in my book. But I realize that I am a pretty smart guy. I use reason and logic to form my opinions. But there is a large audience out there in America who isn’t so smart, and would not know how to use reason to form an opinion no matter how many times we show them. And they are getting their opinions fed to them by media fruitcakes like Johann Hari.

    I want you to read this article so that you have some idea of how absolutely bat-shit crazy these enviro-nuts are. I really have had it with their apocalypse rhetoric and off the wall claims and complete inability to use reason and logic when discussing the issue. It really is like they are in effing la la land, where the kool-aid rains from 40 foot waterfalls and where all the facts that dispute their absolute bullshit theory of man made global warming simply don’t exist.

    And people like Johann Hari sound the bugle of a threat, that is in reality no greater than Puerto Rico declaring war on the United States. I could blow off the eco-lackeys if there weren’t so many people actually listening to this madness. He discusses the massive losses that the solar companies are taking in Europe as their stock collapses. Perhaps that is because people are beginning to see that this entire hoax is just that…. and they are starting to refuse to pay attention to the idiots like Hari sounding a false alarm to the world.

    • Good Morning and best wishes to Mrs. Weapon!

      IMHO, these environmentalists are nothing short of the enemy of the people. Despite the constant whining that the glaciers are melting over the last 20= years, isn’t it amazing that not one single U.S. city has found itself underwater. This is a faitytale, from top to bottom.

      Will follow today.

      G!

    • If global warming is so dangerous, then we’re all dead anyway. Even if we stop ALL greenhouse gas emission TODAY, the effects will last for another 100 years. If what these people say is correct, that means we can do nothing about it.

      Also, countries like China and India will not stop emissions, so we’re all dead anyway, even if the US does something…

    • By the way, weather is a chaotic system. That means that no matter how much information one has about the climate now, there is no way to predict what will happen in the future. That is not opinion, it is math.

    • The worst thing about this from my perspective is that it is being preached in the schools as FACT. Never mind the FACT that there are no FACTS to prove.

      The only thing I worry about with this UN thing is that Obama seems so willing to throw our asses under the bus without reciprocation from other nations.

    • You know, the whole thing is very complicated and a lot of very smart people (not necessarily including the author of that article) are convinced that this is a legitimate danger. I do not know if they are correct, nor can I claim definitively that they are wrong. All I do know is that belching mass quantities of anything into the atmosphere changes the atmosphere. That said, it is a chaotic system which we do not yet fully understand and the potential downsides are huge. Thus, I urge caution until we know for certain that it is safe to act in our present manner.

      Everyone said CFC’s were perfectly harmless until we realized otherwise. The same was said of lead. However, though no examples come readily to mind, I am certain there are examples going the other way too where a substance was unnecessarily regulated because of environmental concerns.

      I just advocate for erring on the side of caution when a sizable number of intelligent and knowledgeable people claim that it will destroy all life on Earth.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Eggs for one. Apple juice for another. Mercury in fish when samples from the Smithsonian from way back show the same levels. I see mercury is back by the way. Amazing what a short attention span the media has.

        At 62, I’ve seen colder winters, hotter summers. and a real wild and woolly decade from about ’52 to ’62 when it seemed there was a major hurricane a year (or two) blowing through NYC.

        How much CO2 and pollution from one volcano? Wouldn’t it be better to outlaw volcanic eruptions? Al Gore could sell volcano credits to countries with the most active sites.

        Then we have those annoying facts like why is the Martian ice cap shrinking, sunspots or lack thereof and silly questions like why is Iceland called Iceland, why Greenland, Greenland and how did the ancient Roman Port City of Ostia get so far inland anyway?

        • We here in GA have had 3 straight years of the coldest summers I have ever experienced. Usually down here you can expect at least 20 – 30 days of +100 degree heat in our summers. The past 3 we have had 0. The temp has not gotten over about 95 all this summer.

          Doesn’t sound like much I know but if you live here you know there is a BIG difference between 95 and 105.

      • All very well, but it misses my point entirely. I simply suggest that adding something to a system changes the system – surely we cannot argue this. And that we are adding something – surely we cannot argue this either. Thus, we are changing the system. Are we changing it a lot? Are we doing damage? I have no idea and I make no claim either way. But I do think that, before we allow it to continue, we should know the ramifications. A lot of smart people think it’s a problem and I am not qualified to contradict them.

        Adding to SK, why do you drive on the parkway and park on the driveway? Why are hemorrhoids on your ass while asteroids are in the hemisphere*. I’m also not so sure about Microsoft Works***, Military Intelligence**, and jumbo shrimp either.

        *Yes, I know, asteroids are in space, deal with it.
        **Yes, I know, MI does a good job, but I had to use this one
        ***I make no apologies for this. Screw Microsoft.

        • By the same arguement we should not be trying to increase the numbers of trees that exsist. Since trees remove CO2 they are changing the system and we dont know what the end result may be.

          • And I would agree with that argument if a large number of scientists were warning about the dangers of Global Foresting.

            However, we know that we are increasing the presence of CO2 so adding trees to remove the CO2 mitigates the change somewhat (still, there could be other effects which I do not know about and caution should be advised).

            • The “large number” this day does not exceed the “larger number” very skeptical of the data used to formulate these “projections” and the very real problem they have found accessing the initial data before it goes conveniently missing.

              Myself and BF are regulars of http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and I have 11 other sources for weekly reading including the UK MET Office.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Could not agree with you more – given unlimited time to read and research I would to learn even more from both sides of this coin – the science, not the politics. What I continually come back to is that simpleton idea that if I view the Earth/nature as this complex ever-evolving and changing ‘system’, how certain can I really be that injecting more CO2 into the system will not adversely impact it? Can I say that I have enough science, and data, and proof that the system can indeed absorb it w/o permanently/negatively impacting the system? This is why, politics aside, I suggest we do at least acknowledge that what we’re doing today is not desirable. What happens next I leave to the SMEs on the matter.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The earth has been warmer in the past than it is now. We KNOW this.

            The earth has had higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the past than it has now. We KNOW this as well.

            Is it a GREAT idea to inject a lot of CO2 into the system that would not ordinarily be there naturally? Probably not, but given that water vapor is the main driver of heat retention within the earth’s atmosphere, and the heat retention properties of CO2 absolutely pale by comparison, and given that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been much higher in the past, I doubt our “intervention” in the system is having much of an effect whatsoever, if any.

          • Ray,

            I can agree that what we are doing today is not “desirable”. In other words, If the pollutants we put in the air are actually pollutants (which I think everyone agrees on), then it would be better if we were not putting them in the air. This speaks to the fact that we should always be looking for a better way to do things. That is a constant striving for progress.

            The issue I have is when we pass legislation that in many ways harms the citizen population. Cap and Trade, for example, increases the amount we will all pay for energy by a large amount. It also increases government control over both business and citizens. And the only reason why the public is asked to accept this harm being done to us is because we have to save the planet or die. It is the premise that is at issue.

            That is why I refuse to accept the argument. It is a political game being played. A mongering of fear used to pass legislation that the public would never accept if that fear were not being sowed. Climate change legislation is no better than Bush’s Patriot Act. Both bad for the people, both accepted through the use of fear tactics.

            USW

            • That’s one we can all agree on. Argue all you want about people’s doing it making the pool “tipping point” warmer but the real issue is how much urine do you want to swim in?

          • Ray:

            Wish I had seen your post earlier but hope you still see this.

            If you want to approach this and all matters relative to the environment with an “objective” and “scientific” approach then we have to separate “human values” from “facts” as we know them.

            It is the mixing of the two that has caused so much confusion, in turn resulting in wrong actions, including no action over time. Lets look at some examples per your statements.

            “What I continually come back to is that simpleton idea that if I view the Earth/nature as this complex ever-evolving and changing ’system’, how certain can I really be that injecting more CO2 into the system will not adversely impact it?” Fact: we know the system is in fact complex and ever-evolving and changing. In this part of your statment you are correct. This is one place most environmentalist types get lost. They issue their “value” judgment of good and bad based on a “static” environment or an “essentialy static” one, as in the past 200 years.

            But your statement also contains a “value” when you say “will not adversely impact it”. This requires some set of criteria from which to determine whether an “adverse impact” has occured or if it is just more “change”. All to often we assign “adverse” to any change that is outside the range we establish as “natural”. Yet this range is picked based upon some arbitrary judgment. For example, to assume that any change outside the range of the past 1000 years is “adverse” assumes a value determination that the last 1000 years is acceptable, and nothing else.

            Of course this all leads to the question of how values are determined. Are they those things of value relative to human existence or are they those things of value to the existence of other life on this planet. Obviously one can get different answers depending on the criteria selected. It is in fact the debate over which criteria to use that we see played out in the political arena relative to these issues. It is often hidden because the rhetoric is designed to keep it hidden by those who trully believe that humans should be sacrificed for the good of the planet. And yes, those types do exist and do play a significant role in this debate.

            Another value statement by you is: “This is why, politics aside, I suggest we do at least acknowledge that what we’re doing today is not desirable”. Again the word “desirable” reflects a value that must be based on some criteria to evaluate it.

            The folks like Al Gore have created a very emotionally charged environment with regard to this single issue. It makes it difficult to have a rational discussion about the causes, effects (changes) and then potential impacts (good and bad). Such an evaluation should consider all aspects, including economics.

            We are told mass migration will occur and cities will be lost to the oceans. Well, migration to where? Why will this be so terrible? How do we know or predict this?

            The greenies want us to spend trillions on capital investments to prevent warming. What is the difference if we spend trillions on moving our antiquated cities and rebuilding them with modern technology. Which is less costly in the long run?

            In evaluating all this we also need to look at what we can expect with no action. Technologies are on the horizon that could make burning coal obsolete. If we can’t really affect climate in the next 200 years then maybe it is cheaper to build levies now and wait for the climate to cool, and oceans levels to drop back to normal.

            And what if the science behind the warming claims is in fact flawed? Then we will have panicked and bankrupted our society even further, for no reason. There are just so many things in this debate that smell a little bad for my liking. I would like to see the whole political side of this take a big time out for a few years. Let the science trully undergo some serious evaluation and further testing. Five to ten years may be enough.

            If the predictions are correct it won’t make a big difference in the end results anyway.

            Sorry, I am starting to ramble on but you get the idea.

            Best Wishes
            JAC

            • Can’t have a logical conversation of “the facts” when the subject itself is a religion Ray. That’s Jabba the Gore’s contribution. He should have gotten a Nebula award not a Nobel.

    • http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

      Just a site I found while looking at past CO2 levels. About a quarter of the way down the page a graph showing Global temperature and atmoshperic CO2. The interesting part The CO2 content is lower now than it has been for the majority of geological time. Plants and animals seemed to have survived this long with higher levels of CO2, why is it all of the sudden the earth will be desolated if the CO2 levels rise too much? In the 70’s we were worried about global cooling now its global warming. In another 30 year we will probably be back to cooling again. I think the issue arises from people trying to feel like they have control over something that is absolutly out of their control.

      • No it’s the leftwing nuts being brainwashed by men who are using them as tools to preach the end of the world so they can tax us to death with Cap n Trade.It’s called wealth redistribution according to Obama.

    • I deal with large databases frequently that require me to compute different parameters and place statistical uncertainties on the result. I have learned that in data with a large amount of variance (noise), that the computed mean (average) and associated standard deviation is often meaningless. Subsequent remeasurement with more accurate equipment often results in a mean value that is outside the uncertainty of the previous result. As a result I have become very skeptical when viewing mean values computed from large noisy databases such as global temperatures.

      As an example, look up the historical meausurement of one of the most important physical parameters, the speed of light.

      The global average temperature is computed from data that varies from day to night, season to season, year to year, century to century. The variance is huge compared to the assigned uncertainty in the computed average.

      An article a few months ago in Physics Today pointed out the fallacy of the mean global temperature value. The value is computed assuming the data obeys Gaussian statistics (the normal bell shape curve) and as a result the central limit theorem. The central limit theorem states that the mean value of a sample set will converge to the true value given enough data. It is valid only when the underlying statistic has a finite variance, i.e. the tails of the bell shape curve approach zero at inifinity. Well guess what, the sun’s output obeys Levy statistics which does not have a finite variance nor a defined mean. From analysis of the variance only, the Physics Today article concluded that 68% of the temperature fluctuations measured on earth are a direct result of solar fluctuations. This per centage is significantly higher than what most global warmers and models have been assuming. So there models have a significant and fundamental flaw.

      Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear” to get an understanding of some of what is behind this. The title comes from his opinion that the media (to sell their product) and the politicians (to control us) need us in a perpetual state of fear. Global warming has replaced the Cold War as the mechanism for that. He points out that every storm, every disaster, etc. is played up by these groups as the worst event in history. The superlatives never cease.

      • An excellent book by the way…

        • meh.. his older stuff was much better. Read The Great Train Robbery if you can get your hands on a copy. And, of course, Jurassic Park – one of the very few cases where I enjoyed the movie more than the book.

          • Didn’t say it was his best work…but it is a good book…and based on a lot of research. Before he began the book, he was convinced that GW was true…his research led him in the other direction…smart man.

      • State of Fear was roundly criticized for it’s pseudo-science. One should not turn to Crichton for hard science – I have a real case of Velociraptorphobia thanks to him..
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/

        Also, I’m very excited to hear that he’s coming out with a new book despite dying a few months ago. Now that is talent.

        • Criticized because it strikes the nerve of the Goredumbs…

        • Criticized because a lot of people in the field thought he was wrong and mass-producing books which would give a lot of people the wrong idea. It isn’t because it “struck a nerve,” it’s because they had an honest disagreement with his assessment. They felt that large-scale distribution of incorrect information is dangerous. The same way that you probably think the Obama administration is dangerous in providing “facts” on health care which you believe to be incorrect. Your objection would be because his facts “stuck a nerve.” That’s disingenuous at best.

          You can’t arrive at truth if you simply dismiss your critics. You have to hear them out and argue on the merits. To say that they are Goredumbs – whatever that means – disregards whatever truth there may be to their position.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius, there is no demonstrable truth to Al Gore’s position.

            If there was, the earth’s temperature would not have been stable followed by gradually declining from 1999 to present.

            We have a decade of statistics which defy the “law of Gore” when it comes to climate science. Al Gore likes to claim that one decade of data (1988-1998) is significant, while another decade of data (1999 to present) is not, which is clearly hogwash.

            If one decade is significant, so is the following decade.

          • Not saying Gore is correct. Just saying that dismissing him and those who hold similar opinions outright is not a good way to arrive at a complete understanding of the issue.

            I am ill-suited to say who is right in this debate. I just believe that erring on the side of caution and knowing the repercussions of our actions before acting would be the prudent thing to do. This means understanding what CO2 does before allowing it’s emission to continue basically unchecked. Is that so unreasonable?

            • Mathius,

              I would say that the reality is that people have tried for the last 15 years to dispute Gore on the merits of the argument. When we did, we were shouted down and dismissed as idiots. At this point, Gore’s magic little movie has been destroyed by the facts, THAT is why I now dismiss him. I debated on merit for as long as I could, then I realized that the global warming fear mongers are not interested in the climate, they are interested in control. There is nothing left to debate with Gore and the folks who 100% believe his madness.

              USW

            • Yes, it is unreasonable.

              You require PROOF of a negative – a logic fallacy.

              “Prove me it does no harm” cannot be proven.

              I can only prove it does harm – when it does harm.

          • Thirty some years ago, the “experts” were so sure of global cooling that they had developed plans to counter it. One was, I kid you not, to spread charcoal dust over the ice caps to increase the absorbition of solar radiation and melt these “new” glaciers. Now wouldn’t that have been something. I urge you to research that scare before you fall for the current one.

            Again, I ask , How much CO 2 from a medium volcanic event, say another Mt. St. Helens. perhaps we should be working on giant corks. Makes about as much sense to me.

          • Matt, the point of the book was to criticize the scientist who were cherry picking the data. Naturally the guilty reacted negatively regardless of which side of the debate they were on. Scientist like most people have pride in their work and do not like public criticism. It also was about everyone keeping an open mind and not closing the debate too early. Notice, the “warmers” are saying the debate is closed despite growing criticism from other scientist. Lastly it was about the mind control process of media and politicians. Crichton’s conclusions on warming were clearly stated as his opinion.

        • Mathius said

          I would avoid using realclimate as a source for support. They are heavily biased in favor of themselves – they still have refused to acknowledge their complete lack of statistical knowledge and still support the Hockey Stick.

          …with no wonder, since the site is founded by the ‘scientists’ that created the Hockey Stick!

          • Regardless, my point, yet again, is that there are argument on both sides some legit, some not, and, while I am not qualified to say which is which, I would err on the side of caution. Is that asking so much?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              An error on the side of caution is still an error.

              I do not feel that it is right to recklessly pollute the planet. However, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a gas which is essential to life itself. We exhale it as a waste product of respiration, plants “inhale” it, create food for themselves with it, and “exhale” O2 as a waste product.

              Given that in the past CO2 concentrations were at times much higher, and that during these times both plant and animal life flourished on this plantet, I personally believe that claiming that CO2 is a “pollutant” is, at best, a stretch.

            • I know you have stated that you are not qualified, but how do we decided where the line for caution is? How much CO2 produced by humans is too much? Who gets to decide this and by what guidelines is the decision made?

              My point is that the point where caution begins and ends is completly arbitrary to each person.

            • Your argument sounds so reasonable-but when a political party wants to put in place extreme policies without conclusive proof -there is a problem because they can cause more harm than good based on a maybe and saying maybe is being more than fair. We have been instating policies for years to help with pollution-but cap and trade is extreme by anyone’s definition-it is not just erring on the side of caution.

            • The history of energy generation has been a steady move from high carbon fuels to low carbon fuels. The first fuel was wood. That gave way to coal. Few here probably ever lived in a house heated by coal. I have. Coal was replaced by oil. Oil has partially been replaced by natural gas. This is a steady progression to fuels with a high hydrogen to carbon ratio. Some feel H2 is the next step in this process but H2 is not a fuel but a means of energy transfer. Solar, wind and nuclear are carbon free. To imply that man has not made progress in this area would be false.

              I am not a climatologist so I am not qualified to critique the work done in that field. However, if you were to search the scientific literature on the high resolution infrared spectra of CO2 and some other gases, my name would pop up. The entire topic is very complex and involves much more than the radiation transfer impact of CO2. I continue to be skeptcal about the claims.

    • Mathius said

      You know, the whole thing is very complicated and a lot of very smart people (not necessarily including the author of that article) are convinced that this is a legitimate danger.

      It has nothing to do with how smart or dumb one person is over another.

      Science is not a guess – it is based on observation, hypothesis and experiment.
      Climate “science” as proposed by these AGW crack pots fails.

      1) Observation of temperature increase. There is so much uncertainty regarding the methodology of measuring temp. that it is utterly bizarre to begin making hypothesis.

      2) Hypothesis of Man-made causation. There is physics that can prove human causation of global climate. 100% of the physics demonstrates 0% human impact to global climate. This alone should have ended the Anthropogenic debate – which means the debate has 0% to do with Science and 100% to do with politics.

      3) Experiment: The only experiment provided by eco-nuts are computer models. However, it is provably impossible to model Earth’s climate to a degree of certainty required to claim such models as ‘proof’. There have been scientific experiments that have demonstrated 100% natural causation of any increase or decrease in atmospheric temperatures

      There are 10x more scientists that claim AGW is wrong than right – if you believe science is a democratic process.

      I do not know if they are correct, nor can I claim definitively that they are wrong.

      The Anthropogenic hypothesis is wrong – it only takes 1 case to prove a hypothesis wrong – and there are dozens of cases already…. How many more do you need?

      All I do know is that belching mass quantities of anything into the atmosphere changes the atmosphere.

      Sorry, but this is an remarkable imbroglio of yours.

      You spitting in the ocean increases the number of molecules of water in the ocean. True.

      Your spitting causes the ocean level to rise. False.

      The amount of spit you produce is overwhelmed by the chaotic ‘noise’ of the water cycle of nature – no matter how much you spit, it is wholly and completely irrelevant to the height of the sea level.

      The same with man and the atmosphere – we are so insignificant in any production to be considered consequential in the quantity of the atmosphere.

      As usual, people get all bungled up by big numbers. You producing tons of Co2 sounds a lot to a person. It is essentially such a small part of nature as to be considered “immeasurable”.

      That said, it is a chaotic system which we do not yet fully understand and the potential downsides are huge. Thus, I urge caution until we know for certain that it is safe to act in our present manner.

      The precautionary principle is a horrific reversal of progress and of reason. It requires proof of negatives which is logically impossible.

      The AGW requirement is a logical impossibility – and hence, a contradiction. Right at this point, everyone’s hair on their neck should go straight up – because evil is being birthed on this requirement.

      Everyone said CFC’s were perfectly harmless until we realized otherwise.

      CFC’s are perfectly harmless.

      Human CFC production has been shown to have no effect on the ozone layer.

      It, again, has been a horrific imbroglio. This is a perfect example of the leap into stupidity – and the consequence of this particular issue and the stupidity of action around it has indirectly caused the deaths of millions of people.

      The same was said of lead.

      This is not an example of precautionary principle – but of scientific progress.

      Your examples are bizarre and show nothing about your precautionary principle being anything BUT wholly invalid.

      If we did it your way we would still be living in sod huts and starving to death.

      However, though no examples come readily to mind, I am certain there are examples going the other way too where a substance was unnecessarily regulated because of environmental concerns.

