Tuesday Night Open Mic for July 27, 2010

We come to open mic off of some solid conversations around government’s fiscal responsibility and the impact and effectiveness of the massive regulations that are imposed on private business in America. I appreciate all the comments from folks around the topic, as it is one that I think is the most formidable problem for the country today. If we don’t stop ruining the economy of the United States, it is that which will eventually cause everything to crumble and put us into chaos and rebellion. For the open mic topics we have a college dictating what students must believe religiously, a Senator trying to fool us into believing that regulation would work if it weren’t for Republicans, a move to ban Fruit Loops from being advertised during cartoons because it is unhealthy for children, and the Governor of Pennsylvania advising the President to not appear on the View because it is not a serious program. As always, I encourage all of the readers here to post their own topics as well for discussion.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed

    A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.

    The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master’s degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she’ll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her “central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct,” according to a civil complaint filed last week.

    “[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity,” the 43-page lawsuit reads.

    Keeton, according to the lawsuit, was informed by school officials in late May that she would be asked to take part in a remediation plan due to faculty concerns regarding her beliefs pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.

    “The faculty identifies Miss Keeton’s views as indicative of her improper professional disposition to persons of such populations,” the lawsuit reads.

    In a statement to FoxNews.com, Augusta State University officials declined to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the university does not discriminate on the basis of students’ moral, religious, political or personal views or beliefs.

    “The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics,” the statement read. “The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics.”

    The Code of Ethics prohibits counselors from discriminating based on a number of factors, including gender identity and sexual orientation. “Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons,” the code says.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/?test=faces

    This one simply floors me. This woman is entitled to believe whatever she wants to believe in her personal life. What she is not permitted to do is pass those beliefs on to the people that she counsels, unless of course she ends up being a counselor at a religious institution. It doesn’t really matter…. the point is that her personal beliefs are hers, and she has a right to have them. As the article admits, the code of ethics for counselors is that she is not permitted to discriminate against people based on those things. Show me exactly where the code of ethics says that she cannot believe those things. She hasn’t discriminated against anyone…. she hasn’t even held the position yet!

    Where this college gets the nerve to tell her that she will be forced to enter into a remedial program because of her personal beliefs. In other words, she is to report for re-education or face being booted from the program. In other words, the elitist liberal assholes who make up the faculty of Augusta State University feel they have the right to force someone to believe what they believe in order to allow them to complete the education curriculum for her degree.

    And the school has the gall to make the statement, “the university does not discriminate on the basis of students’ moral, religious, political or personal views or beliefs.” Really? It appears to me that the University has blatantly discriminated against the student for her religious, political, and personal beliefs. In fact they have gone so far as to threaten expulsion from the program because of those religious, political, and personal beliefs. This is a state school, not a private school. As a state school, part of the Georgia University system, the school should be reprimanded immediately for discrimination based on religious and personal beliefs.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Talking about double standards. I hope she sues the crap out of this School and the board will be held accountable. The best way to fight ignorant faculty is to hit them in the pocket book. Even if she setup some club to display her beliefs, that is freedom of speach and as long as that does not happen in her profession, who cares. She is gettig an education, not a job.

    • I saw this article and as a gay woman I am disgusted by it. How dare a school demand she change her views to fit some mold they have set. As long as she is able to keep her views out of her sessions with people, who the hell cares what she thinks?

      I think that this college needs to take out to the wood shed sort of speaking.

      Ellen

    • We have talked before about how entrenched the liberals are in our education system. Many just don’t think rules apply to them.

      “Keeton has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the “result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces,” according to the suit.

      “She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created,” the lawsuit reads. “Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ‘state of being.'”

      She was “taught” homosexuality is fixed in each person at their creation, and she rejected that as their being opinion, not fact. How dare she not drink the kool-aid and proclaim how tasty it is…

    • Supposedly un-biased reporting, she’s now homophobic.

      http://www.newsy.com/videos/student-sues-for-right-to-be-homophobic/

    • Buck the Wala says:

      If all is true as written here and her beliefs have not influenced her actions/behavior/etc. then the school is completely wrong to have dismissed her and should be held accountable.

      However, if there is more to the story, as there may very well be, then perhaps the school was correct.

      • See, that’s what’s great about liberals – they wait for all the facts, then decide.

        Why do you hate America, Buck?

        • Wow, Mathius-seriously, you want to make such a grand statement about all liberals. Now about Buck specifically-I have no problem with that. 🙂

          • Yea, I’ve been on Huffpo enough to know that many liberals dont wait for the facts unless its their guy under fire. A lot of people do this, it is not a partisan issue.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’m a liberal. I’m supposed to hate America.

          Good to see ya back Mathius!

    • If this were a private college, receiving no funding from the government, then I would say they should have the right to educate whomever the they wish. IF, however, they are a private school and state that they do not discriminate on religious basis, then they have committed fraud and should be sued to either reinstate her or grand restitution for her time and money spent in the overall program. If they are taxpayer funded, then they must abide by the laws of non-discrimination and the current lawsuit should stand, and the school should, as Ellen said, get taken to the woodshed.

      • She passed several classes where taught their views on homosexuality.
        She expressed her own opinion that conflicted with their teaching, but still received a passing grade. Had she not passed, I could see them
        upholding their view. But she did pass, so now they are trying to change their own rules to suit their agenda.

        • Exactly, so if rules get changed after the fact, then it is a form of fraud. If it were up front that certain viewpoints were not allowed, then it is ok. If it were not up front but no rules were made the other way, like a general rule saying “we reserve the right to throw you out for any reason”, then it is still ok, or at best ambiguous. (When I say ok, I mean within the private school’s rights, not that it isn’t morally reprehensible).

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Nobody, not government, not schools, not bosses, anybody, has the right to tell another person how they should think, what to believe, and how. Who’s business is it anyway how anybody thinks about anything? Nobody can force anyone in changing their thinking or beliefs. I have my thoughts and beliefs on many things, it’s nobody’s business how, what or why I believe in the things I do. But, that’s just my opinion.

    • http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/

      Here is another case that is related to this one also.

      Ellen

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @All – I tried to read through Augusta State’s annual report and could not easily determine funding sources. It is probably fair to suggest that, as a “State” school they likely receive some funding or at least some form of economic benefit from the State.

      Having said that – I think to this case with Jennifer Keeton – it is irrelevant.

      I find it odd that she’s seeking to enter the Counseling field, especially to counsel school kids. The last thing any of us should advocate is for a Jennifer Keaton to be licensed to counsel vulnerable kids that are struggling with sexual identity. I realize that for every Jennifer Keaton there may be a handful that never publicize their true “personal” feelings – but I still think there would not be that many that deliberately enter such a profession where their secreted personal beliefs may be exposed and they risk losing their license and a career.

      If she has made it clear inside and outside the classroom what her beliefs are, then don’t you think she is more likely to have those beliefs encroach on her future professional activities? I think it is fallacy to believe that all people can build a firewall as such, especially when the very lightning rod beliefs you have are directly related to your current or future profession. Its the same reason most of us grouse about the proliferation of ex-Goldman Sachs execs that seem to end working at or with the Department of the Treasury – they are likely to be predisposed in a way that will inherently limit their objectivity.

      We also tend to demand that professions as such, folks who can directly impact & influence our kids, be licensed to begin with. We want and demand that some professional criteria be established. We also tend to want some manner of independence in the licensing process so there is objectivity and appropriate segregation of incompatible duties. In this case, that means while the ACA and/or ASCA may promote, conduct or manage licensing; their is I think in most states a requirement that counselors be licensed by/through the State – so there may be just oversight or more pervasive influence. In any event, the Code of Ethics is what it is – shame on Ms. Keeton if she was not aware of it and kudos to the school for taking appropriate action. You wouldn’t hire a flag burner to manufacture flags now would you?

      • She has the right to go to school and learn whatever she wishes, she has the right to try and get a job in whatever field she wants-her employers have the right to fire her-if she breaks the ethics after she gets a job-they have the right to take away her license-they do not have the right to predetermine that she will do so. I also question whether or not they should have the right to decide what is proper counseling but in this discussion I will take it as a given that they do have that right whether they should or not.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          VH – the article stated that the school follows and adheres to the Code of Ethics w/in the curriculum – she should have known this.

          The “profession” has to create and determine what its ethics and practices and policies are – they have done this – she likely indicated an intent not to follow them.

          • Does passing the course guarantee a license? or is there another organization that makes this decision?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              My guess is no – licensing/credentialing is usually done at the State level and each State may vary in some requirements – however – I would expect the credentialing to require some evidence of education/training passed with some measure of competency.

              • Then it is not the schools place to decide-that decision would be left with the licensing board-based on whatever their policies are. She of course has the right to question these policies in court.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                VH – you keep missing the point – the school adopted the Code of Ethics as part of the curriculum – same as if it were required coursework. She’s have to be an idiot to think she could flagrantly violate the Code and not expect some action to be taken against her.

              • I’m not missing the point-school is for learning-if she refuses to do course work-she will get a failing grade-disagreeing and arguing points that are being taught is a part of learning not breaking the code. If she fails the course because she refuses to do the assigned work-fine-if she passes-she passes and then she goes through whatever the licensing procedures are. The school does not have the right to say she cannot take the course. The state probably has the right under the rules to deny her a license and she has the right to argue that point in court.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                VH – not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. The school adopted the Code of Ethics – that means any student that entered that particular program likely had to sign some document or agreement that they agreed to abide by those Code of Ethics. She made a conscious decision to indicate she did not agree with the Code of Ethics (and ostensibly not follow them). Case closed.

                I think the school absolutely did the right thing. The Code is considered part of her schoolwork. Following the code is not like taking an Lit class and debating Thomas Pynchon. You’re either going to follow the code or not.

              • One other point, religious schools cannot use their code of ethics to decide who gets to go to the school based on their beliefs unless they are private schools-this is no different

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @VH – so – you’re concerned more about how the school acts/runs/works if it receives any public money right? In other words, if the school receives any public money then they cannot remove the student for professing anti-homosexual beliefs, even if the same beliefs will preclude her from obtaining a license to practice her profession, or will likely result one day in her losing her license.

                Think of this then – NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Their goal is to “end oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships”. Under your approach, a male student should be able to be a proud, card carrying member of NAMBLA AND be permitted to work their way through an elementary education degree (which most program nowadays place the college kids in direct contact with younger children). You okay with that? Maybe the student has promised to keep personal life and work separate – does that work for you?

              • Now Ray-I simply can’t pick and choose who has the right to go to a school and learn based solely on their personal beliefs in this country unless I am a private organization-Now you can put up all the horrible examples that you want-it has been done throughout time in order to justify taking away our freedoms.

      • USWeapon says:

        Ray,

        I get what you are saying, but have some disagreement in your conclusion. You are correct that if the school has adopted the code of ethics as “part of the curriculum” then she risks not passing the through the course. But I completely disagree on a couple of points.