      Global Climate has nothing to do with concerns of human environment

      Because I do not like living in a garbage dump does not mean we need to end progress and human development. Nor does a garbage dump affect the Earth systems!

      Human environment development is to make life better for humans.

      AGW proponents attack and wish to destroy the betterment of human life

      I just advocate for erring on the side of caution when a sizable number of intelligent and knowledgeable people claim that it will destroy all life on Earth.

      The utter bizarreness and depravity of the statement is astounding.

      The Earth has been struck – multiple times – by asteroids, resulting in a global cataclysms that ended 99.9% of all life on earth. Mattius, if you didn’t notice – there is still life on Earth.

      Mankind is miniscule – we couldn’t impact the “Earth” if we tried. We can most definitely destroy ourselves – but the Earth does not see us –now or in our passing.

      AGW pushes humanity deeper into the Age of Endarkentment – the abandonment of logic and reason with the abandonment of Scientific principles.

      If you want to suffer abject poverty, mass starvation, and mass death – support AGW.

      To the rest of us, we must resist AGW with all our might.

      • Good morning BF . . .

        Here I find myself in complete agreement with you once again . . .

        You know, we gotta stop this before people think that we think alike or something like that 😉

        I have never understood just why people buy into that garbage about “Humans cause drastic environmental change just by living”.

        Having been whelped and raised in the Pacific Northwest I know for a fact that wherever humans go they plant trees, and as a result of that (and there is photographic evidence of that fact if you google it you will find it) there are more trees in North America than there was before we all came here. The same goes for Europe, Asia, and north Africa.

        The problem isn’t “global climate change” at all, it is “global lawyerism infestation” . . . You know that Mark Twain was right!

      • Remember the muffied mammoth found in Siberia that had 40 different plant species contained within its stomach?Several of those species do not grow in Siberia simply because the conditions are now too harsh and COLD.What does that imply?During the Ice Age the global seasonal geographical temperatures were vastly different than what they are now.With more water vapor in the atmosphere that would create warmer temperatures because face it water vapor is a greenhoue gas!Much more so than CO2.Greenland was green and fertile as well during that epoch of time.Different various vegetation have been found with the receding glaciers and caps that are not local flora with the tundra now.This global warming is cyclic and inevitable.It is going to happen.The world will not end but it will change in time.Why does this have to affect the amount of TAXES I HAVE TO PAY NOW!

    • Looks like it may not matter what anyone thinks about GW. Whether for it or against won’t matter if Obama suceeds with this.

      “A Secret White House Power Grab Is In Full Swing

      It’s one thing for President Obama to surround himself with the advisers he’d like to have, but it’s another to bestow on them sweeping powers to broker secret negotiations and push forward vast new regulations that could cost American families thousands of dollars.

      print Email share recommend (5)
      Cap-and-trade energy tax legislation appears stalled, at least for now, in the U.S. Senate. But that doesn’t mean the cap-and-trade energy tax isn’t imminent.

      Senate Environment Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer hasn’t even introduced the bill yet; new Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln has declared the House bill dead on arrival; and there are several other cross-cutting controversies that divide Democrats on the bill. The Obama administration is unfazed. They are moving full steam ahead with an even more costly regulatory scheme in the name of global warming—shoehorning the regulation of greenhouse gases into the 1970 Clean Air Act, a bill passed before anyone had ever thought of global warming and that couldn’t be less suited to the task.

      Driving the push for this massive power grab and circumvention of the elected branches is a key White House official who avoided Senate confirmation by being installed not as EPA director, but instead as White House Climate Czar: Carol Browner.

      Long before the Supreme Court ruled in a highly questionable 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, that the EPA has the legal authority to justify its proposed 18,000 pages of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Browner (then EPA director under President Bill Clinton) had her general counsel, Jonathan Cannon, prepare a now-infamous memorandum arguing—for the first time—that the EPA possessed such a power. At the time it was dismissed as a wild-eyed overreach that Congress would never allow. Now it’s happening, and Browner is right at the center of it.

      Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, has confirmed that Browner was the lead White House negotiator in establishing new automobile emissions standards, which for the first time rely on EPA’s presumed authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Nichols told The New York Times that Browner quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials. “We put nothing in writing, ever,” Nichols said.

      Left unchecked, Browner will move beyond automobiles to EPA’s entire staggering 18,000-page blueprint for regulating the U.S. economy. It will eventually regulate everything that moves (light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that has a motor) and lots of things that don’t (any building over 100,000 square feet could be pulled in, along with smaller carbon dioxide emitters, like restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners).

      It’s bad enough that the EPA is moving ahead with plans to pursue expensive global warming regulations instead of leaving the complex issue to Congress, the branch of government constitutionally tasked with making laws. It’s made much worse by the fact that the effort is being led not by Lisa Jackson, the duly confirmed and therefore accountable administrator of the EPA, but by Carol Browner, the unaccountable, unconfirmed White House Climate Czar.

      Browner was made a czar so that her powers could be more sweeping than they would be in any single official appointment—witness her cross-agency role in the secret automobile emissions regulations—and to avoid the scrutiny of Senate confirmation, which would have been difficult for Browner. Since leaving the Clinton administration she has moved further left, even becoming one of the 14 members of the “Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society” on whose Web site she was listed as a member as recently as January 5, the day she was named White House Climate Czar.

      This Commission pursues a clearly socialist agenda of centralized control under a regime of “global governance” that would enforce extreme environmental political correctness on a global basis. It’s far outside the political mainstream and would have presented serious problems for centrist Democrats facing a confirmation vote.

      It’s one thing for President Obama to surround himself with the advisers he’d like to have, but it’s another to bestow on them sweeping powers to broker secret negotiations and push forward vast new regulations that could cost American families thousands of dollars.

      Fortunately, we’ll be able to see this week where members of the U.S. Senate stand on allowing Carol Browner to direct taxpayer dollars and pursue vast new regulatory power grabs. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has introduced an amendment (SA 2440) to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill that prohibits any federal funding for Browner’s policy directives. Any senator who votes against it is voting to support not just Carol Browner, but also her vast regulatory power grab and the president’s system of unaccountable czars.”

      Those Conspiracy Theories about Obama are sounding more real every damn day.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Getting a Better handle on the Importance of Gold Prices

    Over the last year, Black Flag has consistently kept us all updated on the status of the price of gold. I have always tried to remember what he has said about how when it reaches a certain point, we are in big trouble. So I thought I would start a thread where he is able to better explain the subject so that the rest of us aren’t lost when he makes those quick posts telling us where the price is today.

    So, what I would like is for Black Flag to answer a couple of questions for me below:

    What, again, is the threshold for the price of gold that you feel is the number that we are in big trouble if we pass it? For example, I think you said the other day it was at $1005 an ounce. But I had thought that you said previously that the scary number was if it reached $1000.

    Why is it that you feel the price of gold is an important economic indicator? Can you explain the rationale behind your intense following of the prices?

    Can you give a brief summary of the last ? years of pricing (whatever time period you think is relevant)? Has the price doubled or tripled or risen and then fallen, and what does that mean to the rest of us that don’t have quite the same grasp on economics that you have?

    Please don’t think I am attempting to be contrary. I am really interested in learning a bit more about it. You don’t have to go too far into detail if you don’t want. I simply want to understand better than I do now, and I am sure that there are lots of readers here who would benefit from your extensive knowledge in this area.

    • USW and Black Flag,

      I think this is a splendid idea. I look forward to the thread.

    • I'm learning! says:

      I would also love to see this. I asked him once why gold is so important – who’s to say some other thing won’t be the object that trade would be based on and here we sit with gold (those that invested in it). He answered that question but that has been a while since that posting and it would be nice for others to read it. I am trying to grasp everything that makes the price of gold such an important indicator of our economy, but find myself getting twisted up if I try to explain it to someone else. I know the higher the price of gold, the less confidence the people have in their government. I know there isn’t enough gold to cover they money that is floating around the world. I know that if you invest in gold that you need to physically have it because you may think you do but the gold isn’t necessarily there. It would be nice seeing a summary in one place instead of remembering the bits and pieces I have learned over the past several months.

      • The price of gold is NOT an indicator of the health of the economy.

        It IS an indicator of the faith people have in “currency” of any given nation or nations.

        Currently, their is much concern about the value of many currencies.

        Concern over the dollar is larger because of the dollars status as the “standard”.

        • I'm learning! says:

          Maybe saying it is an indicator of our economy isn’t exactly correct. However it does seem like the magic $1,000 mark is the point where we will most likely move to inflation and maybe even hyper-inflation. That will have a huge effect on the economy. Or am I off the point on that too?

    • It’s irrelevant. If you want a better indicator of market instability, look at the VIX index. This is a volatility measurement. It’s currently trading around 23 and the high was in November at 80. You can see the spikes for Lehman, Bear, etc.

      Now gold, not gold ETFs (I’m sure Mr. Flag feels strongly that one should own physical gold), who cares? It’s a shiny metal that is extremely useful in the construction of electronics, tooth fillings, and jewelry and little else. For centuries, possibly millennia, humans used gold coins to transfer wealth. But what Mr. Flag misses is that this is no different than fiat money. Gold has very, very little intrinsic value. It is only because we agree that it is valuable that it is valuable. The same is true of paper money.

      So does 1,000 signify that the world has abandoned the dollar? No, it signifies that people are worried about the dollar and think that, because other people are worried too, the price of gold will rise. So they invest, and behold, the price rises.

      And, remember, that because the price of gold fluctuates, it is no safe harbor against inflation. If you buy gold now and the world markets calm down, you will lose money. As the late* great Robert Heinlan said: There ain’t so such thing as a free lunch.

      *I think he’s dead… I can’t remember and don’t feel like looking it up..

      • Robert Heinlein.

        • Yes, thank you, spelling isn’t my strong suit. But is he alive?

          • No he died in the mid eighties I believe.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              He died May 8th, 1988. He was 80 (nearly 81) at the time.

              • See, that’s why I didn’t remember – I was 4 at the time..

              • There’s your problem, mat, you just ain’t been around long enough . . . 😉

                Robert A. Heinlein was one of my favorite authors. The quote you used (which is the name of my boat, incidentally) was first used in the story entitled “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. There are invaluable lessons in that story. He wrote it in the 1920’s . . . 1926, I think.

              • I think it’s a great novel. In fact, I think I’ll read it again as my next book.

      • Mathius;

        The value of Gold is that it does not tarnish, it is malleable, it is a very dense metal, and it is vary rare.

        It is used extensively in space as its reflective qualities are invaluable.

        Diamonds are also very rare, but we humans have figured out how to make them synthetically, yet we have not figured out how to make synthetic gold. That is why Gold has so much value attached to it.

        Just thought you would like to know.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      USW,

      I will take a preliminary and brief stab at this and let BF handle the gruntwork. Trading indexes, volatility indexes, stock market values, etc. ARE ALL MEANINGLESS. They are all based on paper currency which is backed by… you guessed it… ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

      Gold has been regarded as REAL MONEY (not “currency”) for over 5000 years. It is a “precious metal” which has many uses, in addition to being a nice and pretty metal to be minted into coinage.

      EVERY COUNTRY in the world recognizes gold and agrees that it has solid, quantifiable value. Any other country in the world could declare tomorrow that they no longer recognize the dollar as having any value whatsoever, and could refuse any trade based on dollar denomination. This COULD actually happen, and would be devastating to not only the US, but the entire world economy, since we (quite smartly) sold trillions of dollars of our debt to other nations. This forces the other nations into a catch-22 where they now realize that the dollar is worthless, but they cannot make moves with will make it actually BE completely worthless, or they will have lost billions or trillions themselves.

      If US debt were backed by a solid, recognized asset of value (e.g. GOLD), then these countries would have no fear of our IOUs being worthless. Right now they KNOW our IOUs are worthless, but there is not much that they can do about it.

      The BEST indicator of the confidence of the world in any given paper currency is the value of gold relative to that currency. This is why I pointed out a while back that the value of a dollar in terms of gold is down by about 400% in the last 10 years. It is also why I pointed out yesterday that about 12 years ago, 1 dollar would buy you 1.5 euros, but today, 1 euro will buy you 1.5 dollars. This represents a 100% drop in the value of the dollar vs. the euro in just a bit over a decade.

      The world realizes that the US has FAR too much debt, and the US NO LONGER PRODUCES “THINGS”. Our economy is now largely based on services. Services have a value, but rarely do they have a tangible value. “THINGS” such as steel, cars, refrigerators, ships, planes, etc. are tangible assets. We largely do not make that stuff anymore, that is made elsewhere. In the past, these tangible assets which the US produced at least lent some backing to the value of the dollar. Since we don’t make much in the way of tangible assets anymore, that prop to the value of the dollar is largely gone as well.

      The value of stocks is STILL LOWER than it was in late 2001, and the value of the dollar, vs. both foreign currencies and gold is A CRAPTON lower than it was in late 2001. If all of your assets are in dollars, or securities denominated in dollars, you have lost your shirt over the last 10 years.

      The only thing that HASN’T happened yet, is extremely high inflation. The money supply has more than doubled from 800 billion dollars available for circulation to 1.7 trillion dollars available for circulation, and this is JUST IN THE PAST YEAR. Why is inflation still relatively “tame”?

      2 reasons:

      1. Very few people have jobs. Even fewer people have well-paying jobs. No one is spending any money.

      2. The mega-banks have done 2 things with all of this “excess money” that has been created. They have stuck it into the stock market to pump up the “value” of stocks so that they could repay their TARP loans, and they have stuffed all of the excess cash BACK INTO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK where they are earning 0.15% interest on it.

      At some point, large portions of this money are going to have to be released into circulation. Depending on exactly when and how that happens, it is either going to be really bad, or it is going to be catastrophic. I suspect that the banks are going to try to “leak” money into the economy quietly over time, so that inflation only rises at a “moderate” rate. If this strategy fails, hyperinflation is a real risk.

      I personally look for gold to hover around the psychological $1000 level for a month or so, and then start gradually creeping up. Unless all hell breaks loose, then it could rise meteorically, at which point we would know that the dollar had been destroyed.

      Wow, that was longer than I thought, but I am sure that BF can fill in anything that I missed 🙂

      • I'm learning! says:

        So, in a very simple, everyday person observance. You say they are starting to leak some of the money back in to avoid a large amount of inflation. Is that why for years and years I would get 4 or 5 “0% interest credit card or balance transfer offers” per week or sometimes even per day, then suddenly last fall and winter they stopped, and now suddenly I am getting 4 or 5 per month?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I believe that the resurgence of credit card offers could well be a sign that the banks are indeed starting to “leak” currency back into the market.

          In the short-term (for a few years at most) this will have a stimulative effect on the economy, accompanied by inflation.

          When over-leveraged businesses and consumers continue to default on debt in droves (probably 2-3 years down the road before the next HUGE glut of defaults hits), the bottom will fall out.

    • See #18

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Audiotape Reveals Artists Being Asked to Support Obama’s Agenda

    An official at the White House Office of Public Engagement encouraged a group of artists on a conference call with the National Endowment for the Arts to produce works that supported the Obama administration’s agenda, a transcript of the call reveals.

    and

    “You are the thought leaders,” Skolnik told the artists. “You are the ones that, if you create a piece of art or promote a piece of art or create a campaign for a company, and tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what’s cool and what’s not cool. And so I’m hoping that through this group and the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call, is through this group that we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things that we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president’s initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration.”

    Read the entire article at Fox News: Audiotape Reveals Artists Being Asked to Support Obama’s Agenda – Political News – FOXNews.com

    I have two issues that I want to point out here. The first is that I feel that this was an exposure for the White House that people are not reacting to. Let’s be clear on what they were saying. Read that second quoted paragraph again. They are asking the “thought leaders” to create propaganda that will sway young people to support the political positions of the Obama administration. This is the type of “indoctrination” behavior that I always talk about when it comes to government. Interesting how much money for the National Endowment for the Arts was included in the “economic stimulus” legislation earlier this year, isn’t it?

    Second, this is a case where the White House was caught in a blatant lie. When I first read about this meeting a couple of weeks ago, I then looked for the rebuttals from the White House and the NEA. They certainly didn’t let me down. As the article shares at the end, the NEA released a statement to Fox News saying, “This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda and any suggestions to that end are simply false. The NEA regularly does outreach to various organizations to inform of the work we are doing and the resources available to them.” Simultaneously, White House spokesperson Shin Inouye also said it was not intended to promote any legislative agenda. “It was a discussion on the United We Serve effort and how all Americans can participate.” Then all the sudden the transcripts of the call got leaked and both the NEA and the White House, now caught in their lies, refuse to comment.

    This White House is crooked as hell, and I won’t go on continuing to pretend that they aren’t. I am not saying Bush was any better, but I sure didn’t see nearly as much shit to criticize there as we get on a daily basis here. I guess that probably means I am a racist.

    • Well ol’ Hoss, if that makes you a racist then what does that make me? I have been absolutely vitriolic in some of my posts about the actions of this administration for some time now.

      I realize, as you, that Bush and several Presidents before were bad. But this one takes the frickin’ cake!!

      I realize that some don’t like Glenn Beck. But if you listen to him, he may be a little wired seeming a lot of the time, but he is honest. And most of the things he brings up I know through my own research are dead on. Did Obama or did he not say that if you wanted to know what he thought and what he was, to look at who he surrounded himself with. Well let’s see.
      1. A black preacher who is a racist white hater to his core.
      2. Both Weather Underground founders, Bill Ayers and Jeff Jones
      3. A man who thinks ANIMALS should be allowed to sue humans.
      4. An Avowed Communist and Racist.
      5. A man who wants to bring back the ‘Fairness Doctrine’.
      6. The MSM, who say what he wants said. And don’t say what he doesn’t want said.

      And these do not include all the Obamatons and Obama worshipers out there who would follow wherever he leads, right or wrong. Nor does it include influential figures such as actors, singers, powerfull businessmen and politicians who are all out to do the messiah’s bidding.

      This man also really knows or has someone who knows how to manipulate the internet and media sources. As stupid as it sounds, people listen to what actors, actresses, and entertainers say. And some of those people are outright wackos. We don’t need policy decisions made on the advice of wackjob idiots. Obama has surrounded himself with them. Shouldn’t we be worried?

      Right at this moment, I think that our President is the most dangerous man on the planet. Especially to his own Country.

      • Esom, saw some pics….hope you weren’t planning on going to Six Flags anytime soon. Looks like the coasters are now major water rides.

        You still doing OK?

        • Yeah. There are a lot of places underwater. My brother’s bro-in-law is a Maintenence man at 6 Flags. They have been called in for double shifts for the forseeable future once the water has gone back down.

          Me and mine are just fine for now. Yours?

    • One of the things that continues to astonish me is the blatant lies and cover-up of this adm. Much as been made of Joe Wilson, but I tell you, the guy was right. It doesn’t even appear to be a big deal anymore. “Oh, you caught us in a lie, just a misunderstanding really, we’ve fixed it, now move on.” And we do!!!!

      Beating a horse to death, but where the hell is the media? When you assist in the cover-up by not reporting, you are part of the corruption. Are there really no media personnel out there that have the moral balls to say, “this isn’t who I am and I will not participate anymore?”

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Massachusetts Governor Says White House Pressing for Quick Kennedy Replacement

    Gov. Deval Patrick said Friday that President Barack Obama had personally talked to him about changing the Senate succession law in Massachusetts, and White House aides were pushing for him to gain the power to temporarily replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy amid the administration’s health care push.

    A month after a White House spokesman labeled the issue a state matter, Patrick said he and Obama spoke about changing the law as they both attended Kennedy’s funeral in Boston last month. He also said White House aides have been in contact frequently ever since and pushing for the change so they can regain their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

    “He and his whole team have been very clear about that,” Patrick told reporters after holding a Cabinet meeting near his Berkshire Mountains vacation home.

    Read the entire article at Fox News: Massachusetts Governor Says White House Pressing for Quick Kennedy Replacement – Political News – FOXNews.com

    Alrighty then… Allow me to first say that I believe this to be a state matter. And that means that the legislators in Massachusetts are the ones who need to determine the course forward. To put it bluntly, the President of the United States needs to keep his ass out of it. And despite the White House’s claim that it was a state matter, it seems that Obama’s pal Patrick has outed him on the pressure coming from the White House to change the law. Yet another example of this White House saying one thing to appease the public and doing another thing altogether.

    And with all this pressure comes results. The House in Massachusetts passed a new bill the other day to do exactly what Obama and the Democratic party wants done (which wasn’t tough in a House where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a count of 137-16. You read that right, it isn’t a typo). The Senate takes up the debate Monday. What irks me about the whole thing is how blatantly a political move this is, and the fact that the people of Massachusetts don’t seem to have a problem allowing it to happen. They are literally watching the legislature change whatever law they like for political advantage and think that its OK!

    Because a few years ago the Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature changed the law in how a vacant seat is handled. They did it for a purely political reason then. Mitt Romney was governor and they were afraid that he would appoint someone they didn’t like, so they took away his ability to do so. Now a Democrat occupies the governor’s mansion. So they conveniently vote to change the law to their party’s advantage yet again, just a few short years later. These same jackasses who pretended to see a valid reason to change the law then now pretend to see a valid reason to change it back now. I guess the people are too stupid to realize that the politicians are not on their side and will continue to manipulate the laws in favor of government versus the people.

    How many times am I going to get to use the President’s own words against him? Mr. President, you are the one who stood before America the other night and said, “The time for partisan games is over.” Yet here we are watching you play them more often than any President in the last 20 years.

    • USW,

      Did you really expect Obama to be better than what he is? Or did you just hope? You seem disappointed in him.

    • Good morning, USW. I sure hope the MRS is doing better. I know that she is for I have confidence in your care taking.

      Now, why are you so upset at this revelation? It is a far gone conclusion how politics is played. Kennedy had the bill changed to avoid Republicans controlling the Senate there and now, it is expedient to change it back. So, LA TI “friggin” DA….it just makes the left more insidious than ever. That is all. AND, it will be interesting to see what they, the left leaning, say about this. I will bet that most, probably will say…”well, that’s politics for you. The Repubs do it so, why not us”…only, I have not found an area where the Repubs have done this. However, it is politics at its finest and the only way to stop this right now, is vote the bastards out. However, that is not going to be done in that State at all and the people get what they deserve.

      I am not sure where I stand in the definition of things….Probably more conservative. I am admittedly a fiscal conservative but do not adopt the conservative social stance of most things. I do not know if I am moderate or whatever. Actually, I do not party identify. I am not a Libertarian, I don’t think….. I think I will stay with Texan. We like our guns, protect our property with guns, stop robberies wherever we can, protect and respect our women, get involved in crime solving and arrests, shoot trespassers, stop illegals, crime watch, eat red meat, drink beer, think that global warming is crap, self imposed term limits on politicians, no deficit spending, line item veto, pay as you go system, turn down federal money (for the most part), drive fast, provide 31% of the natural gas energy to the United States at rates lower that we pay and do not bitch about it, love football and hockey (any sport that hits hard and fast and brings blood and torment), drive pick up trucks, wave at everybody, Friday night Blue Chip football is a religion, college football is a right, provide 81% of the players to Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and the Big 12….we can like or hate God without going to Hell, and we will show you the highway out if you do not like it here.

      Most of all…we want Washington to stay the hell out of our business.

      • You forgot to add that we also love to hunt,fish(fresh and salt water), boil crawfish, BBQ all types of critters, ride various 4×4 vehicles in the mud,carry out our death penalties, raise cattle, raise gardens, ride horses, take the utmost pride in our work,balance our states budget, drive any direction all day long and still be in the state.We have swamps, forests, grasslands, the ocean and beaches, deserts, and tons of concrete too!Hell we even have Islands in Texas.We still say no sir, yes sir, no maam’, yes maam’, open the doors for our women folk and love vanilla ice cream and hot apple pie.Blood is thicker than water here and if you cross one family member you’ve crossed the entire family.We house a large portion of the military here in Texas and provide a large quantity of soldiers from amongst our young adults.Texans are the Spartans of the United States; have no doubt of that sir!Doin’ whats right and taking pride in it all.

        • Speaking as a fellow Southerner and a Georgian, I hope when the revolution starts, it starts in Texas.

          I hope it never starts. But if it does I think ya’ll will start it. You are the only independent minded enough state to stand up to the Feds. The rest of us poor bastards are either too small or too much in the pocket of the Feds.

        • Doffing my hat in response…thank you for chiming in. I did not want to be the ONLY Texas braggart on here. We both forgot, deep water seaports that never freeze, the Texas National Guard is now 32,000 strong ( Airmen, Army, Coast Guard ) and is the ONLY…repeat, ONLY reserve component that is a free standing Division (36th) and fights as its only reserve division. PETA stands for people who eat tasty animals and vegetarian stands for the village idiot who does not know how to hunt and fish…we clean our weapons BEFORE we wash our cars, and we have abundant game because we know how to environmentally protect our animals and land. We have cleaned the air up in Houston better than California ever thought and we are working on the DFW area. It is easy to clear our air because we are down south and everytime Washington opens its mouth, the suction is so great, it goes up there. AND, once again…we do it with a balanced budget.

          Have a great day TC.

          • But you don’t have REAL mountains.

            Have been told by recruiters that Montana produces the greatest number of military enlistments on a per capita basis. Don’t know for sure but been told.

            Montana also does have the highest concentration of veterans, on per capita basis, than any other state.

            It pays to be a big area with few people. The per capita thingy always works best there.

            • We have the Chisos Mtns. that go to about 8700 ft. We do not have the Rockies that go to 12,000 – 14,000. But, what the hell, we let Alaska come in also because we needed the ice for our Martinis and Margueritas.

    • This would piss me off too USW, if it weren’t for the fact that it’s Mass. As such I am not suprised in the least. The Kennedys OWN that state and their wishes will be carried out.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Yes, and yesterday it was revealed that he has asked NY’s governor Patterson to not run in ’10. Patterson is in a weak position having inherited the melt down. While I am not crazy about many of his social positions, he has been incredibly honest regarding fiscal matters. Apparently the big O wants the first Black Governor of NY replaced with Andrew Cuomo, son of the former governor. This, I would assume makes Obama a supporter of hereditary rulers as well as, yes, you got it, a racist!

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Mr. Trynosky,

        I am not from NY or that area. I have to say though, from what I have seen of Governor Patterson, I have been impressed with him. He seems honest and sincere.

        Best Regards,
        RS

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The original law was a mistake – correcting it is the right thing to do. One can argue both ways – balancing the need for the citizens to have adequate/equal representation in Congress or appeasing conservative hacks who are pissed at how the actors in this lined up.

      • The timing of the “correcting” is what looks soooooo suspicious…way too convenient.

      • The conservative hacks are pissed because MA is changing the law AGAIN to suit their political whim.

        Since it’s MA though, I could care less.

        • If Conservatives are hacks because they don’t like the hypocrisy of changing the law now when it is to their(democrats) advantage. What were the democrats for changing it in the first place?

  5. Everyone should watch this series with Soros explaining why free market capitalism doesn’t work.

    Have fun
    JAC

    • Funny….this coming from a man that made his money on the free market.

      • Good morning Colonel, hope all is well with you. Looking for a new quarterback yet?

        I love how Mr. Soros accruately diagnosis the problems then prescribes more of the same govt control.

        Did you get to the end where he starts talking about the “new order”? I also love his comment about how socialism will work if only the leaders really had the interest of the little people in mind instead of their own.

        I was looking for his interview with Larry King in Oct 08 but couldn’t find it. In that interview he was talking about the new order coming with the election of Mr. Obama. He talked as though it was a forgone conclusion. I remember how the hair went up on my neck when I saw it at the time. But alas, I haven’t been able to find it on the web yet. Thought it would make for interesting review.

        Looks like Mr. Rogers believes you and your family are going to be driving Lamborgini’s in the coming years.

        JAC

        • New quarterback AND a new pass defense…LOL

          Yes, how hypocritical…wow. And everyone on here that espouses the economic ends and how the “greater good” is the way to go…needs to see this. Amazing. Power corrupts…absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      • Soros has not made his money in free market.

        He made his money on Mercantilism.

    • Don’t get me started with Soros.This man has crippled multiple economies in many countries and has targeted the United States now.I would venture to say that he and his buddies provide a majority of the funding to the Democratic party and hence are dictating social and political doctrines through that party to suit their agenda.He is a leach upon the free world hiding behind a mask of masquerading as a philanthropist.

      • He cripples imprudent and corrupt nations who debase their currency.

        He is exists because gold no longer constrains governments.

  6. This one follows the Soros interview.

    Worth the extra time just to watch an idiot media “talking head” get a lecture.

  7. United Nations topic….. it is very hard for this warrior to now see the leaders of our country turning us to a Nation of Cowards. Dropping the missile defense of Poland and the Czech’s yielded…nothing in return. Not even “reengaging” talks. Putin did say yesterday that it was a good start but more needed to be done to “convince” him that we are serious. He also said that Iran talks were off the table no matter what and promptly delivered the most up to date missile air defense system to Iran that is being put into place now. Nice trade, Obama. So, I wonder what Obama got? A case of Vodka, I guess. As of 5pm yesterday, Russian ships have blockaded the ports in Georgia and cutoff the land routes. They already control the air…..ahhh… but what do we care.

    So, Obama will give his rah rah speech today at the UN. I am sure that we will capitulate here and admit to how bad we are and how sorry we are and hand over the keys to Washington. Bolivia was very complimentary to the United States yesterday. Obama is a nice guy, they say, but until he gets rid of capitalism, he is not our friend.

    Oh, I forgot China that has also said that until we give up Taiwan and remove our troops from South Korea, there can be no serious dialogue concerning the North Korean Nuclear Renegade Program. We might as well give them Hawaii also…who is going to miss it. Hell, let’s give them California and let them bail it out. They have most of it anyway. At least in Texas, we stopped them from building a part of the trans Texas highway and owning the toll roads along with two Arab countries. We stopped that butt cold, but one Texan is worth any 100 Chinese. Problem is they have billions.

    Venezuela…well now….they have just finished installing 6 new Russian medium range….(800-2500 miles) nuclear tipped missiles there to “protect” Venezuela from US invasion. However, they conveniently forgot to mention that these missiles are offensive and not defensive. Gee, great negotiations, Mr. President. Oh, yes…let us not forget that the Russian Navy is now operating in this hemisphere, with seaports, for the first time in 47 years. Mr. Chavez, how do you explain the 12 long range Russian bombers now stationed out side of Caracas? I get it….these are defensive as well. Of, course.

    Last but not least….Israel. Let’s keep condemning the Israelis and leave Iran alone or do you think that Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia will keep it in check. Israel would be much better off if we, the US, just stays out of its business. Anyone with a brain knows that Iran will attack through its surrogates. Perhaps the United States should just apologize and agree with Iran that the extermination of 14 million people did not happen. Only 6 million were Jews. Why that is hardly a drop in the bucket of Socialist/fascist governments. So, Mr. President, you might as well give that up also. We are already a laughing stock in the world today.

    I will watch my President in his remarks today, but I am afraid of what he will say.

    This retired warrior is mad as hell and our once proud country is becoming a Nation of Cowardice with this administration. Negotiate from strength…not from weakness. Negotiating from weakness has now made us a much weaker Nation.

    Oh, Mr. President, you ran on a platform of peace and pulling out of Iraq and now we are involved in a war more aggravating and with less reason than Iraq. Where is your resolve now? You can end this war tomorrow. Poison the poppies. The financing end of the war will be done from the enemy side. You are not going to find Bin Laden and who cares…Bush already took care of that. He is no longer in charge anyway and has not been in the last 5 years.

    Signing off now with the final say….hmmm….interesting find in New York. The new terrorist cell that has now yielded a capture of 27 and it looks like there are more located across the US. They should just wait. I am sure that we will negotiate a peaceful surrender to them.

    D13 wishing now he had a yard to cut.

    • Calm my dear friend, calm.

      I do have a seriious question on this matter however. You mention our once “proud” nation and link it to our previous involvment in the affairs of others. Yet I thought you shared my view that we have been meddling far too long and need to return to a “defensive” mode.

      Did I miss something or is the frustration just having a moment of dominance?

      The Chinese also now have a naval presence in our hemisphere. It seems to me that we should pull all our assets back to home turf. Now I recognize that we have no space for all of them and that there is some advantage to having forces deployed closer to the threat. But how is our presence in Europe or one of the old Soviet countries differ from theirs in Venezuala? It seems hypocritical of us to yell at them but then do exactly the opposite in their neighborhood.

      I have believed for some time that we needed to “disengage” from the other side of the world and “engage” our hemisphere in a way that would prevent Russian and Chineses expansion into the west. This would have required a 180 degree turn in our policy towards central and south American countries. We needed to recognize that their “socialism” is just a step in progression towards “capitalism” and “freedom”. One of two things had to happen. Either their leaders are corrupt and socialism won’t fix anything, then the commoners revolt. Or, they are not corrupt and socialism in an agrarian economy begins to improve the standard of living and suddenly folks decide they want to be free. Election would than force the change.

      If we concentrate on the western hemisphere with an effort to build friends, we will enhance our safety in the long run.

      Now I would like your read on what our strategy should be. I am not as concerned about Mr. Obamas missle decision and quite frankly think Israel should be own their own. What am I missing, if anything?

      You better get an extra Pepper as I am hoping for some good stuff.

      If you can’t whack weeds you might as well write out your real thoughts.

      JAC

      • Ahhh….thanks JAC. Yes, I just get tired of wimpy politics. I have not changed my mind about much. give me a few minutes, work just got in the way and I will respond in a few minutes. Doncha hate it when that happens.

      • So JaC if we left Israel on their own and they end up being Nuked into oblivion what would be the next target for the Islamic expansion into the world?

        I suppose we could just apologize for being wrong and aiding Israel since their refounding.Perhaps then we could lead Dhimmi lives and pay tribute to our Islamic masters?

        • Well Tex, they aren’t going to Nuke it because they want to live in it.

          Should they get thier land back and get to live in Israel in peace, I am guessing there will be little support for further expansion, at least that is support for the radicals.

          You are jumping to some very large conclusions regarding my view on this matter as well as the connections between the Palestinean and Israeli issues and the expansion of radical Islam. Israel does not and will not be the “bastion” that holds back the “tide”.

          But our failure to play fair on that issue will contribute to the fire that will burn us all.

          By the way, on the “refounding” of Israel. Tell me. Why did the world decide to refound Israel and not any of the Arab or other cultures and people’s who controlled that land before Israel?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          TexasChem,

          Israel already has the third largest aresenal of weaponry, behind only the US and Russia.

          Do you seriously think if we “left Israel alone” they would suddenly be over-run by Islamic expansionists?

          The “Islamic expansionists” do not have near the firepower to compete with Israel, whether we are in the neighborhood or not.

          They could maybe use a nuke or two (if they have such devices available) and blow Israel completely off the map, but I don’t think that the complete extermination of Israel would even directly lead to the US becoming an Islamic Vassal State.

          If the US does become an Islamic Vassal State it will probably come from internal machinations right here inside the US, and most of us won’t even notice it until after it has happened.

      • Ok JAC….Let me see….

        JAC says: Yet I thought you shared my view that we have been meddling far too long and need to return to a “defensive” mode.

        D13 agrees: I do not disagree here with the exception that since we are ALREADY there, why not negotiate from where we are as a starting point while returning to a defensive posture.

        JAC says: Did I miss something or is the frustration just having a moment of dominance?

        D13 responds: Never said I was perfect. It is a frustration level and listening to Obama now has added to it. Nice speech. No substance and no real way to get there. But nice speech.

        JAC asks: But how is our presence in Europe or one of the old Soviet countries differ from theirs in Venezuala?

        D13 ponders: None whatsoever. Something bothers me and I can’t out my finger on it. It feels like a return to the cold war with Venezuela being the surrogate and expanding into Central and South America under the disguise of the Russians. If we wish to pull out of Europe, use that negotiating strategy and go tit for tat. None of this, you go first, crap.

        JAC surmises: It seems hypocritical of us to yell at them but then do exactly the opposite in their neighborhood.

        D13 agrees: Yep.

        JAC says: I have believed for some time that we needed to “disengage” from the other side of the world and “engage” our hemisphere in a way that would prevent Russian and Chineses expansion into the west. This would have required a 180 degree turn in our policy towards central and south American countries. We needed to recognize that their “socialism” is just a step in progression towards “capitalism” and “freedom”. One of two things had to happen. Either their leaders are corrupt and socialism won’t fix anything, then the commoners revolt. Or, they are not corrupt and socialism in an agrarian economy begins to improve the standard of living and suddenly folks decide they want to be free.

        D13 (drinking his Dr. P): I have to agree.

        JAC finishes with: Now I would like your read on what our strategy should be. I am not as concerned about Mr. Obamas missle decision and quite frankly think Israel should be own their own. What am I missing, if anything?

        D13 sums up: How would I do this. I would have to accept the fact that we are not the world’s policeman and not care what happens to Europe (which I actually don’t). So I would negotiate moving back to my side of the world and try to eliminate their presence on my side and my presence on their side. We would have to accept and insist that our allies defend themselves. Now, I also feel that this would end up with one big bully over there and do not subscribe in any means that the economy is running things. Economies always rebound after military victories. Europe will be just fine.

        No other country would be able to match us in this hemisphere. I think that we cultivate Central and South America and let them develop on their own with guidance and said guidance is not military intervention. I would establish free and equal trade with no trade barriers but on the same level as them. They would not have a mandated leverage and neither would we. If they put up a trade barrier, we respond in like. We do not give them a trade advantage. I would enter into a cooperative negotiation to eliminate the one over riding problem that is prevalent. Eliminate the drugs. I know how much some of the smaller economies depend on that for their livelihood but eliminate that incentive through whatever means is necessary. In the event of military juntas that create instability, I would have agreements in this hemisphere to isolate them completely and boycott them if necessary. Tough love would have to be exercised here. I would exercise border control and stabilize my economy first and teach other countries how to stabilize theirs.

        I would eliminate the UN and let the east or Europe have it. I would attend but I would insist on even funding. If not….withdraw. Take care of our own first, our backyard second, and let the rest of the world do their thing. If people do not like it here…go away.

        Brief nutshell, my friend but it will not eliminate one thing. Sooner or later, the biggest kids on the block are going to fight. It is inevitable. This world is not designed to live in harmony. I would maintain an armed Force capable of defense but equally capable of offense if attacked. I would recognize the same territorial waters as other countries on a quid pro quo basis and enforce it. With violence and guns if necessary. I would drill everywhere that I could for our own oil and start nuclear energy programs to take our dependence on fossil fuels away from a position of strength overseas. I would drop this global warming nonsense and quit funding the world organizations that misuse our money.

        There is more, but this is a great start. Whaddaya think? Would I make a great Czar (TSAR) or what?

        D13

        • Tsar? NO!

          But you might make a good Secretary of State for the VDLG party.

          At least an advisor. Wouldn’t want to take you away from the ranch full time.

          You posed an interesting thing I had not considered. If we were to legalize pot and possibly cocaine in the USA, it could cause economic turmoil in some regions of central/south America. Might need to do some economic advancement first. Or pulling the plug on drug money may cause the ‘lords’ to look to more productive economic options quickly.

          Your more gut level response is of concern, ie. the nature of the world and big boys will fight. Is it your belief that mankind is incapable of overcoming its historical propensity for conquest of its neighbors?

          • He wouldn’t be away from the ranch fulltime as the VDLG officials will not be needed fulltime.

          • JAC Asks: Your more gut level response is of concern, ie. the nature of the world and big boys will fight. Is it your belief that mankind is incapable of overcoming its historical propensity for conquest of its neighbors?

            D13 responds: Unfortunately, JAC, I believe that in reality…the big boys will fight. They have for 10,000 years. Hell, even Cain and Abel fought and they were brothers.

            Seriously, I do have a lot of knowledge of the world and its persuasions through experience. Some believe that economics will drive the future….some believe that politics will drive the future….some believe that Armies will drive the future…. I believe that ideology will foreshadow all of those and I am being proven correct today. Assuming our hemisphere thoughts, it is obvious that there would be two different ideologies. They always will clash and one has to be better than the other. Why? Because their god said so. Simple.

            D13

          • Not at the ranches full time anyway…. they are self sufficient and we have great managers. Just nice to know that when it all craters, we will have water, food, power, and a place to go in case Soylent Green happens. I am taking reservations, however….. 🙂

          • Oh, JAC..side note…as to Tsar vs Czar….I do know the difference. Just poking fun at the person the other day (in case they are reading).

            • I got the Tsar vs. Czar thing right away. Thought I would contribute.

              By the way. You did get my request for reservations didn’t you?

              That would be a minimum of 5 and perhaps two more (future in-laws).

              At least one of us knows something about cattle and horses but all know how to work.

              Also, I assume by your reference to ideology you meant “religion”. Correct?

        • Did you like the way Obama just up out of the blue and threw Isreal under the bus? It sure got an enthusiastic response from the UN delegates. What an asshole.

          I’m sure Isreal can take care of themselves, but if I were them, I would tell Obama to kiss my hairy Semitic Ass!

  8. BETTER START PRAYING, DO YOU REALIZE JUST WHO IS IN CHARGE OF WIND AND WAVES? GOD HIMSELF, TELLS THE WIND JUST WHERE TO GO AND WHAT TO DO. THE WEATHER IS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED, THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET WITH THEIR PHONY INFORMATION AND STUFF. NOBODY CAN CONTROL THE WIND, NOBODY BUT GOD HIMSELF AND IF WE KEEP ON THE PLANET ITSELF WILL SUFFER FROM LACK OF PROPER CONTROL. THE SO-CALLED GOVERNMENT WHO IS DENYING THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OF WATER IS OBAMA,THE FARMERS MEXICAN AND WHITE, HE DOES WANT EVERYBODY TO SUFFER, HE EVEN WANTS TO KILL BLACK BABIES, SUCH AS HE IS SUPPOSE TO BE. THE PEOPLE IN THAT VALEY ARE HAND WORKERS AND PROBABLY MOST VOTED FOR OBAMA, AS HE “LIKES MEXICANS” BUT THAT IS A DARN LIE, HE ONLY LIKES HIMSELF, HIS ARROGANT POSTURE AND WHEN HE CONDSENDS TO LOOK DOWN AT THE LITTLE PEOPLE, I COULD JUST SLAP HIM, IF I HAD ACTED LIKE THAT MY MOTHER WOULD HAVE SLAPPED ME. HE IS TOO MUCH AND AN ARROGANT NARCISSIS COMPLEX IS ONE PROBLEM HE HAS, HIS MEAN WIFE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM, THE SAYING NOW SHE MORE OF LESS TELLS ME WHAT TO SAY AND DO, THIS I BELIEVE, I THINK HE IS A PUPPET FOR HER AS WELL AS ROCKEFELLER, ZBREZ(SP) AND IMELT WHO OWNS G.E. HE DOES WHAT THEY TELL HIM TO DO, HIS ARROGANCE MASKS THE FACT HE IS BEING CONTROLLED, MSM LOVES THIS SO CALLED PERSON. GOD BLESS AMERICA, IT BETTER, AMERICANS NEED THE BLESSINGS OF EVERYBODY, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      THERE IS NO NEED TO YELL AT EVERYONE

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Ray,

        Goldie isn’t yelling at anyone. She is 85 years old and doesn’t realize that typing in all caps is considered “yelling”. Give her a break, please!