        First, she HAS NOT flaunted that she would not obey the code of ethics on the job. What she has done is been honest with her beliefs in the classroom. Our higher learning institutions are tasked with furthering individual thinking and are supposed to be places where the kinds of discussions that apparently have been happening with Ms. Keaton are OK, encouraged even. She is not allowed to discriminate against people in her profession. She is allowed to believe what she wants.

        Second, to take you example of NAMBLA, you are talking about outright illegal activity. People who conduct illegal activity are regularly taken out of the system and punished. You have a right to believe being gay is wrong, sex with boys is right, or that the moon is made of cheese. You do not have the right to practice such beliefs in the profession. If she discriminates against a child because of her beliefs, she can and should be punished. But to deny her the opportunity to gain an education, that is discrimination.

        Third, we don’t know what her future intentions are. Perhaps she simply wants the degree so that she can become a counselor for a private Catholic institution. In which case she is permitted to counsel based on her beliefs, despite how misguided they are.

        Finally, to take you examples of NAMBLA, which I understand but is little more than a play on emotion, and accept that as justification to deny an education, is a step in the wrong direction. The next LOGICAL progression of what you are saying is that anyone who believes in the Christian faith and its teachings should not be allowed to pursue a degree as educator. After all, they will be in contact with children, and thus cannot be trusted to not have their beliefs bleed over to the classroom.

        USW

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          First, she HAS NOT flaunted that she would not obey the code of ethics on the job. What she has done is been honest with her beliefs in the classroom. Our higher learning institutions are tasked with furthering individual thinking and are supposed to be places where the kinds of discussions that apparently have been happening with Ms. Keaton are OK, encouraged even. She is not allowed to discriminate against people in her profession. She is allowed to believe what she wants.

          RH Response: There is no great leap of faith to assume that she would likely rest back on her personal beliefs once out of the classroom and into the workplace. Factually, neither you nor I can say what she has or has not flaunted. I base my conclusion on the aspect that is she is so willing to run against the tide on CORE aspects of her profession and as what is defined in the Code of Ethics in school, then she is more likely than not to do so in the workplace. She can believe whatever she wants – I doubt school counselors are polygraphed. Making her unethical beliefs public is just plain stupid. Also – as I said otherwise, there are aspects of any program that are simply non-negotiable in terms of “furthering individual thinking”. Sometimes its an entire course, sometimes its parts of a course. I would count the Code of Ethics as off limits.

          Second, to take you example of NAMBLA, you are talking about outright illegal activity. People who conduct illegal activity are regularly taken out of the system and punished. You have a right to believe being gay is wrong, sex with boys is right, or that the moon is made of cheese. You do not have the right to practice such beliefs in the profession. If she discriminates against a child because of her beliefs, she can and should be punished. But to deny her the opportunity to gain an education, that is discrimination.

          RH Response: it is not and should never be considered discrimination. They had rules before she ever showed up. She knew the rules and still violated them. This isn’t West Point or Annapolis we’re talking about.

          Third, we don’t know what her future intentions are. Perhaps she simply wants the degree so that she can become a counselor for a private Catholic institution. In which case she is permitted to counsel based on her beliefs, despite how misguided they are.

          Finally, to take you examples of NAMBLA, which I understand but is little more than a play on emotion, and accept that as justification to deny an education, is a step in the wrong direction. The next LOGICAL progression of what you are saying is that anyone who believes in the Christian faith and its teachings should not be allowed to pursue a degree as educator. After all, they will be in contact with children, and thus cannot be trusted to not have their beliefs bleed over to the classroom.

          RH Response: I’m sure aware that a predominant platform of NAMBLA is opposition to age-of-consent laws correct? That there is a homosexual element to it, or that the word “boy” is used is what gets to most people. I set bait and you grabbed it. My point is that people will use discrimination and perception thereof to further their agenda. I do take issue with any “remediation program” – that just sounds like bs to me. Just toss her from the school. You cannot ignore the fact there are certain professions that have significant impact on our youth. There is nothing wrong with eliminating the obvious egregious case such as this from ever having the opportunity to impact our youth. And btw – I thought Catholic School Counselors were called………Nuns? Even they aren’t, intentional and evidences Ethical Violations can still result in revocation of credentials. Why let it get there in the first place?

          • USWeapon says:

            Ray,

            I am not sure what bait I grabbed. I only pointed out that the actions of NAMBLA members having sex with minors is illegal activity. That is what the difference is. It isn’t illegal to believe that homosexuality is wrong. It is naive in my opinion, but not illegal.

            Catholic schools have school counselors as well. And they are not the Nuns. My wife went to a catholic HS and a catholic college. And the point is that it is not against the law to believe that homosexuality is wrong. It is against the law to discriminate based on homosexuality. That is a major difference. This woman discriminated against NO ONE. She expressed her beliefs in a classroom. If believing is a reason for punishment, every bigot in America should be jailed for their beliefs regardless of whether they commit any crime against another race.

            I am baffled because you seem to have fallen into the mindset that someone could not possibly hold beliefs and not have them interfere with their professional responsibilities. Reality shows us that people are able to separate the two all the time. I have personal beliefs that don’t impact my job at all. I don’t discriminate against people who I am in opposition with. We have discussions on this site constantly where differing belief systems are discussed. I don’t think that BF discriminates against anyone based on their belief that government is good. I don’t think Mathius discriminates based on his belief that people who are anti-government are morons.

            The point is that she has been punished without committing a single violation of the ethics code that you approve of. I am OK with the ethics code, but I will be damned if I can agree that someone should be punished because you think that they might at some point in the future break the law. Just imagine the consequences of your belief that people can be punished because of what they THINK. They break no law, discriminate against no one. Yet they must be punished because you believe that their beliefs are wrong. This crosses right over into the world of “thought crime.” And the world of 1984 is not one I want to be a part of.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Not to start an argument but do I not, as a trained professional, have the right to disagree with current counseling theory. If fifty years ago, you as a counselor said that homosexuality was just fine and dandy, the profession would probably have run you out of town on a rail. Just see how it was played out in movies such as “Advise and Consent” or “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”.

              It would seem to me that if you only believe in “one” thing, that there is only “one” way to do something that unless you agree with the “one” way and “one” thing you are not fit to participate in the discussion then there is no such thing as freedom of thought. Progress will have been dead ended.

              I’ll say it again, there are homosexuals who are born and homosexuals that are made, just like anything else. There is never just “one” way. A counselor who does their job has the right, no, I take that back, the Duty to explore all possibilities. Anything less is a disservice and frankly malpractice. Denying this makes you one of the frigging PC dorks that are slowly taking away our freedom to not only express our opinion but to think. That is the antithesis of freedom.

              • USWeapon says:

                I am confused SK, because you replied to me with this, but it does not appear that we are at odds on this particular subject

                USW

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                US

                you are correct, either didn’t push the right button or something else. Started a new job this week, mind a little fuzzy. Comment mostly aimed at Ray who I think is over the top on this.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @SK – your conclusions here would indicate you do not want someone in a profession thus who is predisposed via their religious convictions to oppose homosexuality.

                And btw – you are incorrect to conclude that homosexuals are made – that is a theory, not a fact.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                I am confused here as to how you came up with this idea that I would have concluded that I DO NOT want someone in the profession who is religiously predisposed to oppose homosexuality. I don’t discriminate. If you can keep your belief system out of your professional life, why not? Or, do you just think that because my belief system exists I am precluded from ever acting in the role? That, is a slippery slope. There are folks out there, for example, who would like to terminate the licenses of doctors, nurses and pharmacists who don’t believe in abortion and will not participate. Some of them work in Public institutions. What say you? Where do you fall in that debate? If the AMA is hijacked the way the APA was and a resolution to require all doctors, nurses etc to participate becomes part of their canon, what then?

                Any objections I may have to jumping on the bandwagon, shouting “hurrah” and saying that homosexuality is just fine and dandy and the wave of the future are based on a lot more than religious beliefs. In fact, that is probably the least of my concerns. They are based on what is best for the particular individual who claims to be a homosexual where I may sense there is an inner conflict and confusion. If you don’t understand the term confusion then you have forgotten what it was like to be a teenager.

                I will also stand with my “theory” which you and other people afflicted with the PC virus would not even want to explore. As my example I will use, as distasteful as it is, the pederasty of the clergy and the number of affected youths who have gone onto hustling/ homosexuality combined with alcoholism and drug abuse. When someone screws with your mind, especially in formative years, it is awfully hard to recover, even with professional help. A professional who is only willing to accept what is rather than dig for the root is as useless as you know what on a bull.

                It ain’t like I haven’t thought about this stuff for like a zillion years. Too many friends in the ground way too early because nobody was willing to see the signs. Just because a position is unpopular or not acceptable at the moment does not mean it is off the table for study merely that it gets proponents labeled as obnoxious and disliked.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @USW – I’ll keep this as simple as needed – if the school thought enough of the Code of Ethics to adopt it into the curriculum then were clearly dead serious about adherence to it. Someone in at a Master’s level should be bright enough to grasp that and to have some realization over how they may react if she is even perceived to violate it. That she would enter her beliefs into a scenario (the classroom) that would clearly be at odds with her is foolish and should absolutely give one pause that perhaps she doesn’t “get it” that she should leave her personal feelings at home. You’ve also taken a wrong read on how I interpret this – religious feelings/convictions I would place in the same boat as values and principles – wherein there is a conflict the two will not be firewalled – any attempt to do so should make you question whether it truly is a value/principle.

            • Mathius says:

              I don’t think Mathius discriminates based on his belief that people who are anti-government are morons. You are correct, I do not discriminate on that belief since it is not a belief that I hold.

              I do, however discriminate on my belief that people – in general – are morons.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @USW – your other failing here sir, to point out the obvious, is you have not stated precisely why you think the school cannot “discriminate” against her.

              Please do tell.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Ray,

            I got to say that your position is one of the most bigoted, closed minded things I have read in a long time.

            So, if I don’t believe in the “current” thinking of the herd, I have to be shut down. I am violating a canon which does not tolerate opposing views? What the hell kind of canon is that? This my friend is exactly why I gave up on getting my masters in psychology back in the ’70’s. Nobody, and I mean nobody is going to tell me what to think.

            Let us always remember that the herd used to think that electroshock was an answer to everything, homosexuality was always wrong and that pre-frontal lobotomies were the way to go. What do you think, that these days they have suddenly got everything right? To use that Duke quote, “Not hardly pilgrim”.

            For years, Psychology has tried to pass itself off as a science rather than mumbo-jumbo black magic. The failure to follow Scientific method and empiricism, especially with the PC crowd precludes me from ever taking them seriously as it should anyone else who pretends to have an open mind.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @SK – thanks – any other epithets you want to hang on my neck?

              So let’s get this one straight…….