        Best Regards,
        RS

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Hmmm – ok – I’ll keep my snide responses to myself. 🙂

          Thanks RS

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Thank you Ray…

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              ARGHHHH….I MEANT THANK YOU RAY!!!!!!!

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                NO PROBLEM – occasionally I use what is between my ears.

              • Hi Ray, my friend….howzit going today. Too bad that I am not where you are…after listening to Obama and then “kook meister” from Libya….I would have done your yard, your neighbors yard, and half the yards in your area this morning. But, I have chilled now…DP and fajitas works wonders on the psyche.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Dear Goldie,

        My, how things over the years have changed. At one point, all data on computers and in reports was displayed in caps. Data entry operations were told to enter in caps.

        With the advent of the internet, something was created call Netiquette. It is the on-line version of etiquette. One of the rule os Netiquette is that you only type in all caps only if you are yelling.

        That is why Ray gave you the response up above…

        Goldie, you have made it perfectly clear that you are NOT of the generation that did not grow up with computers…so, how on earth could you be aware of such a thing as Netiquette???

        Let me tell you that I am ecstatic to see your posts. Most of my older folks shy away from computers as they are intimidated by them…I don’t think that you are intimated by anything!!!!! Good for you! I think that you have a great deal of information to share and I always look forward to your posts. Thank you!

        In honor of you today, I’m going to throw aside all netiquette and I’m going to type in all caps!

        BEST REGARDS AND YOU KEEP GOING LADY!!!!!!

        HUGS,
        RICHMOND SPITFIRE

    • Hi Goldie,

      I too, wanted to comment on your posts. What makes this site so great is the debate and commentary from all walks of life. We have some very young posters that are just getting started and we have people such as you that bring years of experiences to your postings.

      I appreciate hearing from you every day!

    • Hi Goldie,

      I enjoy your posts and look forward to seeing more of them.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Goldie – Hi – it took a little searching – but when listening to Sean Hannity you may consider that he occasionally lies as well.

      http://mediamatters.org/research/200909230029

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    In spite of the presence of BF here, and the occasional presence of Kent, and my own new understanding of freedom, liberty, and other related concepts, I still see the argument over and over again that Anarchy would “never work”. I made this reply to Texaschem in yesterday’s posts, but I thought it important enough to carry over to here.

    First of all, I still think that most people here STILL DEFINE GOVERNMENT THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO BE rather than defining it the way that it actually is. Furthermore, I think people still define Anarchy as “Chaos”. Both of these definitions are, of course, wrong!

    Here is what I said in reply to Texaschem yesterday:

    “How do you KNOW “Anarchy would never work”???

    I submit that since it has never been tried, you lack the evidence to make such a statement.

    I MOST CERTAINLY CANNOT say “I know that it would never work” because it has never been seen in action.

    If Orville and Wilbur had never made a “flying machine” just because their friends were laughing at them and saying, “You’ve got to be joking! That would NEVER work!” I think probably someone else would have eventually invented an airplane, but it might have set us YEARS back in the aerospace industry compared to where we are now.

    You seem to forget, Anarchy DOES NOT DENY ALL FORMS OF SOCIETAL ORGANIZATON, it merely denies forms of societal organization that initiate force against the NON-VIOLENT.

    Societal forms of organization that protect against the violent are fine, as long as they are not allowed to initiate violence on the non-violent.

    Christ is not required for this to work, men can do it on their own just fine.

    You have been taught to believe that the majority of people in the world are evil, and you have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Don’t feel bad, you are not alone, but just the fact that most people believe that the majority of other people are “evil” when you can show that most of the people you know are basically “good”, and most of the people I know are basically “good”, and most of the people JAC and BF know are basically “good”, and most of the people that USW, Judy, LOI, and EVERYONE ELSE knows are basically “good” points out the fatal flaw in this belief.

    The majority of people have faults, but are basically “good people”. This is ALL that is required for Anarchy to work just fine. Remeber, Anarchy does not mean total chaos or no social structure, it simply means “no rulers” – that is, you are RESPONSIBLE for yourself.”

    Read this carefully, analyze it, internalize it. Do I know that Anarchy WOULD definitely work? No. I have no evidence that it would or wouldn’t work one way or the other. However, it is obviously the best paradigm of societal organization that allows people to have freedom and liberty.

    I DO HAVE a preponderance of evidence that this thing that we call “government” does NOT work worth a tinker’s damn, and the majority of solutions I see on this site, even to this day, involve “working within the system” to try to fix it. However, Black Flag seems, by all ACTUAL EVIDENCE to be correct. The more people work “within the system”, the bigger, more bloated, more inefficient and more broken the system becomes, so it certainly seems from all available evidence that working within the system has never done anything to restore the system to a “responsible small government”.

    Sure, we can keep trying that approach, but I submit that trying a totally new approach might yield better results.

    Will a totally new approach be tried in our lifetimes? It is unlikely, but it COULD happen. If it DOES happen, I think we better have a pretty strong idea of the new approach that we want to try, or someone else is going to impose their new approach on us, and it may not bear any resemblance to something that we actually want.

  10. And now, a fictitious conversation with a completely made up individual who we shall call “Brown Flag”:

    Me: Are you a vegan?
    Brown Flag: Nope.
    Me: So you think it’s ok to take eggs from chicken and milk from cows?
    BF (not to be confused to Black Flag): As long as the owner of the cows and chickens says it’s ok.
    Me: Gotcha. So are you a vegitarian.
    BF: Nope.
    Me: So you think it’s ok to kill and eat cows and chicken?
    BF: As long as the owner of the cows and chickens says it’s ok.
    Me: In some countries, they eat horse. Is this ok too?
    BF: As long as the owner of the horse says it’s ok.
    Me: In some countries, they eat dog. Is this ok too?
    BF: As long as the owner of the dog says it’s ok.
    Me: In some countries, they eat monkey brains. Is this ok too?
    BF: Probably not… but I’ll say yes for the sake of argument. As long as the owner of the monkey says it’s ok.
    Me: But under no circumstances is it ok to eat a person?
    BF: If the person gives their permission, sure.
    Me: Ok, but without their permission?
    BF: Never.
    Me: Ok, great, so why is it that I may forcibly take from a monkey*, but not a person?

    *If you said no to eating a monkey, replace this with dog. If you said no to dog, replace this with horse. If you said no to horse, replace this with cows and chicken. If you said no to cows and chicken, you are a tool.

    And, while we’re at it, I would still like an answer to my question from the other day: if it were possible for a scientist to transfer your mind from your current body into a new (and presumably younger) body, would it be ethical for you to then take the old body off of life support?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The question is irrelevant. Presumeably the “new and younger” body has an owner, so it would be unethical to transfer your mind to it without the consent of the current owner.

      Hypothetically, if new bodies could be created which were merely “mindless shells” and the transfer of your mind to the new “mindless shell” converted the mindless shell to a human being (you, because it is your mind), which in turn thus rendered your old body (which would still be YOURS) as a mindless shell, then sure… what would be the point of having an old worn-out mindless shell on life support?

      Now, you could use this argument for turning off life support to a “vegetable”, but you see, that “vegetable” is not a “mindless shell”. The mind is still there, although for various reasons (brain injury, etc.) the mind is unable to express itself. For this reason, guardians are appointed to make decisions for the “vegetable” and thus are responsible for it, since the owner no longer has the capacity to make responsible decisions. If the guardian decides that the life support should be turned off, then that is the guardian’s decision.

      Also note, that this could be applied to a fetus. A fetus lacks the capacity to make decisions on its own, and clearly the mother is the guardian of the fetus (provides all of its sustenance, etc.), so it should be her decision whether or not to have an abortion, right?

      NOT SO FAST… someone else contributed 1/2 of the DNA belonging to the fetus… should that person be able to claim equal “ownership” of the fetus regardless of the fact that it resides within the mother? If so, should that person also have a say in whether an abortion is performed or not?

      Finally, just because someone is a vegetable, or a fetus for that matter, does not mean that they are in a PERMANENT STATE of mental incapacity. The vegetable MAY recover (with current medical procedures this does not happen often, but it DOES occasionally happen), and the fetus is clearly GOING TO HAVE the mental capacity to make decisions on its own eventually, so at what point can we decide that it is MORALLY RIGHT to kill either the vegetable or the fetus?

      • So, because in the vegetative state you believe there is some remnant of a mind, you would say the individual still has rights. But in the later case where your mind has been surgically transferred, pulling the plug is fine.

        From this, I would infer that you mean to say that any amount of mental capacity is sufficient to maintain rights.

        “Hypothetically, if new bodies could be created which were merely “mindless shells” and the transfer of your mind to the new “mindless shell” converted the mindless shell to a human being (you, because it is your mind)”
        This suggests that the mind is what creates a human being.

        If a mind is what creates a person, what is the difference between a massively damaged or underdeveloped mind and a monkey such that the later may be killed and eaten, but not the former?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius,

          Since you obviously feel that you have “hit the jackpot” with this argument, I would strongly suggest that you get right on writing the law that says that it is illegal for the lion to eat the gazelle.

          I am sure government will be happy to put you in charge of enforcement. 🙂

        • I’m not arguing anything. I’m just asking questions. All we need to do is answer them and see where they go.

          The question stands:
          If a mind is what creates a person, what is the difference between a massively damaged or underdeveloped mind and a monkey such that the later may be killed and eaten, but not the former?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            They are a different species, Matthius.

            The mind does not alone create the person.

            If you can demonstrate that a monkey has a mind, that does not make the monkey a person.

            Being a Homo Sapiens Sapiens makes a person a person. If the mind of that person is incapacitated, or not fully developped yet, or not fully functional for whatever reason, a guardian (which is also a member of the same species) is appointed to make decisions for the person.

            Biologically speaking, human is human, monkey is monkey, dog is dog, plant is plant.

            The lion has a right to eat you. You have a right to eat the lion. Because you have a superior intellect and the capability of making tools, you potentially have a great advantage should it ever come down to you and the lion.

            If you think that the superior intellect and the tools are an UNFAIR advantage, then when you are confronted by the lion, simply drop all your tools, strip naked, and just RUN LIKE HELL.

            Then it will be perfectly fair! 🙂

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hi Peter,

              I agree. The species are different, the level of intellectual ability is different and it is the use of tools that is different.

              A Monkey plucks a banana from a tree and consumes it – bitter peel and all.

              A Human plucks the banana from the tree, processes it and uses “fire” to make it into a banana pie.

              We as humans do have a moral responsibility though to treat captive animals in a humane manner — it is simply the right thing to do.

              Best Regards,
              RS

          • Great! So now I understand. Being human is what gives me the right to kill and eat the monkey while also giving me the right not to be killed and eaten by other people. Do I have that correct?

            If so, I’m going to ask my question, yet again: What is the difference between the two species such that one I can kill and one I cannot?

            Yes, I understand that one is human (and therefore protected), but what is it about being human that grants than protection?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            The lion does not have any moral compunction whatsoever about eating YOU. It isn’t about to ask your permission… if it is hungry enough, and you are an easy enough target, the lion is simply going to eat you with no further thought.

            Humans are a unique species because they have the ability to reason and form codes of morals and ethics that GUIDE THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH EACH OTHER.

            When you attempt to apply moral and ethical principles to ANYTHING OTHER THAN ANOTHER HUMAN, you become hopelessly confused, and thus able to come up with the kinds of scenarios that sound really interesting, but don’t actually make any sense.

            • OK.. morality only applies to humans.. check..

              So we must behave morally.. check..

              We can eat animals.. check..

              We can’t eat people.. check..

              Because having morals grants you the protections of morality?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                That is the basics of it, yes.

                Because you are human, you are able to formulate ethics and morality. Ethics and morality only apply to other humans because only other humans have the capacity to understand the concepts. If another human is unable to understand the concepts for whatever reason, it is customary to put them under the guardianship of a human that does still have the capability to understand the concepts.

                Trying to apply the same moral and ethical constraints to the animal and plant species which are not human only leads to confusion, because the other animals and plants do not have the capacity to understand and create moral and ethical systems.

                You can, of course, disagree with any or all of that, but that is the basic idea, yes.

              • No, that sounds fine to me.

                Except.. what about coma guy, fetus, and now adding sociopath guy. These three are incapable of comprehending morality, thus are not bound by it?

      • You guys are a hoot.

        I have gone to look for myself. Should I return before I get back, Please ask me to wait.

        (ps: you have permission from the owner).

    • Matt:

      I can eat the monkey because the OWNER gave me permission.

      I can kill the “wild” monkey for food, rendering into my “ownership”.

      I can own the monkey because I have a right to survive and continue my life. That requires food.

      Food is that which comes from those life forms other than that will sustain my existence. Permission is required from the human because humans are capable of giving me their permission. But they must be dead first. I can not kill an innocent person for food, even with their permission.

      If we apply your logic here, all humans will die quickly. For you see, no lower life form is capable of giving us permission to eat it. That includes the plants.

      After my brain transplant I think I will donate my body for food, to feed the poor soals living on Ray’s plastic island. Seems appropriate doesn’t it. A mindless body to nourish the lefties. Of course they would then be free to NOT eat the body if they chose. After all, they may decide to elect it President.

      Sorry Matt, just couldn’t pass that one up.

      • So, here’s the question, you so eloquently danced around:

        Why may I kill and eat a wild monkey, but I may not kill and eat a human?

        What is it, intrinsic to being a human but not a monkey, which renders our “ownership” of our bodies absolute?

        Per the above, I would infer that you mean to say that the difference is that we are able to give permission to use our bodies. If that is your metric, then you must reject the right of infants and coma patients to “own” their bodies.

        • I actually answered your question regarding primacy of ownership but you overlook it.

          The fact that we exist gives us the right to survive which gives us the right to own our bodies. Without such a right we do not have the right to take action needed to assure our own survival.

          The “wild” monkey owns its body as well. But I do not have to ask it for permission to take it because I need to eat, and it is not human. That is the nature of the universe.

          I must ask the human because humans made the rules to coincide with the existence and survival of humans. Remember, morals and ethics are human creations designed to deal with human to human interactions and behavior.

          To do otherwise will cause me to live in a world where humans take on the behavior of other animals. Killing my own kind anytime I need to. It would jeopardize my own survival as other humans would be free to kill me any time they choose.

          The recognition and application of these concepts are what make us human Matt. It is what is supposed to separate us from our Savage ancestors and the rest of the animal and plant kingdom.

          Attempts to pass those moral values and ethics to human to animal or plant interactions creates these absurd conundrums that violate the natural world. Thus, humans must die because no animal or plant will concede to giving up its body for food.

          The monkey by the way has the right to kill humans for food as well. Both the monkey and humans have the right to defend themselves against attack.

          By “able” to give permission I am not just talking about the ability to speak. It is the combination of communications, established morals and ethics. It is the nature of humans and the rest of the animals and plants that make up the world.

          Your conclusion regarding a fetus and coma patient is erroneously based because you jump from “ability to give permission” to “right of ownership”. Ownership stands alone, with the owner. The ability of others to get ownership is limited by the “ability to give permission” of the original owner. Without your permission I can not take your property.

          In your two examples, the issue of guardianship comes to play because neither the fetus nor coma patient are able to communicate their wishes. We humans have devised a mechanism for dealing with this in hopes of carrying out the desires of the one who can not communicate or make rational decisions. Remember, the same rules apply to the mentally handicapped. You don’t have to be comatose to be placed under care of a guardian.

          Now I have probably muddied the water most terribly. Mind is wandering a little today.

          JAC

          • It is true that you have muddied the water, so let’s recap.

            The “wild” monkey owns its body as well. But I do not have to ask it for permission to take it because I need to eat, and it is not human.
            So, because it is not human, we may kill and eat it. I am trying to figure out why, if the monkey owns it’s body, I may take (steal?) from it. If your answer is that it isn’t human, I ask what is it about being human that gives us the right not to be killed and eaten?

            Just saying that it isn’t human is insufficient. It is 99.99% identical to us. It has thumbs, walks upright, is anatomically very similar (and in some ways superior), can reason at a low level, can be taught sign language, etc. Yet, you hold that it is not human. What makes us so special?

            Also, you argue that it may kill and eat us as well. I find this interesting. Why may it kill and eat humans, but we may not kill and eat humans? This is beside the point, but I’m intrigued.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius,

              The minute that you can demonstrate to me that the monkey (or the cow, or the fish, or the chicken, or the turnip) can formulate and understand morals and ethics, WHICH APPLY TO HUMAN INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER HUMANS, I will immediately stop eating the monkey (or cow, or fish, or chicken, or turnip).

              Until then, God wouldn’t have made meat taste so damn good if he hadn’t intended for us to eat it 🙂

              • DING DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!

                “The minute that you can demonstrate to me that the monkey […] can formulate and understand morals and ethics, WHICH APPLY TO HUMAN INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER HUMANS, I will immediately stop eating the monkey[…].”
                So, in order for you not to be ethical in eating something against its will, it must be able to formulate and understand morals and ethics.

                But wait… where does that leave coma guy and fetus..?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                With the guardian, who is capable of understanding these concepts for them, since they are human, yet unable to do so for themselves.

              • So coma guy and the fetus are human, but without rights, so those rights are exercised by proxy via their guardians?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                They still have rights, which is why the guardian is necessary… to ensure that the rights are protected for those unable to protect their own rights on their own.

            • Matt:

              “I am trying to figure out why, if the monkey owns it’s body, I may take (steal?) from it.” Because that is the nature of the universe. Remember, morality and ethics must be consistent with the universe.

              Which leads us to your next question: “If your answer is that it isn’t human, I ask what is it about being human that gives us the right not to be killed and eaten?”

              We don’t have a right “not to be killed and eaten”. We have a right to defend ourselves against being killed or eaten. The “what is it about being human” part of your question is the answer to most of your question.

              It is because we are human. Your argument, or questions, are trying to impose “human rights” onto “monkey rights”. Monkey’s may have their own rights and morals and ethics. I don’t know. All we can do is observe and hypothesize at to what that might be.

              Humans have their own rights, morals and ethics. Perhaps I shouldn’t use the term “rights” when it comes to other animals and plants. After all the concept of a right is, as far as we know, limited to humans (at least on this planet).

              The right to pursue survival has to be a universal among all species or they can not exist. This leads to a right of self defense. But, and this is the Very Big But, Survival is an “active” requirement. Thus it is pursued by an organism, it is not provided by nor guaranteed by another organism. The heart of “survival of the fittest” if you will.

              So you see, saying it isn’t human is sufficient. Regardless of how close it is, it IS NOT human.

              What makes us so special is our brain capacity in the ability to form conceptual thoughts and to communicate those across space and time.

              I answered the question about why we may not kill and eat other humans. We developed concepts in the form of moral and ethical standards, consistent with our right to survive and the laws of the universe, that make it wrong. We have evolved, well at least us Radical Right Wing Liberals have evolved, to the point that we recognize things called rights that will assure our individual survival and our ability to lead a flourishing life and that in developing those we recognize that to kill an innocent human would give other humans the same right. Thus threatening not only my existence but that of all humanity.

              And thus the TRUTH of the univers is revealed. The selfish or egoist ethic preserves the true need of the masses, or the “greater good”. That is the need to survive.

              • If What makes us so special is our brain capacity in the ability to form conceptual thoughts and to communicate those across space and time, and this ability is missing in an individual for whatever reason, they therefore lack the “specialness” required to be “human” by your own definition. Thus I may kill and eat them.

              • Matt:

                NO, and not just NO but HELL NO!!

                You asked what makes humans special. Then you take my answer and twist that into “what makes humans human”.

                Those are different questions Matt. Stop taking one concept and trying to force it into a conclusion that must be supported by a different level of concepts.

                What makes us Human is the fact that we are human. Man qua man.

                What makes humans special (significantly different), compared to other organisms on this planet, is those characteristics I described. As with all characteristics of any specie we describe those that fit the specie as a whole. Thus the characteristics of man. If one man does not have all these characteristics we do not declare them a dog or non-human.

                It is those characteristics that have allowed us to have this discussion.

                The abscense of a properly functioning brain does not negate our existence as a human nor the concepts of morality and ethics that we as humans have developed.

              • Fair enough, and my apologies for the confusion. So let’s try again. What makes us special is our brains – fine but irrelevant.

                What allows us to own property? Specifically, why can I own things while a monkey cannot, or why can my desire for something can supersede the monkey’s and I make take from him by force – it would not be ethical to do this to a person. So wherefore is the difference? If you say it’s that we’re human, I say what about being human makes the difference?

              • I have answered all of these questions above. You in fact answer one of your own.