              I’m in the camp completely supportive of a Code of Ethics that says:

              “Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons”

              Because I support this Code of Ethics for School Counselors (not completely the same as a Psychologist but you knew that already right?) I assert that I would not want anyone who holds and publicizes core beliefs that are by definition discriminatory to be enjoined to a profession or pursuit thereof as this school has defined and required.

              And that makes me a close-minded bigot? I’m a close-minded bigot because I don’t want a close-minded bigot in a profession that by its code necessarily excludes close-minded bigots?

              You are astonishing SK – a true marvel at contradiction.

              It sounds like you have issues with whatever happened 30+ years ago in pursuit of your Masters degree. You know as do I, that each school within disciplines as such will follow some particular school of thought – whatever vein in the discipline they align to. Something went up your ass sideways because you seem to have felt like you were told to think a certain way that didn’t jive with you. Fine. You should applaud this school for saying ‘thanks but no thanks’ to someone who would come to the table with principles opposed to being completely open-minded and non-discriminatory.

              • Wow, she is now a closed minded bigot because she disagrees with secular society-suddenly we don’t use the label religious beliefs and secular society has the right to break all the rules to enforce their own beliefs. NO ONE that is funded with public money has the right to deny people knowledge just because they don’t agree with a set of ethics that someone else deemed correct for all of us. I’m sure you understand the common sense reasoning for this rule when it comes to those close-minded bigots you talk of-why don’t you agree with it now. As far as the ethics and rules enforced by the state-I wish I knew more about them because I know that there are Christian counselors and they somehow received a license to practice. So I find myself wondering -different states different ethics have to be followed. Or is this just an attempt by secular society to force Christians and anyone else who disagrees with their currant beliefs out of the profession by denying them knowledge and a license. Just as a note-I find it strange that they allowed her to go all the way to graduate school before they decided to kick her out-I guess they decided they couldn’t change her mind-so they then wanted to try brain washing-but if all that failed to bring her under control-well,we’ll just kick her out -can’t allow any diversity of thought in the field of PSYCHOLOGY.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @VH – I think you know the answer to your own question(s). Option A is you don’t distinguish or discriminate; Option B is you do for all or some. She choose Option B – by definition that makes her more close-minded relative to Option A.

                Can one be a Christian counselor and not believe homosexuality is a sin? I would say yes.

                “NO ONE that is funded with public money has the right to deny people knowledge just because they don’t agree with a set of ethics that someone else deemed correct for all of us.”

                You are incorrect here VH – the ethics apply to those in the profession – not to all the rest of us.

                I am also interested in your view with respect to restrictions or rules that should be applied to anyone that receives public money. There is no evidence that the school or program is receiving public money – we can assume that – but that does not change the underlying aspect that the Code was there before the student.

                One thing of note – she may not have done her Undergrad work there. She could have been first year Masters there and thus a shorter ramp to express how she really felt.

              • We are all making assumptions-if this is a private school it would be a totally different conversation but since State is in it’s title I believe it’s a pretty good assumption to make. None the less, I am not discussing this conversation in the context of this school in particular-to make judgement’s on this particular school, although without knowing all the particulars I can still state that a public entity cannot deny knowledge based on someones belief system-I do not care if the beliefs conflict-they are not giving her a license, they are not giving her a job-they are teaching-she has the right to disagree with their theories.

                “I think you know the answer to your own question(s). Option A is you don’t distinguish or discriminate; Option B is you do for all or some. She choose Option B – by definition that makes her more close-minded relative to Option A.”

                I am assuming that this is your justification for calling her close-minded- Don’t even care to discuss whether or not her views are close minded-they are her beliefs and she has a right to them -the question is does this school have the right to be the thought police when it comes to teaching.

                “Can one be a Christian counselor and not believe homosexuality is a sin? I would say yes.”

                I think we are both aware that we are talking about counselors who believe homosexuality is learned. The fact that all Christians don’t believe this -really doesn’t matter -none of this is matters.

                “You are incorrect here VH – the ethics apply to those in the profession – not to all the rest of us.”

                No, Ray this is where you are wrong-we are talking about a school-they TEACH-they are publicly funded-they are trying to force the ethics on the student in order for them to obtain the knowledge. They have a right and the responsibility to teach these ethics not to demand that the student agrees with them.

                I simply don’t know any other way to say the same thing.

                We have a separation of church and state for a reason-so that people can’t force their religion on other people, it applies in the reverse-you by religion, science or on any other basis do not have the right to deny knowledge based on someones beliefs-period. A school teaches the ethics but when they cross over into demanding that the student agree with the ethics-they are crossing that wall.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @VH – great – we’ll just keep talking in a circle here…..

                VH Said: We are all making assumptions-if this is a private school it would be a totally different conversation but since State is in it’s title I believe it’s a pretty good assumption to make. None the less, I am not discussing this conversation in the context of this school in particular-to make judgement’s on this particular school, although without knowing all the particulars I can still state that a public entity cannot deny knowledge based on someones belief system-I do not care if the beliefs conflict-they are not giving her a license, they are not giving her a job-they are teaching-she has the right to disagree with their theories.

                RH Response: Fair enough VH – let me provide another example you’ll maybe wrap your head around. At the United States Air Force Academy, which is clearly publicly funded, cadets are required to abide by a Cadet Honor Code and an Honor Oath. The Code reads as “We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does”. The Oath adds to that with: “Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God”. Violation of either in thought or deed can result in immediate dismisall from the academy – although this is somewhat mitigated by Honor Boards that can review mitigating factors. Anything trouble you with this VH? It should according to your logic above. Me? I am okay with it. As with School Counselors I would consider the contextual circumstances involved – specifically the need to mold and frame young men and women a certain way so the military, in theory, runs as expected – much the same as a Counselor who is dealing with youth, and in this example, youth potentially dealing with very grave and emotional issues in sexual identity; to ensure that the Counselor is not predisposed from personal beliefs to limit the available treatment options because they may think being gay is a sin. Much as the military academies can and should do, it is important to establish these ethics and principles as a part if training, not when you finally have a gun in your hand or a patient in your office. Am I making sense yet?

                VH Said: “I think you know the answer to your own question(s). Option A is you don’t distinguish or discriminate; Option B is you do for all or some. She choose Option B – by definition that makes her more close-minded relative to Option A.””I am assuming that this is your justification for calling her close-minded- Don’t even care to discuss whether or not her views are close minded-they are her beliefs and she has a right to them -the question is does this school have the right to be the thought police when it comes to teaching.”

                RH Response: Yes – its their school. They adopted the Ethics Code before she was ever a student there.

                VH Said: “Can one be a Christian counselor and not believe homosexuality is a sin? I would say yes.”

                I think we are both aware that we are talking about counselors who believe homosexuality is learned. The fact that all Christians don’t believe this -really doesn’t matter -none of this is matters.”

                RH Response: If it doesn’t matter then why did you bring it up?

                VH Said: “You are incorrect here VH – the ethics apply to those in the profession – not to all the rest of us.” No, Ray this is where you are wrong-we are talking about a school-they TEACH-they are publicly funded-they are trying to force the ethics on the student in order for them to obtain the knowledge. They have a right and the responsibility to teach these ethics not to demand that the student agrees with them.

                RH Response: Wrong answer VH. I don’t sign the Ethics Code – they do. They have a responsibility to ensure they follow the Ethics. I would think we all agree that Medical Students should be REQUIRED to adhere to the Hippocratic Oath – why the hell is this any different?

                VH Said: “We have a separation of church and state for a reason-so that people can’t force their religion on other people, it applies in the reverse-you by religion, science or on any other basis do not have the right to deny knowledge based on someones beliefs-period. A school teaches the ethics but when they cross over into demanding that the student agree with the ethics-they are crossing that wall.”

                RH Response: Refer to my example above. We do not and will not ever have a complete & clean separation – it is not possible.

              • The Hippocratic oath-are you sure you want to hold this up as a reason to allow schools to force people to comply. You should go read the original one -I suspect you would be horrified that students and doctors were forced to sign it-Although, I think most schools don’t require it anymore. As far as the military-they seem to be a society to themselves-doesn’t make forcing compliance -right.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @VH – I was referring to the Louis Lasagna version.

                The military is not a society unto themselves. Last I checked this Country still requires civilian control of the military.

              • I think you are the one not grasping the point Ray-it’s real nice that you choose a version that you liked but if I follow your line of thinking-one doesn’t get a choice. As far as the military-I think the cadets have an honors oath, not to lie, cheat , or steal or put up with other people doing so. Don’t know what other oaths they take but lets face it the military may be run by civilian control it really isn’t based on the same type of liberty that an individual on the street is supposed to be given. So use them as an example if you please but I still feel that it is a different situation than your other example.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @VH – a version I liked? Its the version most commonly used today.

                As for the “military” – please re-read my post above – I specifically referenced A SCHOOL, the United States Air Force Academy and both the Cadet Honor Code and the Honor Oath. USAFA Cadets are not considered full-fledged military until they graduate and are commissioned. If that is too military for you then you can find more of the same (references to God) at The Citadel, which also obtains money from the Public (as well as tax incentives and breaks) and in and by which they use the same Honor Code as the service academies but take it a step further in articulating that the code and values are underwritten if you will by God (they quote Saint Paul among others). The Citadel is NOT the military. You violate their code or express a desire to do so and you will suffer the same consequence. It is what it is – and here is the kicker – I am okay with that.

                Course not sure I’d hear USW pontificating about liberal elitist assholes at the Service Academies or The Citadel (or VMI or Norwich or……..).

                Your turn VH.

                😉

              • It’s friday night and I don’t have much time so I’m gonna leave you with a few things to contemplate and I will contemplate what you have said. Is every oath one can be asked to take, take away your freedom of thought-I don’t think so-Do most oaths -pretty much-So I stand on students should not be forced to take oaths. Have people argued for exceptions-yes they have-are they right-sometimes. Should anyone ever be forced to pledge an oath to God IF they don’t want to-never. Should students be denied their right to question and learn and make their own decisions about what they believe or be constrained from voicing their opinions because of some oath that a school forces them to conform to-NEVER

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH,

                To add from my own experience — in law school (at least mine and dozens of others I know of for a fact), they expect all students to adhere to the Code of Professional Ethics for lawyers. As a student I was not a lawyer and the school is not responsible for licensing me as such. However, were I to violate the Code in any way I could easily be brought before a panel of professors/deans/other students and I could easily be dismissed from the school.

                It seems you would have a problem with this. But as a student I chose to attend this particular school, knowing full well that they expect students to adopt the Code. The reason is quite simple — law school is designed to prepare students to enter the practice of law (whether or not this is actually the case is besides the point). Similarly, the school here is designed to prepare students to enter into a profession which does license its practitioners and impose an ethical code on them. Attending the school, and submitting to this ethical code, was this students choice.

              • That makes perfect sense to me Buck-and I have been contemplating 🙂
                I have been convinced that I am being too rigid in my argument against students taking oaths-all codes and oaths are not equal. But I am not wrong that ethical codes and oaths have been used and are being used to further agenda’s and to stop debate, thru there wording or in how they are being applied, and in a learning situation especially –speaking freely about topics should be encouraged . The truth of what I am saying IMO lies in these words “she’ll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her “central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                If I am confused as to my sexuality, what exactly is the responsibility of the counselor to me, the psychologist? What is the canon?