                Time to think and not just ask a bunch of questions that don’t fit in logical sequence.

                Start from the beginning and reconstruct.

                Write it down and sort it on paper. Then come back. If need be we can pick it up tomorrow.

                But in the meantime I would like to have a little fun with you so here:

                Govt or the lack of govt “allows” us to own property. But “allow” and “right” are NOT the same.

                To my knowledge monkeys do own things. We know they are fiercly territorial. That is a form of ownership. But you will have to ask the monkey what his views are on ownership. Maybe they think all monkeys have a right to own humans. They just haven’t figured out how to exercise their right yet. Again, you need to ask them.

              • Matt:

                Just want you to know I am not being evasive on this. It obviosly is important to you to sort this out..what has you on this I am not sure but so be it.

                I know from the past you usually take off about this time of day.

                Your choice when to continue.
                Just let me know so I am not lingering around.

                Suggest we start again with new thread at the bottom once you are ready.

                Just let me know what you want to do.

                JAC

            • I’m going to interpret for this cat-You ain’t eating me!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Infants and coma patients still own their bodies, but, due to their inability to make sound decisons for themselves, this responsibility is PASSED TO A GUARDIAN (or in the case of an infant, the parents take that responsibility, or if the parents cannot take that responsibility, it again passes to a guardian).

          I assume that you are smart enough to know that.

          • I am trying to figure out how we know that they own their bodies. But do do that, we need to figure out what enables “ownership.” If we take the above logic, being “human” is what is required, but we are 99.99% the same as monkeys, so where is the difference coming from? What about being human is lacking in monkeys that enables us to hold property*, but not them.

            *property in this case is being used to describe ownership of the body. My body is my property and I may do to it whatever I wish, including allow it to be used as food for another.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius,

              In theory if you gave your permission for another human being to eat your body for food, and that other human did indeed want or need to eat your body for food, that would theoretically be perfectly fine.

              Most species will never eat a member of their own species except as a matter of emergency, but if you freely gave me your permission to eat you for food, and I thought you were tasty enough and I was hungry enough, bring out the briquettes, ’cause it’s BARBEQUE ON! 🙂

              • I’m not inclined to give my permission for that, but my question remains unanswered.

                Don’t know how I’d taste, but I’m sure I’d be a heavily caffeinated food.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              By the way, do you have a dog or cat for a pet, and do you claim that you are a dog or cat “owner”?

              If the dog or the cat actually possessed the attributes which you seem to be wishing that you could assign to them, then your concept of “pet ownership” would indeed be invalid.

              However, they do not, so it is not.

              • I’m not wishing to assign anything. In fact it is my opinion that these “rights” are harder to obtain than you think.

                That said, I currently have no pets, but I have had a dog and a cat. I owned my dog, Otisius, and he was the best dog who ever lived. Putting him down was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, but it was the right thing. It was my choice and I did it and I stand by it.

                I also had a cat. Nobody who has ever had a cat actually thinks you can “own” a cat. That said, I don’t believe it had rights any more than a pet goldfish.

      • You gonna serve Soylent Green to Ray and his folks JAC. 🙂

  11. A book holds a house of gold.

  12. Good Morning All

    Just reading for now.

    RS I hope you’re doing better today, and good to see you back.

    Friend Hug to you.

    Judy

  13. I'm learning! says:

    Good morning everyone! I apologize in advance. This posting might get long, but I don’t know how to ask some questions without getting a little wordy! I am going to throw another question at BF – or Kent – or anyone willing to share their thoughts! I told BF a long time ago I would be honored to live in a world he created. And I would!
    If I am viewing life in this world wrong, let me know! But for just one example since it is a hot topic now – health care. I break a leg and have money. It gets fixed. The Dr. charges me his fee. I pay it and life goes on. If I have insurance, payment is made in agreement with the policy and live goes on. However, if I don’t even have enough $ to buy a pot to pee in, I could work something out – more along the line of bartering – clean his house and office for a certain time frame, or if I am a carpenter I could donate labor to repair something or if I am a electrician, I could do some wiring for him. If I am a farmer I could donate some of my crops – say potatoes to eat or give him a hog to eat etc. No regulations, no taxes, and no “higher power” telling us that this would be right or wrong, just an agreement among the parties involved that leave both sides satisfied! Correct?

    Here is where I struggle. Often larger topics get debated – how do you prevent pollution or build and maintain roads. I still have a hard time envisioning private parties providing services for many people. I’m working my way there, but see conflicts preventing it from being any better than the crap we deal with now.

    So, let’s start on a smaller level. The other day the comment was made about legalizing drugs because why should I care what you do to destroy your body? I agree I had that attitude with my father in law who constantly told us he smokes (next to his O2 tank) because he loves it and don’t want to stop. While he says that, he was gasping for breath and spewing phlegm into his handkerchief. Smoke all you want – I don’t care, but don’t expect me to feel sorry for you when you are dying of lung cancer either because I didn’t! On the flip side, he did have respect for other people’s houses and cars and never smoked in them.

    But what about the guy high on meth that was in the kitchen of my nieces 14 year old friends house standing naked with a knife in his hand making something when she came home alone after school one day (apparently people high on meth think they are invisible when they are naked). What happens in your world when your right to get high infringes on my right for my personal safety and security or that of my family. I know the standard reply to this is that drugs are illegal now and this happened. I understand that. But you are looking at a new, better world for everyone. So how is this situation handled in your world?

    Not everyone will live in the country in this new world. There will still be neighborhoods. A few years ago, about ½ block from us was a family that completely trashed their house. They were going into foreclosure and really didn’t care about the place before that, but it got considerably worse when the foreclosure process started. There was garbage piled up in their yard. Ok, it’s their property and their yard and if they want to fill it with old tires and food wrappers and scraps left over from what they eat, then that is there right – correct? But, what about my all the mice, rats, and other unfriendly critters that are coming into our neighborhood because of it? That affects my property in a bad way. And the weeds that are growing that have their seeds blow into everyone else’s yard causing dandelions and thistles and everything else to grow in my grass. Your right to not keep up your property is having a direct effect on their neighbor’s ability to keep theirs up. How is that dealt with in your world?

    This is just a couple of things off the top of my head that I have seen personally. Maybe if I can understand smaller things on a local level, I can grasp the bigger picture of how this works. Because I know there will never be a place without conflict. But how is it handled without laws of some sort and a way to enforce them. Again, I know what we have now don’t work, but what will?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I am going to highlight one particular example you made here.

      By trashing their own property, the neighbors are affecting the VALUE of your property in various ways, which are measureable.

      You are entitled to recompense (compensation) for the loss of value. You are NOT entitled to throw the neighbors in jail, however.

      Also, the trashing of the property is a temporary condition. When the bank forecloses, it will OWN the property, and it will want to re-sell it for as much as possible, meaning that the bank will hire people to clean the place up if they have any sense whatsoever.

      • I'm learning! says:

        But are there laws? In our truly free state, I am under the impression that such laws would not exist. Maybe that is a wrong assumption on my part. Is there a process to get some sort of compensation for loss of property value? Without laws, enforcement or courts, how could I get compensation? We could be like the Amish and “shun” them and hope to affect some deep down moral code. I know I am tainted by the reality of the world we now live in and need to see beyond that to envision this new world. I just don’t know how to go about it

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          There are ALWAYS laws… Natural Law is, after all, called Natural Law for a reason 🙂

          I suggest you read up a little bit on Natural Law and how it works.

          As I said, in the case of your neighbor trashing his property, you would be entitled to recompense based upon the de-valuation of your own property as a result of his actions. You would not be entitled to forcibly evict him from his property or throw him in jail, because his actions were in no way a direct threat to you.

          Now, should it be proven that the rats which infest his property are infected with bubonic plague, then you have the right to defend yourself against this threat… after all, plague will kill you, and kill you rather quickly and unpleasantly!

          So, for an exercise, let’s say that the neighbor has trashed his house and property, which is now infested with rats, and some of these rats carry the plague.

          In the BF world, what courses of action are available to you to deal with this situation?

          Think about this really hard, do a bit of research if need be, and come up with a few answers.

          Hopefully BF or Kent will provide an answer to this hypothetical as well, I find it to be an interesting one.

          • I'm learning! says:

            Now I can start to face my fear – thinking out loud. I tend to think hard first before I respond for fear that I am going to sound like a complete fool. Just asking questions to a group of people like this is a big step. And I freely admit I spent too many years of my life reading the likes of Dean Koontz, Stephen King, Nora Roberts, David Baldacci, etc. So I need to expand my horizons.

            But what can I do to not get the plague? I suppose I could sit there with my gun and pick them off when they hit my property line, but then they are still laying dead in my yard. I could build a fence to keep them out. This might just stink for me because I really like the view on the other side of my yard, and now thanks to my inconsiderate neighbor, I need to protect myself by walling myself in. I could research what a natural predator is to the rats that won’t acquire or pass on the plague and have a herd of that animal in my yard.

            Of course I could always try to be proactive and not assume that this bunch of people just come from a place that finds it acceptable to let their trash lie where it falls and maybe approach them when I first start to see the mess letting them know that there is garbage service available, or a community landfill at a certain location, etc. BF, Kent – enlighten us!

            • I had the trash in the front yard problem with a neighbor once, which also attracted those pesky rats. I woke at 3am, and let a molatov cocktail fix the problem. Amazingly, the problem never reaccurred.

              Sometimes ya just have get mean!

              G!

              • I'm learning! says:

                I like your thoughts. My son, his cousin and friend would take on that task quickly. However if this was happening in today’s “real” world instead of the hypothetical I would really feel sorry for the neighbors that I do like that have a 5 week old baby at in their house!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I’m Learning,

              There is NO form of society which will protect you from all risks at all times – it simply cannot happen. Even if you live your entire life in a “bubble” you might still get hit by a car. Even if you live in a bubble and never leave the house, lightning might strike the house and burn it to the ground… etc.

              The primary way that government operates is to play on your fears, and then convince you that THEY are capable of eliminating all of your risk.

              Any sane person realizes that the government is even more incapable of mitigating/eliminating risk to you personally than you are yourself.

              So, the main thing you have to remember, is who is going to do the BEST job of providing opportunities for you personally while mitigating risk for you personally. The answer to that is, of course, YOU ARE!

    • I’m Learning:

      Let me tackle your questions, or at least try.

      The Meth Dude is easy, given the example. My 14 yr old daughter would have grabbed Uncle Remington from behind the closet door and blown the SOB into eternity. The guy is trespassing and poses and immediate and present danger.

      But lets address the real issue. Should a society allow the use of a substance that always results in this kind of behavior? A substance that creates an addiction with a single use. I happen to draw the line here. But now comes the challenge of how do we prevent the use of such a substance in a free society? My theory is that by dropping bans on the less destructive substances, like pot, we would see a drop in Meth. Meth is a cheap drug and by deregulating Pot it would become the cheap drug.

      Morally, those manufacturing Meth for use by others, whether given or sold, are guilty of using force in my view. That is due to the destructive nature of the substance. We would then have to decide if such a line is dependant on age. For example, giving or selling to an adult is not a crime as both parties are supposedly free to choose. Selling or giving to a child is a crime, because they are still under guardian protection due to lack of cognitive abilities.

      The neighborhood issue is actually the easier one here. Common laws and the concept of property ownership can deal with this. If you live and/or use your property in a certain way, then nobody can move next door and conduct themselves in a way that impedes upon your use of your property as you have established that use. To do so is an imposition and such can be handled by civil action for damages. But you must show actual damage. In your example the rats and mice are damage directly tied to the trashy situation. Your loss of supposed value is not a damage until you actually try to sell. Then you have to prove that your value would have been higher. If you can prove that the weeds in your yard come from the seeds on your neighbors place then you have some damage. But you may have a real problems here as seeds travel very long distances. Your example is a bad one in that it is obviously temporary. If the bank now owns the place then they must clean it up, or face action from you for damages.

      I have tried to address the guy who actually owns the place next door and turns it into a trash heap, or pig farm, or steel plant.

      By the way, if you move next door to the guy with the trash heap, your out of luck. He and his trash heap friends lived there first. If you move down wind of a large dairy, your out of luck, the dairy was there first.

      Does that help any or just make things worse?
      JAC

      • I'm learning! says:

        It helps some! We have an Uncle Remington too! And if you choose not to have an Uncle Remington in your family, you better learn how to throw around cousin ginsu, learn how to fight like Chuck Norris, or figure out a way to provide yourself with a bodyguard. I now no longer need to worry about being thrown in jail or have some ridiculous lawsuit for taking care of someone who is a threat to me and my family on my own property. And maybe that is where it can be confusing. The other day there was a very long discussion that involved Judy (I really had similar thought with you Judy by the way as I was reading through it) about the death penalty and what right do you have to take another person’s life. Do I dare blow him to eternity, or just wipe out his knee caps?

        As for property, I agree, if they were there first, then it’s my fault I moved there. If I was there first, I would like some sort of protection from that type of situation. If common laws are in existence, then that is helpful. I agree lines should be drawn on certain things. We don’t need people supporting drug habits now anymore than we needed someone being hung from a tree in the old west simply for being “accused” of doing something. But who draws the lines and where will be they drawn? If that happens, would that not put us back into being under some sort of government?

        I have always had the very distinct feeling that laws most likely would not exist in BF’s anarchy world. I keep envisioning the eventual chaos of everyone living in their own sets of laws. That might be another source of confusion from past readings. There is so much grey in this black and white world. And I don’t think it will leave. In reality, we might be able to narrow down from 1,000,000 to 1,000 or maybe even 100 shades of grey, but unfortunately it will still be there. I like BF’s world, but think that reaching for the VDLG world is going to be a much more realistic option!

        • Remember, that common laws are those laws that simply evolved from the experience of man interacting with other men. It was the common law that formed much of the basis for our nation’s laws. With the passage of time, and increase in govt control, many of these laws have been replaced with govt laws. That is why we tend to think we need “a law” (written in code) a judge and a sheriff. There is much to be done in the field of law to make a free society workable.

          Without passing judgement on either, it is my opinion that the path to valley filled with Black Flags passes through the land of VDLG.

          In my humble opinion, if it is to ever happen on a large scale (Anarchism) it must be in a sense an evolutionary not revolutionary process. I do not see Anarchy springing from the chaos of collapse, on a large scale.

          I still have issues with Anarchism that have not been addressed but I am not closed completely to the possiblity it might work. I am not sure it is in fact consistent with human nature. I hope we start to explore those issues soon.

          With either system, or the one we have now, we need to recognize that there is an assumption that most living there understand the moral and ethical principles under which they live. That alone would alleviate most of the issues raised here in opposition to either concept.

          You may remember that even BF stated you could not leap from here to there right now, today. What he is saying is that we may not have the time to let it evolve slowly. Other factors may create the situation we fear, chaos. So if we prepare, some of us may be able to salvage either VDLG or Anarchy from the ruins. If collapse does happen, the conversion will not be on a large scale but in those places where enough of the remnants exist to pull it together.

          By the way, in the Land of VDLG there are written laws, courts and a sheriff to execute the court’s rulings. The court is a jury of peers in all matters affecting a citizens rights. There is also a legislative body to write the laws. But therein lies the potential danger we must solve. How to empower someone to write laws without empowering them to empower themselves or others.

          Best Wishes there Learning.
          Hope you had a great day.
          JAC

  14. T-Ray
    Continued from Yesterday

    The premise was could we replace ME oil with domestic energy sources and maybe break out of the strategic bind in the ME. The rules are no government subsidies or force, only market rules. ME oil & product amount to about 11% of our oil consumption. We no longer have sufficient refining capacity to serve our needs so we not only import crude but product. My premise is that we can replace that 11% and do it profitably. It will not happen overnight and some of the technology is still being developed. But it is looking more promising that it did even 2 years ago.

    Premise: replace M/E oil with domestic.

    Yes, considering shale oil holds more quantity the rest of the world proven reserves combined.

    Premise 2:strategic bind in the M/E.

    Here is where we diverge.

    The former premise is predicated on a physical fact – the premise is merely a political conundrum.

    You are trying to use #1 to solve #2.

    However #2 is not caused by #1.

    We do not have political conundrums with Canada, the largest importer of oil to the USA.

    Therefore, importing oil is not a cause of political conundrums.

    So, to see if your “answer” will break the M/E problem, we need to really understand what the problem in the M/E is.

    I can certainly get into this in detail – but I am confident I will show that it has nothing to do with importing oil, but everything to do with mercantilism of oil in the M/E.

    Because it has to do with mercantilism – that is, by the force of arms, the US, UK and European oil companies have seized the oil resources of foreign countries.

    The solution to the M/E is merely to end the mercantilist policies.

    Mercantilism is wholly dependent on political machinations in the USA.

    Ending these machinations ends mercantilism, which releases the conundrum of the M/E which solves the ‘M/E’ problem.

    Conclusion: M/E problem is not caused by economics. It is caused by politics.

    You cannot solve a political problem with an economic answer, as you cannot solve an economic problem with a political answer.

    The rest of your post is, IMO, a wholly different topic – that is, a discussion on the consequences of introduction of alternative energy and fuel – and is independent to this dialogue.

    As such, I’ll address it separately.

    • Those mercantilist policies taught them (ME) where the oil was, showed them how to drill to bring it the surface, financed the operation, built the ships to move the product to market, built refineries to convert the useless crude to saleable refined product, and marketed that product worldwide. We are now teaching them how to build refineries with our (western) technology so they can sell finished product to us instead of crude thus capturing more of the profit for themselves. I think there has been sufficient quid pro quo here.

      There is much the public does not understand about the oil business. Crude as it comes out of the ground is useless. Why then is most of the profit made at well head instead of where the value is added at the refinery. Rockefeller understood this when he cornered the refining market in Cleveland, thus controlling the price of crude. Prior to that the industry went through boom and bust cycles as new wells came online (over supply) and demand rose to exceed supply. Eventually, with the formation of other refiners and the break up of Standard Oil, the profits got pushed back to the well head. The boom and bust cycles began again. The Texas Railroad Commission set the price for many years and the oil depletion allowances encourged placing all the profits at the well head. Instead of the TRC we have Opec a cartel setting the price. Today we have not broken out of that mode as refining is still barely a breakeven enterprise. State and federal tax receipt exceed the refiners profit.

      Several years ago I wrote several patents that were assigned (owned) by my employer. My compensation was the consideration of $1 and continued employment. I never received the dollar it was considered. The company I worked for sold the division I was in and the new owner sold the patents to another company for a 6 figure amount. I and a few others bought our company. Now I pay royalties to produce products that use my own patents. The ideas came out of my head (no different than oil out of the ME ground) but the development of those ideas into useful products was funded by the company who reaped significant returns from the patents. While I may resent the inequities, I harbor no ill will towards any one and would not dream of inflicting any violence.

      I think the ME has reaped more than ample rewards as a result of our mercantilism. I will admit that the have some cause to resent us but consider the fact they would still be nomads in the dessert without our technology. If we are not dependent on ME oil, then maybe we can cut the oil diplomacy Gordian knot.

  15. I'm learning! says:

    We were recently notified by our school that there are several kids going home with flu like symptoms and that there was 1 confirmed case of H1N1. An article in the local paper said they were only testing people for H1N1 if you are hospitalized, part of a cluster outbreak or have been in contact with hogs within 7 days of the symptoms.

    Needless to say with the hit hog producers took with the onset of “swine flu” that cause many concerns and questions since we are not supposed to be able to get it from hogs or pork products. The next day they had an article to clarify it. This is the first and only place I have heard this, but for anyone who works with hogs (and local hog farmers had not heard this prior to this article), this might be good to know!

    There are documented cases of people-to-swine transfer in Canada, Argentina and Australia, Scheftel said. “We are not suggesting individuals got infected from swine,” Scheftel said. The MDH wants cultures from people with influenza who regularly work with pigs because the information is used by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, which tracks and investigates respiratory illnesses in swine, Scheftel said.

  16. For those who might be interested in this.

    Citgo Gas (7-11)

    IN ORLANDO LAST WEEK, AT A CITGO STATION, REGULAR GAS WAS PRICED AT$1.82
    PER GALLON, AND NO CUSTOMERS.

    HOWEVER, ACROSS THE STREET FUEL WAS SELLING FOR $1.85 PER GALLON AND ALL
    PUMPS THERE HAD CARS WAITINGTO FUEL UP. What’s going on? Word is
    getting around!!!!! Read on:

    Have you noticed how the CITGO signs have disappeared in the past 7-8
    months? A very clever move by Chavez. But guess what, “CITGO” IS
    CHANGING ITS NAME, too….
    This is serious, Americans,…make sure you read this very carefully.

    NEWS FLASH:
    Chavez is NOW getting a Russian Weapons Factory built by Putin. The RUSSIANS
    are building an AK -47 Kalashnikov Assault Rifle factory in Venezuela , to
    give armament support to Communist Rebel groups throughout the Americas
    ….

    Chavez NOW has IRANIANS operating his oil refineries in Venezuela for him.
    It is likely only a matter of time, if not already, before Chavez has
    Iranian built LONG RANGE missiles, with a variety of warhead types aimed at:
    Guess Who?

    CITGO is NOW in the process of Changing Its Name to “PETRO EXPRESS” due to
    the loss of gasoline sales in the USA …due to the recent publicity of
    ownership by Chavez of Venezuela.

    Every dollar you spend with ”CITGO” or “PETRO EXPRESS” gasoline will be
    used against you, your basic human rights, and your freedoms. He will start
    wars here in the Americas that will probably be the death of millions..

    THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT because Chavez is starting to feel the loss of
    revenue from his holdings. HE OWNS “CITGO”. This is a very important move
    that everyone should be aware of.

    ANNOUNCED JUST RECENTLY: “CITGO”, BEING AWARE THAT SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO
    U.S. CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM ‘CITGO-CHAVEZ’, HAVE STARTED TO
    CHANGE THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR STORES TO: ‘PETRO EXPRESS’. DO NOT BUY
    FROM “PETRO EXPRESS” EITHER!!! ‘PETRO EXPRESS’ IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY
    “CHAVEZ.”

    KEEP THIS MEMO GOING SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING.
    BOTTOM LINE,– BOYCOTT “CITGO” & “PETRO EXPRESS” please!!

    PLEASE MAKE SURE THIS IS PASSED ON TO EVERYONE IN YOUR E-MAIL LIST IN THE
    UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE OF AMERICA .

    • Ummm…..Judy

      Judy says: Chavez NOW has IRANIANS operating his oil refineries in Venezuela for him.
      It is likely only a matter of time, if not already, before Chavez has
      Iranian built LONG RANGE missiles, with a variety of warhead types aimed at:
      Guess Who?

      D13 says: Not too worried about the oil refineries being run by Iranians. The Iran oil production is 50% of what it used to be because of the infrastructure problems created by the Iranians.

      Doesn’t need Iranian missiles. Russian missiles are already there.

      But do not fret….Obama is to the rescue. He said so.

      • Hi D13

        That was sent to me by my son from work, and I just thought I’d pass it along.

        Yes, I know, Obama will fix everything. Here he comes to save the day, Obama is on his way.

      • Who is Chavez going to launch missiles at? The US?

        Venezuela would be obliterated.

        Chavez is not a stupid man – he is a savage, and he has children – and he is not stupid.

        • If Chavez really wanted to destroy the US, he’ll simply stop oil exports.

          The US would tank in 3 days.

          • America gets way more oil from Canada than Venezuela… by your reasoning BF, we’ll get another NHL team for Hamilton if we… but we’d feel guilty and… crap! Just forget it.

  17. USWeapon Topic #2

    Getting a Better handle on the Importance of Gold Prices

    What, again, is the threshold for the price of gold that you feel is the number that we are in big trouble if we pass it? For example, I think you said the other day it was at $1005 an ounce. But I had thought that you said previously that the scary number was if it reached $1000.

    The all-time high of gold is $1030/oz.

    Why is all of this important?

    We have to remember that governments and central banks hate gold. They cannot inflate their currencies wildly is gold is directly or indirectly tied to the currency. People will abandon the currency and buy gold.

    Gold has been under attack by these entities. But at the same time, they are constrained by gold.

    Gold bullion is not an investmentit is a store of wealth It is like keeping a solid, backed, currency in your mattress. It earns nothing.

    Central banks hold the largest stores of gold – earning -0.1% (because there are fees to store gold – you have to pay for rent for the gold in a vault). Central banks use gold to back their currencies – even though no currency is officially backed by gold. Even the US and all its fiat still has (at least theoretically) a store of gold to back up the currency.

    However, this gold is not ‘making money’ for the banks.

    To get around the reserve requirements , they created a new entity “Bullion Banks”.

    Then the Central banks ‘lent’ their gold to the bullion banks at 1%, who then sold the gold into the market place. This dramatically pushed the price of gold down.

    The Bullion banks then took the cash and invested it into the market, earning 5-15%.

    Kaching! A perfect scenario. The Central banks have not sold their gold – they lent it. So they can still claim ‘gold reserves’ in their reporting – even though it only amounts to pieces of paper.

    The Bullion banks have been lent the cheapest, real, money on earth, and investing it at 500%-1500% returns. “Money is its own end” is the song!

    Problem: One day, the stock market crashed and the Bullion banks took a hit. Gold started to climb….

    The Bullion banks need to return the gold. But now, they’ve taken a bath in the stock market at the same time the price of gold is rising. They are essentially bankrupt.

    Now, the Central banks will not get their gold back. The pieces of paper are essentially worthless. But as no one ‘knows’ there is no gold, there ‘is still gold’ in them there vaults!

    So the game is afoot. The Central banks trying to push down gold prices so that the Bullion banks can buy it and replace the paper with the gold. It’s a race against time. The Bullion banks are in trouble, because as soon as the gold goes down to where they need to buy it, the Chinese and Indians and Gold Mine companies* buy it up and demand delivery.

    (*Gold mining companies joined into this little game too. Why mine the gold out of the ground to simply put into a vault? Why not keep the gold inside Nature’s vault (the ground) and sell it from there? It’s called Forward selling It allowed the Gold mines to sell gold without having to actually mine it! Kaching!! …except if someone actually wants to take delivery…then you’ve got a bit of a problem – you have to actually mine the gold! – and if you’ve already spent the money… how are the mines going to pay for getting the gold they’ve already sold???)

    I believe this is why the FED is absolutely reluctant for an audit. I believe the audit will find pieces of paper in the vaults and no ore.

    Why is it that you feel the price of gold is an important economic indicator?

    Gold is the direct and opposite indicator of faith in government.

    If the People have a lot of faith in government, they sell their gold and lent the money. Gold earns nothing, but it is better than nothing, but if the rate of return is high and government is good – make money!. If faith in government is high, Gold owners are willing to take the wee-little risk in selling gold and investing the cash into government bonds and bills, etc.

    If faith in Government falls, the People sell the bonds and bills and go back into gold. Gold in hand is better than a faithless promise.

    The higher the price of gold, the lower the faith in government.

    Governments hate high gold prices.

    Can you explain the rationale behind your intense following of the prices?

    In a free market, it is the aggregate of opinions that are measured against all – and out of that, comes ‘a price of one thing or another’.

    There are some who are faithful in government, other not so, and others vehemently not so. They buy and sell between them, determine the free market consensus.

    Because it deals with money and economics – it is like a blood pressure – the best indicator in the health of system.

    When people start pulling out of an economy and going into hard assets, it is a sign that there is a dipping of trust.

    Trust is the most important virtue in a free market.

    If trust is high, people will accept promises. If trust is low, people refuse promises and demand real goods.

    People are showing they do not trust and are now demanding hard goods and delivery.

    Business relies on trust. A drop in trust will lower the rate of business which will slow the rate of economic transactions, which will stagnate the economy.

    Can you give a brief summary of the last ? years of pricing (whatever time period you think is relevant)? Has the price doubled or tripled or risen and then fallen, and what does that mean to the rest of us that don’t have quite the same grasp on economics that you have?

    Gold prices in 1990 ranged from a low of $350 to a high of $380. In twenty years, it has increase 300% and climbing.

    Putting this into something we can understand, that is a 13% return –annual compounding (which means the interest is added into the principle and reinvested again).

    The CPI rate of inflation over the same period of time was 1.3%

    Like any commodity, it has shot up and then been driven down. The trend, however, is mind bonging. 13 times the rate of inflation…..

    I’m learning!

    I know there isn’t enough gold to cover they money that is floating around the world.

    This needs to be corrected, because if we start expanding our dialogue into more complex concepts, this idea will badly aggravate a misunderstanding.

    Now, this is also important.

    If you do not want to understand money and therefore have no want to avoid the more complex consequences of economic disaster or equally, have large faith in government and do not believe in my mumbo jumbo, you can stop here. Money and Currency, for you, can be considered the same.

    For the rest of us,…..
    Money is NOT Currency

    Money is, simply, the most desired commodity in an economy.

    It is ‘the thing’ that most people want, therefore are very willing to trade what they have in their possession for it.

    For a long time in our modern era, a little green piece of paper with pictures of Presidents was the commodity most people wanted above all other commodities.

    Why?

    Because if you had this green paper, other people would trade what they have (and what you really wanted) for it.

    You traded something that you did not want because you have too much of it (ie: probably your time) for pieces of paper, so to trade that paper for what you did not have (ie: food).

    So, to correct your statement – there is exactly the right amount of money in the world.

    However, the amount of currency representing this money is far too high.

    Therefore, the amount of currency needed to represent money will increase.

    Instead of ONE piece of paper represent ONE unit of money, there are TEN pieces of paper representing ONE unit of money.

    Mathius

    It’s irrelevant. If you want a better indicator of market instability, look at the VIX index. This is a volatility measurement. It’s currently trading around 23 and the high was in November at 80. You can see the spikes for Lehman, Bear, etc.

    Such indexes are merely another person’s statistics and biases.

    Unless one can fully understand the implications of selecting ‘this measure and value’ over ‘that measure and value’, it is pointless.

    Now gold, not gold ETFs (I’m sure Mr. Flag feels strongly that one should own physical gold), who cares?

    I care.

    One is a promise, the other is in my hand.

    I trust my hand before I trust a promise.

    It’s a shiny metal that is extremely useful in the construction of electronics, tooth fillings, and jewelry and little else. For centuries, possibly millennia, humans used gold coins to transfer wealth.

    Given that gold has survived for 10,000 years and across almost every culture on Earth – from the Incas to the Egyptians to the Chinese – I’ll kinda trust that as money before a green piece of paper with pictures of politicians.

    But what Mr. Flag misses is that this is no different than fiat money.

    A common, and serious, misunderstanding of many people.

    It is very different from fiat.

    Gold cannot be created upon demand. Gold supply is finite.

    Fiat currency can be created instantly upon demand. It can be created infinitely.

    This mistake here will cost you all your wealth.

    Gold has very, very little intrinsic value. It is only because we agree that it is valuable that it is valuable. The same is true of paper money.

    Read lesson on “what money is” above.

    And, remember, that because the price of gold fluctuates, it is no safe harbor against inflation.

    A massively dangerous claim.

    Since gold cannot be created on demand, it is essentially immune to inflation. Paper money can be created upon demand, and very easy to inflate.

    Gold is the safest harbor against inflation

    Gold is USELESS in Deflation

    If you buy gold now and the world markets calm down, you will lose money.

    Almost right – except you will not ‘lose money’ – …. you will lose value.

    And Matt is correct.

    If you believe the government will manage to calm down the global economy, you will lose value if you convert your dollars into gold

    So the question is:

    Do you believe Matt (and the Keynesians) or
    Do you believe Me (and the Austrians)?

    Make your pick and go with it.

    • Staying in Texas…don’t want to go to Austria (although it is a beautiful country) Water and food will deplete your gold. I will have the water and food and then your gold, then I will have both until you run out of gold. Then, my water and food will still have the most value for the next currency. I love capitalism.

      • That is correct.

        In hyper-inflation of jewelery, there was a transfer of grand pianos, heirlooms and gold to farmers in return for eggs and bread.

        If we get hyper-inflation, D13, you will die too.

        A modern advanced economy depends on a high division of labor.

        Hyper-inflation destroys economic calculation that such a division of labor depends. This destroys the division of labor.

        Such a destruction will collapse Western Civilization. Millions will die. You will die.

        • Gawd I hate no editors

          In hyper-inflation of jewelery, there was a transfer of grand pianos, heirlooms and gold to farmers in return for eggs and bread…

          Jewelery got word processed from GERMANY

          In hyper-inflation of GERMANY, there was a transfer of grand pianos, heirlooms and gold to farmers in return for eggs and bread

        • Not gonna die unless they come and kill me. That is the only way…but there will be a hell of a lot of em with me.

          • They do not have to come and kill you.

            Unless you know how to make a plow out of tree, leather out of cow, steel from ore out of the ground – and hitch it up to a horse and plow your field, know how to grow grain and vegetables and store such without refrigeration up to 5 years – you will die.

            Therefore, you will die.

            • You can come down to south east Texas D13.We have plows, mules, land,seed, weapons, cattle, horses,more weapons, chickens, hogs creeks and lakes,more deer than you can shake a stick at etc…Heck we even got our own oil well! I’ll be needing wise advisers anyways since I’ll be king of southeast Texas… 😉

              • You can experiment.

                Go and try it for one year. If you can make it for one year, I’ll believe you.

              • BF, It’s hard work, but don’t overload on that term. Feeding a family of 4 living off the land with no refrigeration is very doable. It does require preplanning, but is very doable.

                G!

              • …for a year, maybe two?? Get a wound and infection, you’ll probably die. Catch the flu, you’ll probably die. Catch a bad winter, you’ll probably die.

                There will be survivors, yes.

                I believe it will be based on a probability.

                The odds are very bad.

    • Oh..left Matt out. Doesn’t matter, the result is the same.

      Did not mean to leave you out, Matt. Sorry.

    • Thanks BF; I truly appreciate your lessons.

    • I'm learning! says:

      BF

      If you do not want to understand money and therefore have no want to avoid the more complex consequences of economic disaster or equally, have large faith in government and do not believe in my mumbo jumbo, you can stop here. Money and Currency, for you, can be considered the same.

      I do want to understand which is why I thought putting the whole picture together in one place would be awesome. I don’t want to make the grave error of a wrong term in the wrong place. Which I just did. I want to understand it. Trust me, your mumbo jumbo isn’t what I have little faith in. It is just what I need to learn how to grasp. As for faith in government…on a scale of 1 to 10, my faith is somewhere around a negative 1 trillion. (I do have a grasp of a trillion now days)

      • I’m Learning

        That quip was not aimed at you directly

        I sincerely apologize for not making that statement explicitly general instead of putting it under a comment to you.

        I was using your specific comment to offer a general reply of the concept of money because I saw others, like Mathius, flip between the two concepts of currency and money as if they were the same.

        Sorry ’bout that!

  18. Democrats nix putting pre-vote health bill online
    Associated Press – 9/23/2009 11:25:00 AMBookmark and Share

    WASHINGTON – Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.

    Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.

    Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.

    The Democrats noted that unlike other committees, the Finance Committee works off conceptual language that describes policies – instead of legislative language that ultimately becomes law, and which the GOP amendment would have required.

    Democrats accepted an alternate amendment to make conceptual language available online before a vote.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

    WASHINGTON (AP) _ Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus heard some encouraging words Wednesday from a key centrist Democrat as he opened the second day of a committee meeting to debate and vote on his sweeping health overhaul bill.

    Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said she only wants to support legislation that reduces the deficit and holds down long-term costs. Baucus’ bill, she said, “does meet these very important goals … setting us on a sustainable path for the future.”

    Lincoln is up for re-election in a conservative-leaning state so she’s one of the moderate Democrats Baucus, D-Mont., needs to win over in his committee _ and whose backing President Barack Obama will need if Congress is to deliver on his top domestic priority.

    Her comments underscored the delicate juggling act for Finance Committee Democrats as they deliberate Baucus’ nearly $900 billion, 10-year bill: Making health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans while holding down spending.

    Baucus’ legislation, built along the lines Obama is seeking, aims to extend coverage to most uninsured Americans, expand protections for those already covered and generally reduce the ruinous growth in medical costs nationwide.

    The first day of the committee’s meeting to debate and vote on the bill dragged late into the night Tuesday with Republicans raising a slew of questions, from the legislation’s cost to its basic constitutionality, and only one amendment out of 564 pending came to a vote. That was a non-controversial measure, approved by voice vote, creating a test project in Medicare to allow hospitalized patients to be monitored electronically from afar by specialists.

    As the committee took up a daunting task that has thwarted past congresses, Baucus heralded the occasion. “This is our opportunity to make history,” he said.

    By the end of the night he just wanted an end in sight. “At some point we’ve got to get to amendments,” Baucus said as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, raised question after question.

    “We’ve got to understand what’s in this doggone bill,” Hatch complained. “This is not some itty-bitty bill. This could wreck the country.”

    Baucus is aiming to get the bill through his committee by the end of the week and ultimately he’s expected to succeed. But if Day One was any measure, there will be plenty of fights along the way.

    In a sign of the tensions evoked by the bill, several committee Democrats called for increasing the rebates that drug companies must pay the government for certain low-income patients. That would breach an agreement among the White House, Baucus and drug makers under which drug companies have agreed to pay $80 billion toward the cost of a health overhaul, including reducing prescription drug prices for some seniors.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., complained that he and others were never part of the deal with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and were under no obligation to protect drug makers from further costs.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, responded angrily that the deal would stand, noting that the White House helped adopt it.

    Baucus kept his mouth shut through the debate on drug costs but postponed a vote on the amendment until Wednesday. The amendment’s author, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the change would raise some $86 billion which he would use to protect seniors enrolled in private insurance plans under Medicare from any changes under the legislation.

    Despite Obama’s repeated claims that Medicare benefits will not be cut, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf told senators Tuesday that the elderly in the private Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus’ bill.

    Baucus’ bill is the most conservative, and cheapest, of five bills in Congress, and as a result committee Democrats and the one Republican whose vote Baucus is courting _ Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine _ had concerns about whether it did enough to make insurance affordable for people who will face a new requirement to buy it.

    Baucus announced $50 billion in changes Tuesday to address that issue. The most significant would sweeten the subsidies for individuals and families with incomes up to four times the government’s poverty level _ which would work out to be $43,320 for individuals and $88,200 for a family of four. Baucus also decided to reduce the penalty for families who defy a proposed requirement to purchase coverage, from $3,800 to $1,900.

    Elmendorf estimated in a letter to Baucus that some families with annual incomes in the range of $66,000 could wind up spending as much as 20 percent of that _ $13,300 _ in out-of-pocket health expenses such as premiums and copays. The changes Baucus announced Tuesday would reduce that somewhat but the estimates still alarmed some Democrats.

  19. Afternoon Ya’ll!

    After reminising about my experience with the taste of monkey meat some years back, I ran across an article that is a must read.

    If Healthcare reform (it’s current form)= getting something shoved down your throat, and

    Cap and trade = getting something shoved up your a$$, then

    this: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54400 = getting kicked in the crotch really hard.

    Hope everyone is well today!

    G!

    • We can only hope….

      liked this quote:

      “…..noted that many of his freshman colleagues on the other side of the aisle were forced by the leadership to vote for the House bill without the opportunity to read it.”

      Maybe all those “Read the Damn Bill” signs helped them get the idea.

  20. And here are those Chicago bully tactics at work in the WH:

    The federal government resorted to bullying tactics when it ordered an investigation of Humana — one of the country’s biggest private insurers — for its decision to send customers a letter alerting them about pending health reform legislation, a leading Republican charged Wednesday.

    U.S. health officials launched the probe after the Louisville-based company mailed a letter to patients enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans — private options that replace standard Medicare — warning that President Obama’s health overhaul could eliminate important benefits of the program.

    Humana said in its letter that if Medicare Advantage funding gets cut, “millions of seniors and disabled individuals … could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable.”

  21. Mathius

    After an afternoon of battle, our favorite villain – Prince Mathius Humperdink appears surrounded.

    And, to his disappointment – late in the battle – a cloud of dust and a thunder of cavalry appears behind his lines – gasp! Flying a Pirate flag.

    Surrounded and fully engaged on all sides – desperation and fear crosses the faces of Mathius’ mercenary troops – ….

    And now, a fictitious conversation with a completely made up individual who we shall call “Brown Flag”:
    Me: Are you a vegan?
    Brown Flag: Nope.
    Me: So you think it’s ok to take eggs from chicken and milk from cows?
    BF (not to be confused to Black Flag): As long as the owner of the cows and chickens says it’s ok.
    Me: Gotcha. So are you a vegitarian.
    BF: Nope.
    Me: So you think it’s ok to kill and eat cows and chicken?
    BF: As long as the owner of the cows and chickens says it’s ok.
    Me: In some countries, they eat horse. Is this ok too?
    BF: As long as the owner of the horse says it’s ok.
    Me: In some countries, they eat dog. Is this ok too?
    BF: As long as the owner of the dog says it’s ok.
    Me: In some countries, they eat monkey brains. Is this ok too?
    BF: Probably not… but I’ll say yes for the sake of argument. As long as the owner of the monkey says it’s ok.
    Me: But under no circumstances is it ok to eat a person?
    BF: If the person gives their permission, sure.
    Me: Ok, but without their permission?
    BF: Never.
    Me: Ok, great, so why is it that I may forcibly take from a monkey*, but not a person?

    Because, self-evidently, a monkey is not a human being!

    Re-read this a million times so it sinks in, Matt.
    What I do to you give you the right to do to me

    I do not want you to eat me, therefore I do not eat you.

    if it were possible for a scientist to transfer your mind from your current body into a new (and presumably younger) body, would it be ethical for you to then take the old body off of life support?

    Matt, I’ll love to get into this with you – HOWEVRE

    As long as you remain confused about a more simpler concept of Human Rights, you cannot understand a more complex issue of Human Rights.

    Until you grasp the concept of multiplication – calculus is simply incomprehensible.

    • BF Stated:”I do not want you to eat me, therefore I do not eat you.”

      Hope we are never on the same plane investigating global warming together and it crashes in the arctic somewhere I’m gonna hafta’ cook n eat ya’ cause I’m an educated barbarian and like living. 🙂

      • If I am dead – you can use my flesh for food so you can survive – I am positive I won’t care.

        If I am alive – I will call you “Savage!” and defend myself.

        Will a Civilized Man prevail or will the Savage Man? I dunno….. the outcome is indeterminable until after the fight.

    • That’s great, do unto others and all that, but it misses the question.

      If you have the right to kill and eat an animal, and I hold that you do, there is something missing in that animal that is present in you that allows for this. Specifically, because you are Human your rights are inviolable. Granted. Now here’s the catch: Why does being human grant you this special right?