                If, as a counselor, I feel someone is being pressured or manipulated into something that my training, experience and education tells me is wrong for that person (note: I said that person, not people in general), what is my responsibility?

                I do not see what the problem is here. Unless the counselor is out there telling the client that they are going to hell for their behavior, I see no problem, except a PC one. Current academic thinking puts us in lockstep on an issue like this. What will be your position if, as I suspect, someday a gene is found related to homosexuality and some homosexuals don’t have it?

                Any first year psych major worth his or her salt should be able to explain both conditioning and peer group pressure and how insidious they are. Has the idea of brainwashing during the Korean war been dismissed?

                It has been one hell of a long time but I did read the Kinsey books as an undergrad and seem to remember the issue brought up. But then again, maybe like Freud, or Harry Stack Sullivan or Jung, this stuff is old fashioned and out of date. It is in fact a tangled mess we weave when we put all out eggs in one basket.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Ah Ray, but I am the open minded one here. I am the one that believes that there is more than one way to do, see or treat in a therapeutic manner just about anything.

                “Holds or publicizes core beliefs that are by definition discriminatory” Holy crap!!! Who the hell says they are discriminatory? Did Orwell’s 1984 world already take over?

                I think I have made it perfectly clear before that I discriminate against no one. I do however reserve the right to make my own judgments based on my own observations, knowledge and experience. I also must issue a disclaimer that I have a penchant for meddling. I refuse to stand still and watch the train go off the tracks and down the mountain if I feel I can stop it.

                Any canon that would prevent a professional from exploring all possibilities in helping a client has more in common with the Nurenberg laws than it does with the Hippocratic oath.

                In a public school setting, I would have to agree that there can be no place for a counselor to interject their religious views. This is something that a few generations ago would not have been an issue. It was quite common to be told to “put your faith in God or prayer” Today, of course, this is inappropriate but we can tell people to put their faith in meditation which I always felt is the prayer thing without the God thing.

                The “Websters” definition of bigot is: One who is blindly attached to a particular creed and intolerant of the beliefs and practices of others. Syn. Fanatical, intolerant, oppressive, tyrannical, prejudiced. Ant.Broad-minded, tolerant. I’ll stand my belief system against that any day.

                You my friend are in fact telling me here and know how I have to think to gain your approval.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                to think “like you” to gain your approval, Sorry that I dropped that.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Captive Regulators Contributed to Oil and Financial Disasters

    Regulatory capture is when a regulator agency permits its judgments to be clouded by the narrow economic interests of the industry that it regulates.

    It is the opposite of how regulators should work, which is to safeguard the greater and broader interests of the public health, safety and prosperity against often complex, powerful and narrowly-minded industry.

    Regulatory capture can happen for a number of reasons.

    First, regulatory capture can happen where the revolving door constantly shuttles individuals from the private sector to the regulator and vice versa. Regulators may be compromised by the implicit promise of lucrative employment, should they only look out for the industry during their watch.

    It is this indicator of regulatory capture at MMS that the Washington Post described in such shocking detail in last week’s front page story.

    Seventy-Five percent of oil lobbyists formerly held jobs in the federal government. Randall Luthi, who directed MMS from 2007 to 2009, is now president of the National Ocean Industries Association, the trade association for producers, contractors, engineers and supply companies who explore and drill for oil and natural gas in offshore waters.

    According to the Department of the Interior Inspector General’s report, one examiner conducted safety checks at four rigs owned by one company, while at the same time negotiating a job for himself with that same company.

    It also works in both directions. According to an MMS District Manager, almost all MMS inspectors had previously worked for oil companies on the same platforms they were inspecting.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ted-kaufman/captive-regulators-contri_b_661352.html

    Allow me to offer my thoughts on this particular article which happens to play right into the topic that we have been discussing for the last two days. The article was written by Democrat Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware, where he was appointed by the Governor to fill the seat left vacant by Joe Biden, whom he served as Chief of Staff. I first want to outright reject the term being offered in what was obviously a very biased article, “Captive Regulators”. Words are important and anyone who has ever taken a class on rhetoric understands the importance of framing in this way. It implies that the regulators were rendered impotent against their will, held captive if you will. The purpose is to make those of you who so fervently want to believe in regulation accept that regulation would work splendidly if regulators were allowed to work without being “captive.”

    Captive is not the right word for what he describes. The word is corrupt. What Kaufman describes is a world of regulation where the regulators are often also the regulated, either previously or after serving. It describes a corrupt world of insiders to the establishment who bounce back and forth between working as regulators and employees of the industry that they regulate. In order to secure future employment, they allow regulations to be ignored or circumvented. THIS is the real world of regulation in nearly every industry, and the government is well aware of it. That is why regulations are mostly a waste of time. Even if it were possible, as Buck suggested, to determine effective, fair, and needed regulation, the fact is that regulations will never work because all they do is define what needs to be worked around, waivered, or bribed.

    Kaufman attempts to place the blame for this situation on……. wait for it….. the previous administration. OF COURSE! You see, it was the rampant fervor of de-regulation from the Bush administration that led to a belief that self regulation was sufficient and thus the attitude of regulators was forever marred and changed. I won’t get into the fact that the claims that the Bush administration were the “great de-regulators” are absolutely false (Clinton did more de-regulating than Bush!). Here we are working towards two years of Obama’s administration and the Democrats still haven’t managed to come up with a better plan than “blame Bush.”

    What is important is that the claims from Kaufman are seen for what they are: Absolute and complete bullshit. This is another attempt by the left to convince the world that regulations are the answer. In the face of utter failure of nearly every regulation ever placed on business, their answer is that regulation would work but the Republicans created an environment where there are “captive regulators.” Therefore we need more regulations! Don’t fall for this BS line of reasoning, and don’t allow anyone who spouts it get away with it. Call them on it. Embarrass them for being so easily led. And then remind them that the reason that regulations don’t work is because regulators are nothing more than an extension of the most corrupt organization in America: the Federal Government.

    • Okay, I have a couple of minutes before heading to the gym (getting old is starting to hurt).

      How about instituting real term limits in Congress, restricting former employees of an industry to work as regulators and having real consequences for regulators and/or anybody else (Congress, etc.) caught with their hand in the cookie jar? I mean real consequences (like the ones I mentioned yesterday–genuine prison time, in population (not protective custody)? The people at MMS want to watch porn instead of doing their job, put them in jail for 10 years (not 10 days or 10 months). I suspect if those types of consequences were staring them in the face, much of the corruption would be trimmed.

      If agencies permit companies to write their own reports, find the responsible party (making sure there is one) and send them to a state pen for a long time to reflect.

      And when there are deaths involved in the corruption (that result from the corruption), shoot the SOBs.

      Having said the above, I’m afraid (truly afraid) that much of what you say about how innefective too many regulations are is true. Where we differ is why they are innefective. I say it has to do with the way our system currently works — corruption; a government that sustains itself by enacting nonsensical laws (the lifeguard example provided yesterday, for example). I don’t buy BF’s argument that it is the regulations themselves that force people to cut corners. Business can stay afload without cutting corners (GM, et al, gambled on big cars and lost; it was their management that failed, whether through bad negotiations with the UAW or their decisions not to produce Honda-like cars). Yet, we bailed them out. Wall Street made bad decisions … we bailed them out (and proceeded to let them outsource while rewarding themselves). Regulations were in place to handle some of their mess, but who’s kidding who? Those regulations were never meant to be enforced. What was the result? They went to capital hill and pissed on the dog and pony show provided to the public in Senate hearings; they scoffed at what was supposed to be a “grilling”.

      Send them to Attica for 50 years and watch the sarcasm drop from their faces.

      So long as there are ZERO consequences, we’ll have ZERO regulation.

      • Charlie,

        How about instituting real term limits in Congress,

        You contradict your own theory of democratic republic.

        You believe the people should chose their representatives, then you go right at it to deny them their choice.

        I mean real consequences

        Then eliminate the regulations and let free men compete.

        If a company makes such an act that is immoral upon the people, the people will abandon its support -by withdrawing voluntary spending- of that company.

        BP has lost $20 billion in lost sales already in Britain and the USA due to an unofficial boycott of the people – a loss that makes pale the cost of any clean up.

        Imagine BP’s losses if the market was free and open with 10,000 companies in competition with it (instead of the 5 or 6).

        Let free people chose their own way – it is infinitely more effective then some guy with a club.

        If agencies permit companies to write their own reports, find the responsible party (making sure there is one) and send them to a state pen for a long time to reflect.

        Think about it, Charlie.

        Who is going to write your reg’s?

        Why would some moron in an office think about Charlie’s best interests???

        You are insisting on a behavior that is simply impossible – that strangers will keep your best interests in mind over and above theirs.

        This is the underlying ignorance of the position of Buck/Mathius et al. They deny that politicians and bureaucrats operate without self-interest.

        Think about yourself, Charlie.

        If you were granted the sole legitimate right to pound anyone senseless for any reason – whose reason would you chose over anyone else? Charlie’s of course!!

        So demanding some regulator would make “law” for your benefit – and deny his – is simply irrational.

        I don’t buy BF’s argument that it is the regulations themselves that force people to cut corners. Business can stay afload without cutting corners (GM, et al, gambled on big cars and lost; it was their management that failed, whether through bad negotiations with the UAW or their decisions not to produce Honda-like cars).

        Use those amazing brain cells and figure out why they did what they did, Charlie.

        Do you really believe men running GM are idiots?

        Do you really believe shareholders of GM would allow idiots run their company?

        These guys are among the smartest, achievement orientated men on earth. They do not fail – if they failed even once, they would not have made it to the “top” of the organization.

        So, let’s work through your comments about them:
        (1) Business stay afloat even if their costs go up.
        How do you believe this happens, Charlie?

        Companies are in competition offering their goods and services to you, at a price.

        For no economic reason a cost goes up (political reason: a new regulation)

        A company now has these choices:
        (1) increase their price to you. But that will mean many of you will stop buying the product because it is too expensive and go and buy from another competitor that is not under that regulation (ie: Foreign companies). But you have protested with great fury at companies going foreign! So you deny them this: they CANNOT raise their price and they CANNOT avoid the regulation.

        So Charlie – what say you? What is left for them to do?

        But only one thing, good sir, cut costs somewhere else.

        But here you get all furious when they cut salaries or fire people! You deny this from them with your vocal outbursts and threats!

        So Charlie – what say you? What is left for them to do now?. They can’t raise their prices, they can’t leave and they can’t fire anyone.

        I’ll leave you to ponder – in your genius – what is left.

        They did not “fail” in negotiations. They were prevented by law to exercise their rights

        The Unions were allowed to strike and prevent alternative workers from replacing them.