      So, for reference, it is not sufficient to say a circle is different from a square because it is a circle. A circle is different from a square because it is round. A human has rights that an animal does not, not because it is human, but because of ________.

      • I can not believe it… please Gawd, make this one work cleanly….

        Attempt #3

        If you have the right to kill and eat an animal, and I hold that you do, there is something missing in that animal that is present in you that allows for this. Specifically, because you are Human your rights are inviolable. Granted. Now here’s the catch: Why does being human grant you this special right?

        Because — (wait for it) …. Humans have Human Rights!!

        A monkey has …. Monkey rights! And if a monkey ever gets around to articulating them, I’ll be happy to listen – I doubt, however, they will avoid contradiction, so I’ll probably ignore them.

        So, for reference, it is not sufficient to say a circle is different from a square because it is a circle. A circle is different from a square because it is round. A human has rights that an animal does not, not because it is human, but because of ________.

        No, sir!

        For reference a circle is described as a point in motion around a second, fixed, point where the distance between the two points is constant! The premise of all geometry is the point. It is from that premise that all of geometry is proven.

        You wish to derive human rights from the middle of system where you have yet to describe its premise.

        Start from the premise – the unprovable , immutable principle and build from there.

        • I am so laughing, which I needed today! Kinda thought my answer below #28 was simpler, at least i kept it that way. We both need an editor!

          G!

        • Nope, sorry, didn’t take. I think we’re just working in circles here..

          Monkeys have monkey rights.. check..

          Humans have human rights.. check..

          Why does a monkey have monkey right rather than human rights though? Is it because of the slight difference in our DNA? Is that slight difference all that separates us from them, and therefore our set of rights from theirs?

          I understand your point, but please see mine for what it is and tell me. The fact that a monkey is a monkey and therefore should have the rights attendant to a monkey is not in question. What I wish to know is why those rights are inferior to ours. Or why they should be different at all.

          There is something that is different about a monkey and a human that must account for the reason that I cannot kill and eat you, but I can kill and eat them.

          I don’t understand this disconnect. If a tire works great one way and doesn’t work another way, we can see that the reason for this is a lack of air in the tire. That air (or lack thereof) is the reason why it is useful one way and useless another. In this analogy, what is the “air” that the monkey lacks.

          And I’ll go ahead and help you out since everyone seems hell-bent on missing it. We are capable of higher thought. If the monkey were capable of higher thought, it would be a small furry human for all intents and purposes and you would consider its rights as inviolable as your own, would you not?

          • Matt,

            Rule #1. When in the ocean, where Great White Sharks are present, humans are not safe.

            Rule #2. If Humans have the advantage, intellectually, on land, and are hungry, most, not all, other forms of life are edible, animal or plant.

            Other than humans, and domesticated animals, who do have the legal rights to be treated proper (even if they are for food for humans), all animals that can be harvested, raised or whatever, are what they are. They will be food for the upper parts of the food chain, or they will die of old age, and still become part of the food chain! It’s called nature, dictated by the forces of the universe. The universe never lies, but politicians do, daily!

            G!

          • Not asking about the ethics that apply to sharks. I am asking about the ethics that apply to man.

            I wish to know what a cow lacks that it may be domesticated and harvested ethically. I can certainly cage humans and then harvest them for food, but this wouldn’t be ethical.

            In accordance with rules #1 and #2, I would infer that might makes right. Yet I know how many here would feel about that. Does the fact that we can kill and eat animals make it ethical? I would say that it’s fine to kill and eat them, but the question, again, is why? How many times can I re-phrase this before I get a straight answer?

            Monkeys are human in every way except for .01% of their DNA, but have inferior rights. Humans have this different .01% and have superior rights. Thus the logical conclusion is that the origin of these rights is in that .01% difference.

            If we accept that premise, though I assume you don’t, we have to ask the followup question: What about this .01% of our DNA is so special? I makes us taller, less hair, physically weaker, and changes our brains. If being taller grants superior rights, giraffes would have superior rights to us. If being less hairy granted superior rights, then dolphins would have superior rights to us. If being physically weaker granted superior rights, then bunnies would have superior rights to us. So what’s left but our brains?

            If we accept that premie, though I assume you don’t, we have to ask the followup question: If I have my brain and thus superior rights and subsequently lose the functionality of that brain due to illness or accident, what justification do I have for my superior rights? If I have never had a higher functioning brain, what justification do I have for my superior rights?

            Now, we’ve been here before and I want to be clear. I do not suggest that smarter people are superior or have superior rights to other people. I would like that on the record for anyone who is reading this and is about to pounce on me. Also, I do not suggest that downs syndrome, mild dementia, even severe dementia, learning disabilities, retardation, etc should disqualify you. Only a complete lack of a brain which can reasonably be said to function in any meaningful way beyond the autonomic nervous system.

          • Matt:

            “it would be a small furry human for all intents and purposes and you would consider its rights as inviolable as your own, would you not?”

            No!

            It’s not the presence of higher thought. The monkey’s thought process is higer than the slug as best we know. But makes no matter.

            If monkeys could talk they would still not have HUMAN RIGHTS. Because they would still be monkeys. If they were capable they could claim and articulate the same rights as humans but they would still be Monkey Rights.

            You see, I did not miss your infered conclusion. I simply don’t share your theory. I tried to explain the logic as to why it was not simply a matter of brain function, but you refused the answer. In fact I still think you are asking the wrong question with regard to the answer you seek.

            That is the answer to the question of whether we, as humans, would create a moral standard and/or ethic to NOT kill monkeys if they suddenly started talking to us in some rational manner. Could we, as HUMANS kill another creature for food if it suddenly cried out “please don’t kill me”? The answers to these types of questions is not a matter of rights but of morality and ethics.

            Of course, that is just my humble opinion.

            • Fair enough, so what is it that makes the difference? Yes they aren’t human, but why does that mean that they don’t get human rights?

              There has to be an answer to that, and the only conclusion I can find is the one you just rejected.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “Yes they aren’t human, but why does that mean that they don’t get human rights?”

                You answered your own question within the question. Please re-read your own question if you want the answer.

                Feel free to assign “human rights” to any species that you like. You will end up hopelessly confused.

        • I thought it common knowledge that while you don’t have the “human right” to fling poo at another human, monkeys indeed enjoy the “monkey right” to do such with human targets. Who has not the dark memories of that grade school trip which at some point included meeting those amazingly accurate turd hurling hairy buggers at the local Zoo?

        • I have yet to describe a premise. OK.

          Assertion 1: All ethics can be derived logically. The system must be internally consistent.

          Assertion 2: It is not unethical to eat animals regardless of their wishes.

          Assertion 3: Differences between the rights of men and animals can be logically found.

          Assertion 4: The title of “Human” is insufficient to grant “human” rights. Specifically, rights are conferred by something attendant to being human.

          Assertion 5: It is not unethical to kill and eat a wild monkey. Disgusting maybe, but not unethical.

          Assertion 6: It is unethical to kill and eat you if you do not wish it.

          So, logical proof. OK.

          Logically, there must be a reason I can’t kill you but I can kill the monkey. (ethically, anyway)

          That reason for the above must be something that can be defined and is independent of being “human.”

          The differences between monkeys and humans are as follows: we are taller, they are stronger, we have slightly different blood chemistry, we are less hairy, we do not (frequently) throw poo, we have vastly different brains.

          Being taller is probably not significant.

          Hairiness is probably not significant.

          Not throwing poop is probably not significant.

          Different blood chemistry is probably not significant.

          The brain is the logical conclusion.

          Something about the brain is the reason I can ethically kill a monkey but not you.

          The difference between monkey brains and human brains are complicated, but in short: size and power and the associated abilities.

          Brain size correlates with brain power and abilities.

          That leaves brain power and abilities.

          So, now, the key difference between monkeys and humans is in the power of their brain and the associated abilities.

          This key difference accounts for why humans have rights which monkeys do not.

          Therefore:

          If one has this, then one has the extra rights that you associate with being human.

          If one does not have this, then one does not have the extra rights that you associate with being human.

          • Only if you totally leave out morality-what makes us want to protect our own-what makes us respect the rights of our own in the first place-if we can totally discard what makes our brains superior in the first place(the ideas of right and wrong) just because another human has become too weak for whatever reason to demand their own-there was no superior brain in the first place.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Mathius,

            You are purposely over-complicating this, probably just for sport.

            If you, yourself, are unsure what makes a human a human, a monkey a monkey, and a turnip a turnip, I would suggest you do some further research on the subject on your own.

            The answer that I will give is quite simple. Regardless of how you attempt to deconstruct it, a human is a human, a monkey is a monkey. As far as I am concerned, further analysis is unnecessary.

            I WILL agree, however, that the definition of human must be CONSISTENT. If the definition is NOT CONSISTENT, it allows for such abhorrences as classifying certain races as “sub-human” which would then be a justification for enslaving the sub-humans, or perhaps even eating them for dinner.

            I would suggest that you do more research on your own and try to come up with a consistent definition of “human”. For starters, think genus, species, sub-species. Then go from there. The definition of human is not metaphysical, it is not philosophical, it is BIOLOGICAL. The same holds true with the definition of “Monkey” and the definition of “Turnip”.

  22. USW

    Since you mentioned about wanting to do something on Jimmy Carter, I happened to see this. I heard also that Bill Clinton thinks if you don’t agree with Obama’s health care plan, that you are racist. Give me a break, PLEASE. Why must everything be about race anymore?

    BTW I hope Mrs. Weapon get well soon. Hope you’re getting your rest as well.

    Judy

    – September 22, 2009
    History Reminds Us That Jimmy Carter Doesn’t Fight Fair

    When it comes to former President Carter, he may want to preface any lectures for his fellow citizens on race and civility with the sort of preamble that alcoholics give at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, something like, “Hello, I’m Jimmy Carter and I’ve used race to divide people and have been uncivil towards politicians.”

    Until last week, it had been more than three decades since Jimmy Carter made major news with comments on race and civility. But I remember them like they happened only yesterday.

    Locked in a tight race for re-election against former California Governor Ronald Reagan, Carter, the lovable Sunday school teacher from Plains, Georgia reached into his bag of meanness and pulled out this nugget of racial reconciliation: Speaking to a Chicago crowd in early October, Carter warned a nation that was poised to throw him out of the White House that if elected, Reagan would divide the nation, separating “black from white, Jew from Christian, North from South, rural from urban.”

    But Carter was an equally opportunity meanie. With the death of Senator Ted Kennedy dominating the news recently, I was reminded of another example of Carter’s very public mean-spiritedness. When news of a possible primary challenge by Kennedy reached Carter’s ears, he lashed out at his fellow Democrat, telling a group of congressmen “I’ll whip his a**.”

    Jimmy Carter knows all about raising the ugly specter of race to divide people and score political points. He tried it unsuccessfully in 1980 against Ronald Reagan. He also knows all about rude outbursts directed against fellow politicians like the one Joe Wilson launched against President Obama. He did the same thing against his primary opponent Ted Kennedy.

    While it’s always dangerous to profess to be able to discern racial motives of people simply by looking at them, we can all use reminders to treat each other with respect, even as we vigorously debate the issues of the day. But when it comes to former President Carter, he may want to preface any lectures toward fellow citizens on race and civility by the sort of preamble that alcoholics give at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, something like, “Hello, I’m Jimmy Carter and I’ve used race to divide people and been uncivil towards politicians.”

  23. I’m learning!

    . Here is where I struggle. Often larger topics get debated – how do you prevent pollution or build and maintain roads. I still have a hard time envisioning private parties providing services for many people. I’m working my way there, but see conflicts preventing it from being any better than the crap we deal with now.

    1. No one has the “Right” to pollute just like no one has the “Right” to come on to your property without your permission or punch you in the nose

    I am not one who likes giving answers because a) it impedes YOUR thinking b) I’d be like the elitist masters, believing I know more than you. I do not want to impede your thinking and I do not think I know more than you. You know all the answers to these questions already – you simply need to think about them.

    2. Build roads….. How do free men grow food for you to eat? Why does a farmer grow food? Why does a trucker ship it to a grocer? Why does a grocer sell it to you? How did this come about? Was it mandated by a government order?

    Take some simple economic good and work through it as a model. Then you will be ready to translate that model into how something like a road can be built and used.

    3. Conflicts…. Conflicts are a part of the Universe. It is the primary way the Universe determines its answers – so there will always be conflicts between people.

    But that is not a problem if we have a moral basis from which to resolve conflicts.

    A piece of land can only be stood upon by one pair of feet at a time. If you want to stand where I am standing – we have a conflict.

    How we determine whose pair of feet has priority is how we resolve conflict.

    If we chose violence – Might is Right is our doctrine (also known as the Doctrine of Savagery) or we can chose a moral basis of non-violence and Right of Ownership (also known as the Doctrine of Civilization).

    What happens in your world when your right to get high infringes on my right for my personal safety and security or that of my family.

    You always have a right to defend yourself from violence. You do not need to wait until you have a knife in your heart to defend yourself.

    You need to justify preemptive self-defense with Clear and Present Danger doctrine.

    Your right to not keep up your property is having a direct effect on their neighbor’s ability to keep theirs up. How is that dealt with in your world?

    See “Pollution” above.

    In all matters, you need to define harm – “No Harm, No Foul”

    But how is it handled without laws of some sort and a way to enforce them.

    Freemen have laws – but they are not “fiat” law.

    First you must understand what is meant when someone says We need to make a law….

    Law is the use of coercion and violence to enforce an edict.

    Every time you hear “law” you must think – we will by FORCE by VIOLENCE insist on your compliance to this demand.

    We have established as a matter of Human Rights that there exists NO right to INITIATE violence (No right to Attack people) and there exists a Right to DEFEND from violence (self-defense).

    Therefore all moral law is matter of self-defense from violence.

    Any law made to enforce an societal RULE (such as ‘good’ behaviors) must be NON-violent, since mere bad behavior is not violent.

    It is vital not to use VIOLENCE to enforce Rules which determines NON-VIOLENT behavior.

    In a free society, Laws are used to prevent, mitigate, and repair incidents of INITIATION of violence. Period.

    • I'm learning! says:

      I’m here (somewhat) today, didn’t have time to watch for a response last night. But in the evening I rarely do! Thanks for the response. When I have a little more time this afternoon I will read it closer and ponder.

      On a coincidental side note, we are caught up in some “training exercises” at work (oh well, it’s been a while, so we are due, I guess). Anyway we did a strength finder thing yesterday and my results came back like this:

      You are a “Strategic Thinker” (Input, Analytical, and Learner). Nice dominant strength! 

      This means that you can keep us all focused on what could be. You’re constantly absorbing and analyzing information and helping the team make better decisions. People with this strength in this domain continually stretch our thinking for the future.

      You just have one dominant theme, since 3 of your 5 strengths (majority) fall under Strategic Thinker. You also have a Relationship Building theme (Relator), as well as an Executing theme (Deliberative).

      So, maybe there is hope – once I finally feel confident in everything I am learning, I might actually somehow turn into a contributor in this group. Actually, while I don’t always buy into these psychoanalytical things, I actually can agree with the results of this on when it comes to things I know well, like my job.

      • “Strategic Thinker” – I’ll keep that in mind when dueling with you 🙂

        • I'm learning! says:

          You can tell I never learned to play poker. I already revealed too much information.

          • But being a strategic thinker, you now know that I know that you are – so, I’m guessing you start working on the he-knows-what-I-know, but-does-he-know-that-I-know-he-knows-what-I-know strategy.

            • I'm learning! says:

              You bet! I am working on that right now so keep your eyes open! LOL

            • I'm learning! says:

              OMG – it just occurred to me that I really am working on something like that. It’s just that it don’t involve anyone on this blog!

  24. There are events that occur throughout our lifetime that we all remember where we were when it happened or when we heard about it. More often than not, it usually revolves around something bad. One of those moments occurred almost 20 years ago, I was in the Middle East, where were you?

    G!

  25. Mathius,

    A human has rights that an animal does not, not because it is human, but because of ________.

    Because it is at the lower end of the food chain and humans are near the top, plain and simple.

    G!

    • And they taste really really really good. God made the moose in order for Alan to have that perfect BBQ meat to go with a ice cold Pilsner.

    • Great answer!

      But.. why are they at the lower end of the food chain? Because we are able to kill and eat them? By that logic, I can ethically kill and eat anything I am able to kill and eat..

      • I would like to just say because God gave us the right but since you question the existence of God-I will just say because man through a superior mind and morality choose to protect our own. There was a time in history where eating animals was needed to survive and it still exists in some places.

        • We chose to protect our own? So the prohibition on killing humans isn’t a question of fundamental ethics, but rather one of consensus? So where a consensus does not exist, the prohibition does not exist?

          There was a time in history where eating animals was needed to survive – yes, so if you are stranded on an island after a plain crash and need to eat your fellow passengers to survive, that’s ok?

          If the good lord gave us dominion over the creatures of the earth, that’s hard to argue with, but I would ask this: What about those creatures was it that God felt inferior to man such that man could do unto them as he wishes? Was it just that we were made in his image, or something else?

          • I’m not sure I have the ability to answer your question but I will say that man has an inbred knowledge that killing your own and eating them is wrong-I call that morality, others may call it a natural law. Man also has the desire to survive, which means that they will kill and eat other species just as other species will kill and eat us-the difference in my mind is that man has the ability to question these actions-kinda like what you are doing here.

          • Matt:

            Your doing it again. You are ignoring the truth of the answer to refute the answer.

            “We chose to protect our own? So the prohibition on killing humans isn’t a question of fundamental ethics, but rather one of consensus?”

            A choice to protect our own is a human concept. We accomplish this by discovering a set of rules that will provide for that protection from ourselves. That is in fact what fundamental ethics are.

            And how are such ethics developed? Through introspection, discussion, evaluation and eventually acceptance by enough to become a basic standard. So you see, it is a question of fundamental ethics and its establishment is based on a consensus. Once reached among millions of humans over thousands of years of philosophical evolution.

            Whether you know it or not, you are guilty of discounting truth to justify, or rationalize, whim as the basis for killing other humans.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ah, Mathius… falling back on the old notion of consensus again…. sigh.

            Probably because of V. Holland’s poor choice of words… but still… you should know better by now… I must express disappointment.

            As a human, you have the natural right to protect yourself against violence. You have the natural right to life. As part of the natural right to life, you have the right to eat. Because other HUMANS have the natural right to life, you CANNOT EAT THEM. So we eat other animals and we eat plants.

            None of this required anything that you would recognize as your precious “consensus”. It is all derived from the natural rights of man. (YES, of man meaning “HUMANS”).

            I am sure you will remain obstinately confused as to why these rights only apply to our species, but I think a lot of us have already answered THAT question more than satisfactorily. If you do not feel that to be the case, perhaps you should do some research on the subject so you feel more comfortable with it.

      • With a valid hunting license for the animal in season, after sunrise and before sunset, keeping off of private property unless otherwise allowed by the owner, working and shooting away from any dwellings, never shooting across roadways and never never never without clear recognition of the game animal itself. Certainly.

  26. More today….

    Need additional reasons to monitor your schools? Check out this quiz used as homework after Obama’s healthcare speech ie, the YOU LIE speech. Education or indoctrination?

    http://smartgirlnation.com/2009/09/the-president-speaks-to-our-children-information-or-indoctrination/

    And then there’s this. Check out the YouTube rap song.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/23/dear-leader-in-the-classroom/

  27. My understanding is that this video is being shown in some of our schools-thought it might be good to discuss what in it is true and what is false.

    • Seen it and laughed at the audacity. In a counter move there’s a new Doom 3 mod swapping out the monsters with Barney, Nancy and the gang.

      • I really have no problem with this woman stating her opinions but I do have a problem with her rant being used as teaching material in a classroom w/ test grades attached, when there is not any attempt to be balanced in her presentation-our children are just being taught and graded on this as if it is all fact.

        • I have a problem with the intended target. If a man was assaulted by a black man and that assailant caught, should the man use his attackers image as a warning based upon his experience to his young child? To another’s child? To a host of children? I hope your answer is no as this is more than merely likely to affect the developing child’s recognition of race.

          • Of course my answer is no-That was my point-this is the woman’s opinion and she has the right to voice it-but the school should never have used it in a classroom because it is completely based on her opinion and is not a balanced factual presentation.

            • The greater shame is that it HAD TO BE REVIEWED by someone on each of the school boards to be on the “approved” list in order to make the curriculum in the first place. So there is a whole lot of agendas being fulfilled at the expense of both the truth and the kids.

              I do some donation video for a drug awareness program run by ex-junkies. The DVD’s have to run through a whole range of people from the board to the teachers and police before making its way to the tweens. Not a chance it slips by undetected.

  28. LOI has been a hard hitter when it comes to tort reform in the healthcare field. This article talks about the changes that Mississippi has made in this area.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obama_s-malpractice-on-medical-lawsuits-8281062.html

    Since Mississippi passed lawsuit abuse reform in 2004, including caps on medical malpractice awards, the Magnolia State has seen the number of such claims decline 91 percent. The state’s largest medical malpractice insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and it has offered an additional 20 percent rebate to doctors and hospitals of the premiums they pay each year.

    Following his recent address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama announced plans to implement token “demonstration projects” on lawsuit abuse, but he’s still not willing to address the issue meaningfully in health care reform legislation. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, has a message for him: “If they want a demonstration project, come down to Mississippi. I’ll show you a demonstration project.”