        GM could not make cars. They would go bankrupt if they do not make cars.

        So what would you do, Charlie

        Would you abandon the factory and move offshore? No, this angers you to the extreme

        Would you fire all the employees? No, this angers you to the extreme

        What is left, Charlie!?!?

        GM paid and paid and paid, until the cost per employee exceeded their ability to price a car in competition to Honda.

        With such an overhead, the only market that had the margins in sales to absorb it is the high end, big cars and trucks. How can GM make a cheap car for $12,000 when the cost of employees and their benefits alone accounted for $10,000!!

        Com on, Charlie! Let’ here what you would do better than “the morons at GM’s management…! 🙂

        • Well now..

          I know that, in my old age, my memory isn’t quite what it used to be… but I just can’t seem to recall ever thinking that “politicians and bureaucrats operate without self-interest.”

          How are you, my old nemesis? I hope you haven’t gotten rusty in my absence..

          • Mathius,

            While it maybe true that you have never “said it” – Democracy requires it.

            Which is why it fails.

            • Really? Wow, good to know.

              I just sortof assumed that Democracy functions by aligning (mostly) the greed of those who represent us with the best interests of their constituents. That is, I know my rep is only interested in himself, but his best interest is reelection and to get that, he has to do what is best for me.

              Optimal? No. Better than anarchy? You betcha!

              • Mathius,

                That is, I know my rep is only interested in himself, but his best interest is reelection and to get that, he has to do what is best for me

                But that is not what is done, is it?

                If it was, why are the voters ignored?

                But what just blows me away is that you champion the free market principle of self-interest in providing services to others as a means of achieving one’s own self-interest!!

                And then! You go right about destroying that system!

                Mathius, as brilliant as you are, you are one muddle-minded man!

                You see self-interest free market as a means to achieving society – but wish to achieve this by destroying the “free” by using government violence

                You want self-interest to provide a good – but fail to understand that to control your self interest so that it creates a “good” for me requires that I am able to deny you my effort and money if you fail to provide me a good.

                So you want the self-interest, but do not understand that if the other party cannot act voluntarily, such self-interest will morph into tyranny

                And that is not optimal, nor better than freedom.

              • Mathius says:

                I’m sorry, but the only thing I was able to take away from your post is that you acknowledge that I’m brilliant 🙂

              • Mathius,

                …which is why it is at times so disappointing.

                Great intellect wasted in irrational belief.

              • Mathius says:

                You may say I’m a dreamer.

                But I’m not the only one.

                I hope some day you’ll join us.

                And the world will be as one.

              • Funny, I find I still agree with your basic arguments a good portion of the time but there is no way I would ever be able to join you. Because you refuse to admit the truth to the arguments which people on here make-I assume because you feel that in the reality of our society they wouldn’t work or man would refuse to try them-but the bottom line IMHO 🙂 is you have a tendency to just shrug off the obvious and real dangers to our society eventually losing all most if not all of our liberties if we continue in the same direction.

        • I will formulate a return volley, BF.

          But here’s a quickie. Morons make it to the top all the time, my friend. George W. Bush was a good businessman?

          Brother, are you barking up the wrong tree with that argument (GM has the brightest, etc.). Pa-leeze.

          I will address you point by point if it takes me until the weekend. Promise.

          • Charlie,

            Bush was a great businessman.

            He did what he was hired to do – cowtow to the Saudi’s and get his companies rich.

            The corporate environment with the “Big Boys” does not allow failure. There is no “Three Strike” rule. One miss, you’re gone.

            The guys who make it to the top their never missed.

            How you judge that -whether brilliance or luck- (shrug).

            • I dunno Flag, judging how good someone is at something based solely on where they ended up seems like an “ends justify the means” argument.

              • Jon,

                I am not judging “moral” character.

                I am measuring and define “good” from the perspective of the company.

                You are “good” if you rise through the ranks. The “company” does not reward people who do not do “good” for the company.

                Thus, a man who rises up in the company -from the view of the “company”- must be “good” for the company.

            • answer at bottom, this right columns make me nuts.

      • Charlie,
        Here is an example of regulations causing corruption:
        In Virginia, we have the ABC, the Alcoholic Beverage Control board. In an attempt to control behavior, we are not permitted to have actual bars here. To this end there is a regulation requiring any place selling alcohol to have 60% of their sales come from food. For restaurants this is not a big deal. For clubs and concert venues and places that are more like bars (even tho they cannot be called that legally), it is nearly impossible to meet this regulation without hiding sales.

        The result? Almost every place with an ABC license that is not an actual restaurant runs two sets of books. Their real books, and the ones they show the ABC board. As a result, almost all of the bar owners that stay in business are the sleazy types that are willing to break laws and know what palms to grease when necessary. In my girlfriend’s business we run into thses sleazeballs all the time. We also find the good ones, and they very rarely last, because they try to do everything legal, and it is not possible unless you have really excellent food, and generally your clientelle is not the late night music loving crowd. You want a nightclub? You break the law or fail. The type of people we end up dealing with are all real schiesters, and it can definately be traced to over-regulation.

    • If someone is going to regulate an industry, they are going to need to know a lot about that industry. The people who know a lot about an industry are people who have worked in that industry. It’s easy to see how this happens. Someone who is not familiar with what they are regulating is not going to be effective either.

      • If you can live with the consequences (that they be real jail time for those who accept bribes), then I can live with those familiar with the industry having something to do with regulations. But not former desk jockies (unless it’s a desk jockey business), people who know the mechanics of the industry they’re regulating.

        So long as when they are caught being corrupt they wind up in Attica, hey, I’m all for it. But when clowns like Kenneth Lay get to bankrupt all those poor SOB’s who’d invested their lives in his company get to die before they serve jail time (even after he was convicted) … well, that’s when it’s a clear signal that crime pays … and don’t think the barrons on Wall Street didn’t take notice.

        But some moron law in Minesotta will put a kid selling an ounce of pot away for ten years …

        Redo the entire mess (government). Start over. These clowns (all of them) have to go first.

        But let’s be realistic … it isn’t going to happen. The Tea Party movement is already showing signs of faltering. And the left (where I’m more comfortable) disappeared the day President Fredo was inaugurated.

        Like Kurt Vonnegut used to say: So it goes …

      • Jennie,

        Agree, had the same thought. We can apply this to the financial sector as well, where they go from Goldman-Sachs to Fed. Reserve, jumping back and forth from private to government. And the sad truth is it takes real expertise to do those jobs. So how do we make it illegal for someone to take a better job? They work five years gaining experience as a government inspector, the oil co. they inspect recognize that and will pay more for that knowledge.

        I think the only answer is to do away with government inspectors. A company could run an unsafe oil rig, until someone was injured, or they have a spill. Then the pay, as a company, and as individuals.
        From the CEO to the janitor, anyone who knowingly worked where unsafe
        conditions persist shares the guilt.

        Charlie, not a fan of your approach. How does the US prison population compare to the rest of the free world?

        • Expertise?

          My man, I could’ve run Lehman Brothers into the ground for a lot less compensation than those “experts” took for themselves.

          Our prison population is part and parcel the result of our economic system; make no mistake. It would be nice, though, to see some of the garbage that cost us so much touching their toes for a change rather than taking vacations after sentencing (Ken Lay).

          Take away regulations, people have to eat, they have to work in conditions that may be dangerous (to survive), so they’re guilty of what, trying to survive?

          This is where you guys lose me big time.

          • Charlie, you don’t have to believe that all regulations need to go away. You just need to look at the currant situation to see that they aren’t working. They aren’t using any kind of common sense to decide what works and what doesn’t. They just write NEW regulations in order to get someones vote, in order to start some new governmental agency which we have to pay for. and in order to get MORE POWER. All regulations are not going to go away-I can’t help but feel that we are much better off to stop supporting new ones. I don’t want to hear about new regs. I want to hear about getting rid of ones that haven’t worked or at the very least changing the existing ones based on why we think they didn’t work.

            • Fair enough VH, but what about the consequences when they are ignored? So long as we leave them unpunished, why pay heed.

              The penalty for ignoring pre-existing conditions is $100 per day. That might as well be $.10 cents.

              Make it $1,000,000 a day and it’ll be enforced.

              • Charlie, have you noticed that both parties protect big business-Government PROTECTS BIG business. They will continue protecting big business-you note the problems but you still want to depend on the ones causing the problems to fix them and make everything fair. I’ll ask your question in a different way-Why is the daily fine so little?

          • Charlie,

            I did not say to do away with safety regulations.

            “I think the only answer is to do away with government inspectors.”

            Think it through, the companies would be responsible for operating safely. They could even cut any corners they wanted, without fear of any government response. Until an employee reported unsafe conditions, oil spills, etc.. Or when someone was hurt, or a spill actually happened.

            Fines, prison time and such would be limited to events that did happen, not what MIGHT happen.
            You might have spilled your java, reading this and laughing at my naive thought process. Do I owe you for your dry cleaning, even though you didn’t stain your Izod?

          • Charlie,

            Brothers into the ground for a lot less compensation than

            Yep, it would have taken you only a day and never made a profit, where they ran it profitably for decades!

            Yes, these men are idiots, right Charlie?

            Men who get paid millions a year must be pure morons to achieve such a position in these companies!!

            • Some of them are Flag. If you look at the decisions made by some of these companies, it is obvious they got where they are by knowing the right people and having a certain education and living in this “other world” where everyone else agrees with them on things like static accounting.

              How else do you explain what happened in the online computer ordering business?

              Gateway:
              Has an innovative idea, starts marketting custom made PCs to the private consumer market. Computers can be custom spec’d and shipped. They made a great product and reached a lot of people’s needs. Then some moron at the top decides thay can make a lot more money if they outsources and cut support, cheapen the components and ride on their good name. Gateway’s reputation falters, they slip lower and lower and lose market share even with no equivalent competitors, retail store computer sales go up. Gateway tries fixing the problem by openning retail stores, another genius move by the morons at the top.

              Dell comes on the scene and fills the vacuum, they even expand into the business market and do very well. The guy that started Dell steps back, and some moron cut from the same cloth as the guys running Gateway decides to do the EXACT SAME THING. They outsource support and cut quality of components. They start to go downhill exactly the same way. Surprised? Of course not. Surprised that the morons at the top of Dell did not look back at their own industry less than a decade and realize such a move was a mistake? Not if you understand that people making millions and running big corporations can still be morons because of their education and the value placed on that education by business leaders because they do not realize how inept those educational systems have become. Oh, and also, the general attitude of “only this quarter’s profits matter”.

              Yea, there are morons, I don’t care what they are paid. That does not mean all of them are, but just because someone placed high value on them does not make them worth a damn.

              • Jon,

                A couple of thoughts.

                First, that is how the free market works – one good idea about how something may work might not work.

                They only way you know is to do it.

                Second, any company that grows large cannot sustain its exponential growth.

                It is easy to double your income when it is $100 a day. It is incredibly hard when it is $1 million a day.

                Thus, the Natural Order of the Free Market provides natural limits to size – that if a man refuses to acknowledge this, the Universe will correct him severely.

                The problem is; the company has made commitments to shareholders to maintain this growth or else the voluntary action of shareholders abandoning the company for faster growing ones will also threaten the business.

                Company failure is an incredibly difficult thing to avoid – and that is how it should be.

                The Natural Order provides that the new replace the old. Thus old Companies need to die to create economic space for new ones.

                Companies exist to solve a problem. Gateway solves a problem – and when that problem was solved, they went away.

              • True, and I understand gateway’s mistake a little more, at least they were the first in their industry to make that mistake. It was still a short sighted move that could have been avoided by a man of vision, but it is an experiment in business sometimes.
                Dell, on the other hand, has no excuse.

                As for duty to the stockholders, that is crap. There is a duty to run the company the best way possible. The stockholders of both companies took massive hits unless they sold off right after the first or second quarterly report. And whoever they sold to got the shaft. For long term holders tho, its a bad move and not within the “duty” of the person running the company to sabotage the success of it. I know companies come and go, grow and fail, but there is no need to attack it from the inside. This happens in a market, and that is ok, but I will not applaud the stupidity of those who tank a company, even if it was that company’s “time to go”. Stupid is stupid, regardless of how much the stupid guy is getting paid.

              • Jon as a Computer tech who has fixed them for years, I can absolutely vouch for that.

                Both of those companies made the biggest mistakes in “cheapening” their products.

            • BF, your sycophancy regarding CEO’s is closing in on fanatical (and already is delusional).

              I guess whatever they do is right and whenever they fail it’s somebody else’s fault.

              Convince yourself of that, my friend. Then take the blinders off and look at Lehman Brothers, Drexel Burnham … and this idiot running Goldman Sachs (what makes him so smart, BF? The fact he ran his company into the ground but had hooks into the gov’t?)

              Honestly, I’m starting to lose faith in your ability to discuss; your coming off like a religious fanatic to big business.

              And trust me, I could’ve run those companies into the ground just as easy as those geniuses.

              The thing I could’ve done way better was lend them money (better this gov’t did). That was my business and I did very well with it. I’m doing the lending, I dictate the terms; not the other way around. There would’ve been no outsourcing to companies I was lending to. There would’ve been NO bonuses and NO Layoffs, not while I’m using taxpayer dollars.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Charlie,

                I think your reading of BF’s position is highly skewed.

                He has stated in his posts:

                1. Men make it to the top by being GOOD FOR THE COMPANY.

                That does NOT necessarily mean they are geniuses, NOR does it mean they behave in a moral, rational, or even smart manner.

                ALL it means is that they know how to manipulate a non-free market so that their company is turning an ever larger and larger profit, either through actual successful business practices (not likely) or though manipulation of regulations to favor their company and use against competition.

                Certainly, you can point to any number of examples where CEOs who everyone thought were geniuses eventually ran a company into the ground. Such examples are everywhere.

                All it takes is for something resembling an actual free market to appear, and suddenly these “geniuses” flounder.

                The other thing which will guarantee that they fail is if the regulatory environment changes, and they are too slow to adapt to the change and another company finds out how to manipulate the new regulations better and faster, which destroys the company that used to be the best at such manipulation of the OLD REGULATIONS.

                This is why companies that push for NEW REGULATIONS are quite often in the top 5 of their particular business, but they are not NUMBER 1.

                Number 1 already has a lock on how to manipulate current regulations in their favor. Anyone below #1 is always busy FORMULATING NEW REGULATIONS and WORKING ON HOW TO MANIPULATE THEM, so that if they get such new regulations passed, THEY WILL BE THE NEW #1!

                Why do you think that ALL (and I do mean ALL) of the new “financial reform bill” WAS WRITTEN BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HUGE BANKS!

                The ONLY thing that the new “regulations” are designed to accomplish is for the big banks to be determining which of the small, local banks are failing, so that the government will close the small, local banks down and the big megabanks will eat them for pennies on the dollar.

                The “too big to fail” will become even bigger, and even more dangerous. Once they become past critical mass, the next “crisis” will be terminal, there will be no escaping it, because there will be no more alternatives.

                However, this does not make the CEOs of the MEGABANKS “morons”. It makes them GENIUSES!

                Their job is to report RECORD PROFITS on a QUARTERLY BASIS.

                As long as their actions appear to be making this goal a reality, they are GOOD FOR THE COMPANY!

                When they eventually fail due to whatever circumstance (as ALL CEOs MUST FAIL EVENTUALLY under the current system) they get “Golden Parachuted” out, and a new SAVIOR of the company comes in and takes over, or the company goes bankrupt, depending.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    Ad Rules Stall, Keeping Cereal a Cartoon Staple

    Lucky Charms. Froot Loops. Cocoa Pebbles. A ConAgra frozen dinner with corn dog and fries. McDonald’s Happy Meals.

    These foods might make a nutritionist cringe, but all of them have been identified by food companies as healthy choices they can advertise to children under a three-year-old initiative by the food industry to fight childhood obesity.

    Now a hard-nosed effort by the federal government to forge tougher advertising standards that favor more healthful products has become stalled amid industry opposition and deep divisions among regulators.

    A report to Congress from several federal agencies — expected to include strict nutritional definitions for the sorts of foods that could be advertised to children — is overdue, and officials say it could be months before it is ready. Some advocates fear the delay could result in the measure being stripped of its toughest provisions.

    “All of a sudden everything is dead in the water,” said Dale Kunkel, a communications professor at the University of Arizona who is an expert on children’s advertising. “I have heard no arguments to slow this down other than that the industry doesn’t like it.”

    Among the requirements under consideration and included in a preliminary proposal by the agencies: Cereals could have only eight grams of sugar per serving, far less than many cereals that are heavily advertised to children (Lucky Charms and Cocoa Pebbles have 11 grams and Froot Loops has 12). The level for saturated fats would be set so low it would exclude peanut butter. And to qualify for advertising, all foods would have to contain significant amounts of wholesome ingredients like whole grains, low-fat milk, fruits or vegetables.

    Critics have long complained that standards used by food manufacturers to designate healthy foods suitable for advertising to children are flawed, with ads for foods high in calories, fat, sugar and salt remaining a prominent part of the Saturday morning ritual on television. The Obama administration, as part of its campaign against childhood obesity, has also called on food companies to do more to ensure that advertising aimed at children is for healthier products.

    The federal involvement took a step forward last year when Congress ordered the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to recommend standards for children’s food advertising.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/media/24food.html?ref=politics

    And the theme around regulation just keeps popping up for me tonight. Add this to the astoundingly large and rapidly growing list of nanny state initiatives for an American public that government officials have deemed too stupid to make any decisions on their own. The article takes the time to lay out the battle between food companies that want to advertise their tasty cereals and fast food during times when children watch TV and the conscientious federal agencies who are looking to stop them from making America’s children fat.

    As many of you know, I do not like the FCC or any other agency having a say in what is shown on television. We discussed it a couple of weeks ago when I made the point that the market could handle this easily without the government. A few broadcasters who promised child friendly programming would gain a large market share among parents who are concerned about what their children see on TV. Problem solved. No government needed. And I get to see boobies on TV at 2:00 in the afternoon if I want to! Obviously I am unhappy with the concept of “adult programming” which the FCC dictates can only be shown after a certain time of day when children shouldn’t be watching TV.

    Now we have to add to the list of what constitutes “programming for adults.” Let’s see, you can’t say those seven words that George Carlin liked to say in his standup routine (I will never forget his line,”you can say you pricked your finger…. but you can’t say you fingered your ***”), you can’t show nudity, no over the top violence or “adult situations.” Now we can add to that a ban on commercials that show food that the government has deemed is not healthy enough. We already have rules saying that you have to have signs placed in the drive-thru telling kids the fat content of a happy meal before their parents buy it for them. Parents know happy meals are not good for their children. Signs pointing it out are worthless and a total waste of money that those businesses could spend on say….. hiring employees or expanding to new locations.

    Much like the happy meal thing, there is one problem with the entire argument being offered here. Nowhere in this stupid article does it mention the fact that CHILDREN DON’T DO THE GROCERY SHOPPING IN THEIR HOUSE. The idea that we need to shelter our children from commercials that feature “unhealthy” food is absolutely ludicrous. And it points directly to the absurdity that passes for sound regulation in America. This is why so many of us throw around that statement that the left hates so much: The Nanny State. The government and the elitist asshats who operate in America simply think they are smarter than everyone else. And as such, they are convinced that they need to save us from ourselves.

    I say to them: Shut the frack up….. and pass me that box of Fruit Loops.

    • Truthseeker says:

      I also find this redicously ironic. People are going to buy what they want. Even sticking a giant label on cigaretts telling people there are going to die still does not prevent them from buying it. I do think it was fair to have companies post information about what is in the food, but anything else the Parents that buy the stuff should have personal responsibility.

      Apparently the Government does think people are stupid and have to have decisions made for them.

      And Frosted Flakes > Fruit Loops!

    • naten53 says:

      everyone knows the best part of lucky charms is the marshmellows.

    • How are they marketing to kids excatly? The last I checked kids are not in charge of buying the food for most households. What parent does not know that the MCD’s meal they just bought their kids is not healthy for them? give me break please.

      I with you on the FCC USW, again to me this goes back to parenting. It should not matter what is shown if you know what your kids are watching. If there is naked ladies on at 3pm on channel 138, then dont let your children what channel 138 at 3pm.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Then maybe they should just quit advertising stuff like that. Any parent with a half a brain can decide what and what not to get their kids or what and what not to let their kids watch on TV. It’s like they’re calling parents stupid, and all these other people know better.

      • I don’t know what kind of childhood you had, but when I was 7 or 8, I used to steal my parent’s keys and wallet, drive down to the store, buy myself some Count Chocula and bring it back home. Of course, you can imagine that this caused some issues.

        Oh, if only they hadn’t used cartoon advertisements..

        It’s the same reason I was smoking a pack of camels a day by the time I was 5.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Matt, I know you’re only being sarcastic here, but to answer you, I had a normal childhood. We didn’t have all that sugary cereal in our house, nor all that crap they show on TV now a days, or all the cable channels they have now, we had only 3 or 4 basic channels, and we also had a TV antenna on the roof like everybody else. We didn’t have all the toys and gadgets like kids have now either. I had one bike, one pair of roller skates, a few dolls. We played outside from morning until the street lights came on. Both my parents worked full time, and we kids were left alone, no baby sitters, no nannies, but just ourselves until our parents got home from work. My sister being the oldest was in charge of me and my brother until then. Gee, we managed to be alright, nothing ever happened, but maybe some scraped knees and some skinned elbows.

          • Mathius says:

            Judy, I think you missed that I was agreeing with your point. Parents do the shopping which is why the failure is theirs if children eat unhealthily. Children are idiots – they’ll do whatever their id tells them to.

            Laws like this are just an attempt to appear to be doing something. That’s all, nothing more.

            As for me, maybe I’m odd, but I always found cartoon advertisements just a little bit condescending – I never gave a rat’s patootie what some toucan thought. I wanted what tasted good. Mostly that was Cheerios or Qix. But it really didn’t matter what I wanted, I didn’t do the shopping. My parents didn’t care was I wanted, I was a kid.

            And they made me eat my veggies, too.

            • And they made me eat my veggies, too.

              And yet you STILL turned out to be a liberal. Man, what does a parent have to do?

              😀

              • Mathius says:

                I don’t know, but maybe that’s why I want to make everyone else eat their veggies, too.

              • Veggies???? M E A T and taters… taters and M E A T …… beer. Tequila….red beans and rice with jalepeno…more meat and taters….DP ( 1 gallon per day ) …..good start.

                Welcome back Matt….missed you.

              • Good to be back – it was the damnest thing.. I was walking along, minding my own business when I felt a sudden sting, as if a dart had struck my neck. Next thing I knew, I woke up in the cargo hold of a large pirate ship in the Gulf of Mexico.

                Took me some time extricate myself and get back here.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Okay, maybe I did, but it’s kind of hard to read between the sarcasm. My apologies.

              • Mathius says:

                The failing is mine. Unfortunately, I seem to be having trouble mastering human communications.

    • I would think Congress has more important things to do than to pick on Toucan Sam and Cap’n Crunch.

      Who gives a damn about a cartoon cereal commercial?

      Government has to have their nose in everything under the sun amd it is getting old as King Tut.

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    Rendell: Obama shouldn’t do ‘View’

    Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell advised President Barack Obama against appearing later this week on “The View,” encouraging the president to only do “serious shows.”

    “I think the president should be accessible, should answer questions that aren’t pre-screened, but I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency,” Rendell said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

    The daytime talk show announced Monday that Obama will be taping an interview with the four female hosts that will air Thursday. Obama last appeared on the program during the presidential election. Vice President Joe Biden was on “The View” in April.

    Rendell said the talk show did not have the required stature to host the president, comparing “The View” to “The Jerry Springer Show,” which frequently devolves into onstage brawls.

    “I wouldn’t put him on Jerry Springer either,” Rendell said. “It is different a little bit. But I think the president of the United States has to go on serious shows.”

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40279.html

    I found this interesting. Riding into work this afternoon I was listening to some guy filling in for John Gibson on the talk radio channel who was pitching a fit over Obama deciding to appear on “The View.” Then on the way home, I listened to a replay of the Bill O’Reilly show, which was being by Laura Ingraham who was sitting in for Bill. She continued the madness by pointing out that in order to do the show he apparently turned down speaking to folks gathered for a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts. At that point, I had to ask myself what in the hell is wrong with these right leaning talking heads? Is it really even newsworthy that Obama is appearing aside someone as brain dead as Joy Behar?

    And then I read this article on Politico where a Democratic Governor, Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania, was advising the President not to appear on the show. And I stood baffled. Is it really that big of a deal? So let me offer my thoughts quickly and ask what everyone else thinks.

    I make no bones about the fact that I don’t like The View. I think that Joy Behar is right in line with Rosie O’Idiot and Jeanine “I really need a shower” Garofalo. The show has always leaned pretty hard to the left, despite a weak Elizabeth Hasselback attempting to offer counters from the right. Behar is the one I truly detest, but often I find myself annoyed with the show overall. And as far os Obama is concerned they certainly fall into the category of the “slobbering love affair” with him. I will never forget the grilling that they gave McCain and then having Obama on shortly after with comments to him that he is “hot.” They are entitled to their leanings to the left. But I absolutely don’t give the show anything nearing credibility as a place where logical thought or rational thinking make an appearance.

    Barack Obama is the President now, regardless of who likes or dislikes that fact. And I see the office of the Presidency as something a little bit more dignified than The View. As such, I don’t believe that he should be appearing on that show. But he is entitled to do so. He won’t get any tough treatment there. Then again he doesn’t get any tough treatment from any of the media when he appears to do, say…. a health overhaul infomercial. I do find it a little embarrassing that the President of the United States is appearing on a show with someone as ignorant as Joy Behar. I find it even more embarrassing that the President of the United States is doing The View while absolutely refusing to do any sort of interview or appearance where he may be asked some tough questions. I think it absolutely shows the lack of confidence that the administration has that he can present himself as a competent leader of the United States.

    Overall, I think the President has shown us ever since he took office that he is anything but “Presidential,” and this just further cements that opinion. But I really can’t say that I care too much. I think he is a useless “face” who got elected by offering a minority face with a gifted ability to speak, which hid his glaring lack of credentials for the position for which he was applying for. Kind of like Affirmative Action, the Presidential version.

    But I am interested in what everyone else thinks.

    • Truthseeker says:

      President Bush did have one thing that President Obama will never have and that is Dignity and respect of the Office. The View is a talk/gossip show, not a news show. The Veiw is spinning this and saying that this verifies that they are a good source of news. By the POTUS showing up to this show gives it credibility to their claim.

      Not once have I ever heard of President Bush ever blaming anybody else about the situations he was put in. That is because he respected the Office and those who held it. He was a gentleman. President Obama however is the complete opposite. The point of being President is not to blame those for the mess you are in. You became president to fix the mess that you railed against in the first place. Even now President Bush is showing his class by not commenting on President Obama even though he is getting tore up constantly.

      • I agree. One thing I don’t understand though, is how The View is spinning their show as anything but 4 mean, spiteful, stupid bitches from hell, who sit at table everyday and gush about things they like and say ugly, nasty things about what they don’t like.

        And the only thing Obama might have to worry about going on The View is maybe a little action under the table during commercials. 😉

        Sorry, it was in my potty brain and just had to come out!

    • I think that the President going on the View instead of addressing the Boy Scouts of America is a big deal. IMO it is just another example of him dismissing the traditions of this country, remember Memorial Day. Not to mention his disrespect to England. Personally, I think all this little unimportant stuff adds up to a pretty good picture of his opinion of this country.

    • I think he should be talking to the boy scouts instead, but since I dont watch the view, I could care less that he goes on it. I think it makes him look dumb, because he will not go to a place that would give him hard questions. The view is not a news show period, never has been. So to me this is no different than a campaign speech.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      He’s acting like he’s a big celebrity, instead of president. He should be doing his job and quit ho nobbing with Hollywood. Oh, wait, he is doing his job, NOTHING. Taking one vacation after another isn’t doing his job.

      • ho nobbing or hob nobbing? 😆

        • I don’t think that was a typo LOI! 🙂

          • Well, Judy hasn’t responded, so you may be right.

            How did the baseball games turn out?

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              HOB NOBBING, NOT HO NOBBING, but then who knows.

              • Yeah Judy! Consider what show he’s going on and their opinion of him. 😀

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Never watch the view, don’t like any of them except for Elizabeth Hassleback.

              • I sort of like her too. But she is only on there for the other ones to gang up on. And she gives as good as she gets.

                But they are trying to slowly convert her to their view. If they don’t succeed, they will dump her.

            • The series sucked. Not the event, our showing at it.

              Some of the boys had rather stay up all night and play, (not mine) and that was that.

              That team might as well not waste their breath asking for him to play with them next year.

              I don’t like wasting my money that I don’t have for that bull.

              Beale Street and Graceland were interesting though. And the look on my boy’s face at his first look at the Mississippi River was priceless! He said it made every other river he’d ever seen look like a small creek.

              • Well darn, Esom you were in my neck of the woods-would have been nice to have met you in person.

              • If I had known that VH, We could jave set something up.

              • Me too. Lanskey’s in the Peabody is a must see. Hard Rock has offered him millions for his signed guitar collection. Mr. B says they haven’t got close to his price yet.

              • There was 1 white boy ‘ala Stevie Ray Vaughn, with a drummer and a Bass player on the sidewalk on Beale St. that I swear I could have stood right there and listened to that boy play ALL NIGHT LONG!

                Man, that boy could flat out play them blues.

      • Taking one vacation after another isn’t doing his job.

        http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/

        Just to be fair, I’ll mention that I get three weeks of vacation a year, but take closer to 1 1/2 because it is difficult for my coworkers to keep up with the work when they’re shorthanded. I don’t begrudge anyone some time off, but I do think it’s a bit overboard when Presidents take nearly 4 weeks a year and are completely irreplaceable in their job function. That said, if you’re going to hit Obama for taking vacation time, it’s only fair to mention that W. took more than two and a half times as many during his first year (69 vs 26).

        • Yea, tho maybe if Obama had taken more time off he wouldn’t have had time to spend much damned money. 🙂

          That said, I agree, its an issue with all representatives as far as I am concerned. This is not playtime, we hired them to do a job. That job is representing us. They are failing at it horribly, and then are taking breaks.

          btw, good to see you Matt, welcome back, I got worried about you. 🙂

          • I find long breaks to be an interesting phenomenon. People seem to feel (cue the sirens) Entitled (gasp! shudder!) to them. I don’t understand why this should be. Yes, everyone should have some time off, but I don’t see the justification for our reps getting summers, winter and frequent vacations. It made sense in a time when DC summers without A/C were just inhuman and when it took weeks for some people to get back and visit their constituents, but these days, it’s just ridiculous. There is simply no justification other than “because we can.” I work a full year, you should too. Period.

            And let’s not forget that many (most?) of them probably also only work 11-4:30-ish. What a great life.

            It’s great to be back – I was training a new guy at my computer for the last few weeks, so I wasn’t able to get away for my SUFA fix. I hope Charlie, Buck, and Todd held the fort down in my absence.

            • They did ok, but even with you here you guys are outnumbered. I like things to at least be sporting. Plus, when you are not here, I always end up in big knock-down, drag-out debates with Flag….:P

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          And just where did Bush go, his ranch, but what makes you think he still wasn’t working either. Just look where Obama has been, and how many games of golf has he played since in office, 6, 7 8, and how many games of golf did Bush play? NONE, why, because he said he didn’t want to be seen out on the golf course while our troops are overseas doing their job. At least, that’s the one thing I can say about Bush too, he had respect for our military, as to where I don’t see Obama having it.

          • Oh, Judy, I’m sorry. I love ya, but I have to throw the BS flag.

            Bush “gave up golfing” “for the troops” some time in August of 2003. Even though he was filmed while out golfing after that at least once.

            http://mediamatters.org/research/201004190054

            And let’s not forget his long daily jogs and bike rides.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Okay, okay, Just get tired of hearing that Obama can’t do any wrong, that’s all, and how just how wonderful he is, and just what a wonderful job he’s doing, and that he’s God’s gift to the people. He still blames Bush for everything, even what’s going on now. Matt, it’s time he quits with the blame game, and starts taking some responsibility for what’s happening now.

              • Mathius says:

                Agreed.

                But, oh sorry, I can dig it up, but Bush was blaming Clinton for stuff all the way into year 8. So, again, let’s not have any delusions that this is new to Obama.

                I wasn’t really following politics back then, but I’d bet Clinton was blaming Bush Sr for stuff in year 8 as well.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I guess when you come down to it, they all blame each other, but Matt, Obama is still doing it with EVERYTHING

                Hell, I’ve even heard it was Bush’s fault for the latest oil spill, now come on, let’s be reasonable.

              • Mathius says:

                And why not? People are still blaming Woodrow Wilson for stuff

              • Common Man says:

                Matt;

                Welcome back!

                And why shouldn’t we blame Wilson, the asshole started the whole progressive movement. Harding and Coolidge turned things around, but then we got FDR.

                The reality of it all though is WE are to blame for allowing government to progress as it has.

                CM
                http://www.bye-obama.com

        • It should also be noted that the majority of W’s “vacations” were working vacations at his Crawford TX ranch…most of his staff was there and he wasn’t out playing golf…

          • Buck the Wala says:

            And much the same when Obama is off on ‘vacation’ he still has his core staff, he is still getting briefings, etc…

            If you’re going to criticize Obama for taking vacations, you’ve gotta say the same of Bush. Likewise, if you’re going to criticize Bush for taking vacations, you’ve gotta say the same of Obama.

            • I actually prefer it when he is on vacation…Obama is an abject failure…he has absolutely no leadership qualities and is not much more than an empty suit. That said, W wasn’t the greatest, but I would still take him over what is currently in the White House…would prefer better than both, but to me he is the lesser of those two evils.

              • Mathius says:

                Four more years of Slick Willie?

                Let’s start a petition..

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’d rather vote in Jed Bartlet.

              • I really believe slick’s wife is next for the Democrat ticket…she is lurking in the wings and laughing at every misstep that the POTUS makes. IMO it would be the only chance the Democrats have in 2010, unless the annointed one begins to make better decisions…and I hereby predict that he will continue on the same path he has begun, and will either lose in the primaries to Hillary, or in the general to whatever empty suit the Republicans run.

              • Oops…meant 2012

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Mathius – POTUS is never really on vacation. His work site just changes.

    • Cyndi P says:

      Hey,

      If it keeps him from siging or negotiating more destructive legislation, is it really bad for America? Just askin’.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Sheesh USW – would you be okay if he hosted an episode of Soul Train?

      I find it very odd that so many folks criticize President Obama as being un-Presidential and then throw the “elitist” epithet out in the same breath. These are many of the same who love Sarah Palin because “she is one of us” or “she is nice, folksy, Mama Grizzly”.

      The majority of Americans, imho, want a President who can strike a balance between someone we can identify with and thus hopefully understand and to some degree trust AND also portray and be emblematic of the stature of the office he/she holds. I find no fault or reason to bicker about him appearing on The View. I do not watch the show, I feel his time is probable better spent; but maybe there is a demographic there he is trying to reach to show that he is (hopefully) human. I think Obama has done a “B” job thus far at being Presidential AND being “reachable” thus far. Has he had gaffes? Sure. Who hasn’t? Or – maybe this is a great distraction to kick the Sherrod issue out of the new cycle? Who knows?

  5. EDITORIAL: U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments
    One-worlders are going after your guns

    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/23/un-threatens-second-and-first-amendments/

    The United Nations is holding secret closed meetings to work out a global arms trade treaty. The agreement, which could be finished by 2012, is a threat to Americans’ Second and First Amendment rights.

    “Some type of micro-stamping regulations seems all but inevitable. It is very, very likely,” the Heritage Foundation’s Theodore R. Bromund, who tracks the U.N., told The Washington Times. “Restrictions on trade between private individuals are somewhat less than 50-50, but you surely can’t rule that out. Some kind of gun registration and licensing system is an extremely likely probability.” Registration proposals cover guns as well as individual rounds of ammunition.

    The Obama administration strongly supports the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and no doubt will use the process to push for gun-control regulations that it can’t get through Congress otherwise.

    A lot of baloney is floating in Turtle Bay. Gun registration is being promoted despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere it’s been tried. “None of these treaties have a relationship to reality,” Mr. Bromund explains. “Terrorists are still going to have access to guns because governments give them guns, and they are still going to be able to give them guns.” As an example, he pointed out, “The FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from Venezuela.”

    As with everything that goes down at the U.N.’s headquarters on Manhattan’s East River, America will pick up a disproportionate share of the tab to implement the treaty, with all those countries considered most “in need” taking another free ride. This is counterproductive even without the usual fraud and waste that hobble U.N. programs.

    Gun rights aren’t the only thing would-be globocops are targeting in the treaty. There is a U.N. discussion paper advancing “the reduction of violence in the media and in video games” as well as “sustained efforts at reeducation and reorientation of [member state] citizens.” Whatever the plan, that can’t be good for the First Amendment.

    Any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will undermine freedom around the world. The right to bear arms is an individual’s protection against oppression anywhere. It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush’s administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago. Unfortunately, we now have a left-wing White House working to make this dangerous treaty a reality.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Good thing the UN has no power over the USA. If the POTUS tries to enforce something like this over us I am betting a full revolt would break out.

      Does this surprise me? Nope.

  6. 8)

  7. http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/

    And the DOC says (again) …

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Thursday signed legislation intended to slash by $50 billion the taxpayer money improperly paid to dead people, fugitives and those in jail who shouldn’t be getting benefits. – ABC News

    While this sounds like a worthwhile endeavor there are a few questions banging around in the lovable old Docster’s brain. To put this in perspective, the amount of money improperly paid to dead people, fugitives and jailbirds is 110 Billion dollars.

    Q1: Did we not have legislation before that discouraged sending out checks to make believe people?
    Q2: If we know that the figure is $110 Billion we must know which are the fraudulent payments. Couldn’t we just stop paying them?
    Q3 Since he is the smartest man in America couldn’t Fredo set the bar a little higher and sign legislation to stop ALL fraudulent payments. It would seem that $60 Billion is an acceptable level of fraud for the White House.

    This is the problem with having 500+ lawmakers working (almost) full time in Washington. They feel to justify their ridiculous salaries they must be writing new laws all the time. Let’s face it, how many new crimes are being invented everyday? After 200 years of lawmaking wouldn’t you think we have everything just about covered? Wouldn’t the above $110 Billion be covered under existing fraud and theft laws.

    Unfortunately, enforcing existing laws is not as glamorous as writing new laws. You don’t get to put your name on it when a law is enforced.

    • I would rather say:
      “Under my administration, we found and eliminated $110 billion in fraudulent payments. One of many steps in cutting unneeded government spending.”

      This would be legit because the President is part of the executive, or enforcement, branch of government. Signing law is not his primary role.

      Instead, all he has is:
      “We found $110 billion in fraudulent payments, and Congress passed a bill nearly cutting that fraud in half. I did my part and signed that into law because I care about how we spend money.”

      Anyone want to pick the better campaign statement?

  8. Réfugiée says:

    Pour les soldats, voter n’est pas si important? Mais vous autres, les criminels . . . .

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/exclusive-doj-stalls-voter-registration-law-military/

    • Not very surprising, I bet most troops vote conservative. Al Franken won by about 300 votes, so even a few thousand in each state can have a national impact.

  9. $1 Trillion Would Buy …

    40,816,326 New Cars

    The 2010 Volkswagen Jetta TDI wins Kiplinger’s Best in Class honors for cars in the $20,000-to-$25,000 price range. At a sticker price of $24,500 each, $1 trillion would let you drive away with a fleet of Jettas equivalent to 30% of all the cars already on U.S. highways. (The total U.S. car fleet is more than 135 million, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, excluding trucks and SUVs.)

    5,574,136 Typical American Homes

    According to the National Association of Realtors, the national median price for existing single-family homes in May was $179,400. There are about 80 million detached, single-family homes in the U.S., according to the NAR and the Census Bureau.

    140 Billion Hours of Labor

    That’s calculated at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Still hard to get your mind around? How about this: One trillion dollars is enough to hire all 2.8 million residents of the state of Kansas — men, women and children — in full-time, minimum-wage jobs for the next 23 years.

    A Year’s Salary for 14.7 Million Teachers

    According to the National Education Association, the average teacher salary in the state of California is about $68,000. The total number of teachers working in the U.S. was estimated at 6.2 million ten years ago, according to the 2000 U.S. Census (the last official estimate). So $1 trillion would pay Golden State salaries to more than twice that number of teachers.

    The Annual Salaries of All 535 Members of Congress for the Next 10,742 Years

    The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is $174,000. We’re not even counting the extras paid to congressional leaders.

    The Star Power of LeBron James for the Next 50,000 Years

    A lot of numbers are being thrown around about just how much the basketball superstar will be paid for playing for the Miami Heat. But let’s say it’s just $20 million a year. At that rate, $1 trillion would cover the tab for King James for the next 50 millennia. Heck, King Tut was born less than four millennia ago.

    1.33 Trillion Chocolate Bars

    Got a hankering for something sweet? A sweet $1 trillion will buy you that many 1.55-ounce Hershey’s Milk Chocolate bars at 75 cents apiece. That’s 64 million tons of chocolate, equivalent to the weight of more than 150,000 Boeing 747-400s.

    1,333 Celebrity Divorce Settlements

    It’s been widely reported that Tiger Woods may pay $750 million to settle the divorce with his wife, Elin Nordegren. Some commentators say that’s a wild exaggeration, and that a mere $100 million will facilitate the split. But let’s assume the worst (for Tiger). If it costs $750,000,000 to end his marriage, a trillion dollars would cover plenty more tabloid breakups.

    A Guaranteed $6.3 Billion Payout for a 65-Year-Old Man Every Month for the Rest of His Life

    With the demise of the company pension plan — and its wonderful promise of regular checks in retirement — immediate-payout annuities are garnering more and more attention. These investments let you trade a lump sum for a guaranteed stream of income for the rest of your life. For example, a 65-year-old man with a sweet quarter of a million nest egg to invest could buy an annuity that will pay him $1,564 a month.

    Even at today’s record-low interest rates (the lower the interest rate, the more expensive it is to buy future income), $1 trillion earns its way — and then some. Because women live longer than men, on average, $1 trillion would buy a 65-year-old woman a little less. But having $5.8 billion a year to fall back on is nothing to sneeze at.

    A One-Year CD Yielding $15.5 Billion in Interest

    Everyone knows that interest rates on bank accounts, money-market funds and certificates of deposit are ludicrously low. But even at just 1.55% — the best rate we could find recently — $1 trillion socked away in a one-year CD would still yield a handsome return.

    Annual Base Pay for 59.5 Million U.S. Army Privates

    Basic pay for an active-duty U.S. Army private with less than two years of experience is $16,794 a year. So $1 trillion goes a mighty long way, even by military spending standards. To put that in perspective, 59.5 million privates is more than 100 times the total number of