    As Barbour puts it, medical malpractice reform is the “lowest-hanging fruit” in the debate over spiraling medical costs. Such reform cannot solve all of the complex problems in our health care system, but it will reduce the drag that high health care costs are having on our economy — a major goal of the president’s reform effort. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated in 2003 that unreasonable medical malpractice jury awards add as much as $126 billion to Americans’ health care costs each year.

    Unfortunately, Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are wholly owned by the trial lawyer lobby, so they will bypass this low-hanging fruit without giving it a second thought. They will thus miss a simple, proven reform in favor of implementing a government-run health care system that is certain to cause health care costs to skyrocket while the quality of health care plummets.

    Trial lawyers argue that limits on non-economic damages deprive aggrieved patients of their right to sue. But the experience in California, where such limits have been in place since 1975, does not bear this out. Legitimately harmed patients still sue and win reasonable awards. And hordes of trial lawyers are still gainfully employed there.

    Obama entered this debate promising to fight “well-financed foes” who “profit from the status quo.” Yet, he has cultivated every special interest that stands to profit from health care “reform.” The big drugmakers and insurers have spent tens of millions promoting his plan. He stands ready to ditch the “public option,” the only provision that the insurers oppose. And he won’t take on the trial lawyers, despite the proven benefits and low cost of medical malpractice lawsuit abuse reform.

  29. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Here are some cute funnies!

    LOT’S WIFE
    The Sunday School teacher was describing how Lot’s wife looked back and
    turned into a pillar of salt, when little Jason interrupted, ‘My Mommy
    looked back once while she was driving,’ he announced triumphantly, ‘and
    she turned into a telephone pole!’

    GOOD SAMARITAN
    A Sunday school teacher was telling her class the story of the Good
    Samaritan. She asked the class, ‘If you saw a person lying on the
    roadside, wounded and bleeding, what would you do?’
    A thoughtful little girl broke the hushed silence, ‘I think I’d throw up.’

    DID NOAH FISH?
    A Sunday school teacher asked, ‘Johnny, do you think Noah did a lot of
    fishing when he was on the Ark ?’
    ‘No,’ replied Johnny. ‘How could he, with just two worms?’

    HIGHER POWER
    A Sunday school teacher said to her children, ‘We have been learning how
    powerful kings and queens were in Bible times, but there is a Higher
    Power. Can anybody tell me what it is?’
    One child blurted out, ‘Aces!’

    MOSES AND THE RED SEA
    Nine-year-old Joey was asked by his mother what he had learned in Sunday
    School.
    ‘Well, Mom, our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind enemy lines on a
    rescue mission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt . When he got to the
    Red Sea , he had his army build a pontoon bridge and all the people walked
    across safely. Then he radioed headquarters for reinforcements They sent
    bombers to blow up the bridge and all the Israelites were saved’

    ‘Now, Joey, is that really what your teacher taught you?’ his mother
    asked.
    ‘Well, no, Mom. But, if I told it the way the teacher did, you’d never
    believe it!’

    THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD
    A Sunday School teacher decided to have her young class memorize one of
    the most quoted passages in the Bible – Psalm 23. She gave the youngsters
    a month to learn the chapter.
    Little Rick was excited about the task – but he just couldn’t remember the
    Psalm. After much practice, he could barely get past the first line.
    On the day that the kids were scheduled to recite Psalm 23 in front of the
    congregation, Ricky was so nervous. When it was his turn, he stepped up to
    the microphone and said proudly, ‘The Lord is my Shepherd, and that’s all
    I need to know.’

    BEING THANKFUL
    A Rabbi said to a precocious six-year-old boy, ‘Your mother says your
    prayers for you each night? That’s very commendable. What does she say?’
    The little boy replied, ‘Thank God he’s in bed!’

    UNANSWERED PRAYER
    The preacher’s 5 year-old daughter noticed that her father always paused
    and bowed his head for a moment before starting his sermon. One day, she
    asked him why.
    ‘Well, Honey,’ he began, proud that his daughter was so observant of his
    messages, ‘I’m asking the Lord to help me preach a good sermon.’
    ‘So, how come He doesn’t?’ she asked.

    UNTIMELY ANSWERED PRAYER
    During the minister’s prayer one Sunday, there was a loud whistle from one
    of the back pews.
    Tommy’s mother was horrified. She pinched him into silence and, after
    church, asked, ‘Tommy, whatever made you do such a thing?’
    Tommy answered soberly, ‘I asked God to teach me to whistle, and He did!’

    TIME TO PRAY
    A pastor asked a little boy if he said his prayers every night.
    ‘Yes, sir.’ the boy replied.
    ‘And, do you always say them in the morning, too?’ the pastor asked.
    ‘No sir,’ the boy replied. ‘I ain’t scared in the daytime.’

    EQUAL REPRESENTATION
    When my daughter, Kelli, said her bedtime prayers, she would bless every
    family member, every friend, and every pet, current and past.
    For several weeks, after we had finished the nightly prayer, Kelli would
    say, ‘All girls.’ This soon became part of her nightly routine, to include
    this closing. My curiosity got the best of me and I asked her, ‘Kelli, why
    do y ou always add the part about all girls?’
    Her response, ‘Because everybody always finishes their prayers by saying
    ‘All Men’!’

    SAY A PRAYER
    Little Johnny and his family were having Sunday dinner at his
    grandmother’s house. Everyone was seated around the table as the food
    was being served. When Little Johnny received his plate, he started
    eating right away.
    ‘Johnny! Please wait until we say our prayer.’ said his mother.
    ‘I don’t need to,’ the boy replied.
    ‘Of course, you do.’ his mother insisted. ‘We always say a prayer before
    eating at our house.’
    ‘That’s at our house.’ Johnny explained. ‘But this is Grandma’s house and
    she knows how to cook!’

  30. Hey BF

    I noticed that you and Mathius were talking earlier about giving each other permission to eat the flesh should one of you die. Now, with that, do you suppose the Donner party did the same thing, and gave each other permission to eat their flesh should any of the party die? As we know from history, that they turned to cannibalism in order to survive. And if memory serves me, I believe that more than half of them did die because they couldn’t get out until the snow started to melt. Why would one have to have permission to eat the flesh in order to survive? If your dead, your dead, right? How would you know if he ate your flesh or not. I am curious to see what your answer will be.

    Judy

    • You do realize that if there’s no fridge handy its better to keep him grazing and harvest a bit at a time.

      • Alan

        I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand what you mean. Keep who grazing? If you’re talking about the Donner party, they had a fridge, it was snow. If you’re talking about someone else, then you lost me.

        Best to you

        Judy

        • Being nutty. I wrote of such in my 3rd year writing class which combined Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and the Charlton Heston classic film “Soylent Green”.

    • Of course he doesn’t need permission – I would be in no position to debate since I would be dead.

      The point, I think is to confer an understanding that I have no problem with cannibalism in survival situations.

  31. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi all,

    Yet another reason to be embarrassed by my employer…

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/bank-america-draws-pulling-flags-property/?test=latestnews

    Bank of America Draws Fire for Pulling U.S. Flags From Property
    When a South Carolina woman tried to honor her next door neighbor, a Marine who was recently in Afghanistan, by planting flags along the route the casket would follow, a Bank of America branch manager pulled the flags from the bank’s property, citing “corporate policy.”

    Sigh,
    RS

    • Hi Richmond,

      Saw this on Fox where they had a “bigwig” on who couldn’t apologize enough and said the local manager was very wrong to do this.

      • Hi Gals

        When the American Flag offends anybody, then it’s time for them to leave. I am getting really tired of this politically correct crap. If we can’t fly the flag because somebody gets offended by it, then by God, we have lost our freedom. This is America damn it and I’m damn proud to be one, and if I want to fly my flag, then I will do it.

        This reminds me when my youngest son was in the Marines, and over in Iraq, and our other son who is in the Army and was stationed in Ft Irwin Calif. We had both Marine and Army flag, the American flag, and the one star flag up showing that we had a loved one over there. Well, I’ll be damned if some lady stopped me as I was getting in my car, when she asked me if I would remove my flags because they bothered her when she drove by. I told her that I will not remove those flags, and if they offended her, then find another route to go, or don’t look at them if you must drive by. Well, she left in a huff, got in her car and slammed the door, gave me a dirty look, then drove off. Needless to say, I was pretty pissed about that. I was so angry with what she asked me, I was literally shaking. How dare anybody say that the American flag is offensive.

        • Judy,

          Hi, you were far nicer than I would have been. My response would have been “Go F^*k yourself”!

          G!

          • Hey G

            Was trying keep from ripping her hair out really. I get mad, but that really tipped the jar for me that day. I had all I can do to keep my composure. But thanks for saying I was too nice.

            Judy

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Judy,

              It is really hard to understand some people…I just don’t get them…this goes back to JAC’s point last week or the week before about something is just “wrong” with people in regards to their actions and their words.

              What is it? Why do people feel that they have a “right” to negatively remark or judge on something that just isn’t their business? What the heck is going on? Sometimes I feel like I’m in another dimension where it is just all a bad dream. Why has RESPECT for other people just flown out of the window? What could this woman have possibly been thinking to demand that you remove flags from your own home. I bet that if she had passed a situation where a man was raping a woman, she would have just driven by and ignored it.

              This world that we are living in is becoming shameful very rapidly. Why is that?

              Best Regards,
              RS

              • RS

                I wish I knew, I wish knew. I don’t understand it either, why there doesn’t seem to be the respect anymore like it was.

                The respect I see and get from are the elders, after all, they deserve it for what they have been through in their lives to try and make this a better country.

                There are a few younger ones that will hold a door open for me, or say thank you, or offer help if I’m loaded down with groceries, and they don’t expect anything in return. But I’ll tell you this, it’s far and in between.

                I don’t have any clue as to why that lady asked me to remove my flags, but that’s one thing I refuse to do, and I don’t care who it is. They don’t like it, they can kiss my patriotic ass. This is still America, is it not? Damn people.

              • Hi RS!

                You said: This world that we are living in is becoming shameful very rapidly. Why is that?

                I’ll try, it’s because many people feel empowered by the socialist administration in power. It’s like “my boy’s in charge now, I can do what I want” attitude.

                Don’t work where I live, don’t let it grow where your at, or it will be a nightmare.

                G!

              • Hi

                To me, don’t know about anybody else, but I see an awful lot of arrogance in people anymore. But I think you’re right G, I think it has to do a lot with the attitude of people, like with a certain person who lives in the W.H.

              • G-man, I agree it’s partly that, but I also think that for the first time ever, or at least in a long time, the “other” side is speaking up and that is creating a lot of conflict in people.

                I have some very liberal friends, who for the first time, are asking for some information from me on what is going on, and when I lead them to sites to start educating themselves, they can’t believe it. One actually said she wished she wouldn’t have asked and liked it better when (her head was in the sand) (my interpretation). Now they are stressed out too – welcome to the club!

        • Just ironic that it is Bank of AMERICA, who as I recall, received our bailout money? Hello!!!! Anyone home????

  32. Alert in Michigan says:

    I was driving home tonight and heard a news article about a census worker in KY found hanged with “FED” written on the body. They are investigating the death, but suspect a reaction to government may be a motive. I found some other reports online. Anybody else seen this story?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/census-worker-hanged-with_n_297114.html

    http://www.the33tv.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-census-worker-hanged,0,4960513.story

  33. Alert in Michigan says:

    (I’ll try this again with separate links:)

    I was driving home tonight and heard a news article about a census worker in KY found hanged with “FED” written on the body. They are investigating the death, but suspect a reaction to government may be a motive. I found some other reports online. Anybody else seen this story?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/census-worker-hanged-with_n_297114.html

  34. Alert in Michigan says:
  35. Alert in Michigan says:

    Has anyone heard anything new on the H1N1 vaccine? We talked several weeks ago about parts of the vaccine being developed being unapproved by the FDA and/or illegal and that the whole thing was rushed & untested. Is that still true? I don’t even know where to go online to find a reasonable answer to this. Thanks for your help.

    • Alert in Michigan says:

      check out the cartoon on this page – goes along with my question. 🙂

      http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html

    • Hi Alan

      Can’t say I heard anything more on it, but they sure are passing it out here in Reno. People are lining up to get the vaccine. I’m not,and I don’t plan to. Never did get any flu shots, I’ll take my chances and hope for the best. They did say that they weren’t going to give it to people who are over 62, why, I don’t know. I guess that leaves my mom out, she’s 87. I guess they figure if you’re older than 62, it’s not worth giving it to you for some reason which doesn’t see fair to me.

      • Alan

        I’m sorry I’m wrong, They said they aren’t recommending it for people over 62. My son told me that here yesterday, and I simply forgot. SORRY!

        Judy

      • I won’t get near a vaccine. I already told my boss he can have mine, and don’t bother trying to tell me I must have one, cuz that shit don’t fly with me. I know far to many who just took them who are not well today, I’m never sick, and never take anything.

        I am going to get some sleep, so I will back on in the AM, about 6 1/2 hours or so. Sleep well my friend!

        G!

        • Hey G-Man,

          I would like to hear more about what is happening with your friends that got the H1N1 shot, or maybe it was the regular flu shot?

          Hope you are well, liked your “trashy neighbor” story!

    • The only thing I heard was it was going to be available in October-at least in my area.

  36. Well, I’m saying my good nights, for tomorrow is another day.

    Have a very pleasant evening everybody.

    Good night.

    Judy

  37. Conceptual language -okay-actual legal language -No -they really don’t want us to know whats going on.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9AT460O0

  38. Mathius

    Nope, sorry, didn’t take. I think we’re just working in circles here..

    Monkeys have monkey rights.. check..

    Humans have human rights.. check..

    Why does a monkey have monkey right rather than human rights though?

    Because a monkey is a monkey and a human is a human.

    Is it because of the slight difference in our DNA? Is that slight difference all that separates us from them, and therefore our set of rights from theirs?

    There is a slight difference between H2O and H2O2, too. Kinda makes a huge difference in what you need to drink.

    Monkeys are monkeys.

    Humans are humans.

    The twain does not meet.

    And I’ll go ahead and help you out since everyone seems hell-bent on missing it. We are capable of higher thought. If the monkey were capable of higher thought, it would be a small furry human for all intents and purposes and you would consider its rights as inviolable as your own, would you not?

    I do not agree.

    Being smart gives no rights. A smarter human does not give more right than you.

    A smarter dog does not get human rights.

    Our ability to think is not an end – but a means for understanding.

    My point, good sir (I love puns)

    You want to start in the middle. You are leaping into circles and squares, but you have no idea what a ‘point’ is

    You want to prove circles are not squares, but have not the basis to determine the difference as you have no concept of the point.

    Start from the beginning, good Mathius – not the middle.

    Grow your philosophy from the immutable truth and see what is created. Discard what has been pounded into you – build it from a foundation from an immutable principle.

    • Fine. A monkey is a monkey and has monkey rights. A human is a human and has human rights. But why are monkey rights any different than human rights? Unless there is a reason, these rights should be identical.

      Back in the day, there used to be African American rights and white rights. African Americans are african americans and have african american rights. Whites are white and have white rights. Sure, why not. But I would say that white rights are identical to African American rights because there is no substantive difference between the two groups. When people were unable to explain why these should be different, the system collapsed and they were granted equal rights (I would say they had them all along, so maybe they were just acknowledged). So please tell me wherein lies the substantive difference between man and ape if not the brain.

      And with that, I’m going to bed at long last. I’ll have to try this again some other time, I guess.

      To all, good night and good luck.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        There never have been separate rights for separate races.

        The fact that you believe it to be so demonstrates that you still completely fail to understand the concept.

        Let me word it for you CORRECTLY:

        “Back in the day, the GOVERNMENT made an attempt to classify certain races as SUB-HUMAN” By classifying these races as sub-human, it could be justified in NOT RECOGNIZING THIER NATURAL RIGHTS…”

        Re-read what you said, only using what I just wrote as the proper premise, and then it makes sense.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Once again Mathius, the difference has nothing to do with “brain”.

        It is PURE BIOLOGY.

        Perhaps this link will help you:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

  39. T-Ray

    Solar, wind and nuclear are carbon free. To imply that man has not made progress in this area would be false.

    I do not think that was implied.

    (1) Nuclear – there is not enough Uranium to power humanity. Perhaps Thorium – but there has yet to be an active Thorium reactor outside of a lab.

    (2) Solar – energy density simple is too small. It will always be a marginal mobile source – potential for ‘off grid’ applications for the foreseeable future. Solar might pay off IF a cheap method of energy store was developed.

    (3) Wind – IMO, a no go. Low power density – too expensive – too noisy – too fragile.

    I am not a climatologist so I am not qualified to critique the work done in that field. However, if you were to search the scientific literature on the high resolution infrared spectra of CO2 and some other gases, my name would pop up. The entire topic is very complex and involves much more than the radiation transfer impact of CO2. I continue to be skeptcal about the claims.

    Which claim?

    • Picky picky picky. I was mearly trying to point out that the history of energy has been from high carbon to hydrogen ratio fuels to high hydrogen to carbon and zero carbon fuels. This is an information piece.

      So U is insufficient, wind and solar are nonstarts, oil is finite, biofuel is a waste of time, coal is dirty, wood is dirty, just what fuel do you propose for the future? I would like to hear some positive ideas from you not just nit picking comments on what others write.

      Claims = AGW

  40. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32989396/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

    The federal government failed to inform schools of recalls of suspected tainted food products, potentially putting millions of schoolchildren at risk of food poisoning over the last two years, a government investigation has concluded.

    And you trust these clowns with your kids??

  41. T-ray

    Catch up time….

    These are all domestic sources of energy that use our labor and capital to extract and sell. We get to keep the profits. I am sure the government will confiscate their unfair share. This has nothing to do with climate change.

    Who is “we”?

    If you are talking economically – it does not matter at all who “keeps the profits”. The one who “keeps the profits” is the one who invested into the business.

    BF, if there was an oil resevoir under your feet and if it was profitable for you to pump that oil and sell it at market prices, would not your standard of living increase?

    No! (ie: You are making too many assumptions for your claim)

    It would only increase if someone bought my oil.

    My oil would have to compete with the oil already in the marketplace.

    My oil would need a better selling proposition than the oil currently being purchased.

    The conditions for such a proposition:
    (1) excess demand over supply.
    There is a need for more oil than the market is supplying.

    This is currently NOT the condition. There is more oil in supply then currently in demand in the US.

    (2) I sell my oil cheaper, replacing more expensive oil.

    This is a tough one. M/E gross cost is under $10/barrel – delivered. What ever price I ask, they can ask less, if need be.

    So – if my supply threatens their sales volume, they will drop their price to compete with mine – to maintain their sales volume.

    The supply I would replace is Canadian Tar Sands – currently @ $+45/barrel delivered to the pipeline.

    There is no condition, except by government import law for my oil to replace M/E oil.

    (PS: All $4/brl oil in the US has been used)

    My standard of living will not decrease one bit.

    You as the oil owner might see an improvement. But that does not necessarily reflect for everyone

    If all make profits, how does our standard of living decrease when the alternative is to enrich the Saudis and some rich cat in India who is building his second world’s largest refinery that will be dedicated to shipping product to the US?

    If all makes a profit is a huge if.

    You making some assumptions that do are unsupportable. We are not enriching Saudis because we have some death wish.

    Like any consumer, Supplier A sells for $1 and Supplier B sells the same product for $5. Who will you buy from?

    The M/E sells oil cheap….cheaper than what we can find elsewhere for the amount we buy.

    Until M/E is more expensive or denied by government edict, we will import M/E oil.

    Your argument holds only if one of our multinational oil companies is making the profit on the crude and/or refining AND bringing those profits back to the US.

    What argument is that?

    The Saudis have the ability to drop the price, but there are limits to that because they need to keep their own people happy plus the world wide demand for oil especially in India and China is going to grow significantly as there economies expand.

    Yes, and that will raise the price – which will make more expensive oil competitive. Which will make local – but expensive – sources attractive.

    So, for your desires, you must cheer the increase in prosperity for China and India. This will make M/E oil more expensive and US local sources less so.

    If you can find a better investment, put your money someplace else.

    That, sir, is exactly what they do. Money flows to where the ROI is the best (except if government is involved).

    BF, your counter to comment on range, gas stations are every 20 miles on most freeways. I doubt you will run out of fuel.

    First, cars would need to be refilled sooner.

    All stations would need to be refilled sooner too. This means 75% more deliveries for the same energy value – this is a huge cost.

    I further mentioned Remote areas – this cannot be discounted. This is a huge issue for any alternatives.

    Changes to the distribution network, delivery mechanisms, and rates of delivery are all altered. All of this adds large costs.

    You could also install a bigger tank.

    You jest.

    Car fuel tanks are designed to be as big as they can in the space allocated for them. This is essentially unchangeable without huge re-design costs.

    Tankers by truck or train are fixed size. These will not change.

    Pipelines will not be ripped up, nor more pipelines laid.

    Fuel stations underground storage tanks will not be changed – this would be cost prohibitive.

    If you live in a greater metropolitan area, you are most likely already using ethanol. It replaced MTBE as the mandated oxygenate of choice in fuels. The delivery system already exists, you just blend the ethanol with gasoline.

    Very true – in some areas. However, it is not pervasive nor likely to be until solutions to these constraints of energy density are developed.

  42. Do good, reap good; do evil, reap evil.

    Do not remove a fly from your friend’s forehead with a hatchet.

    ‘night.

%d bloggers like this: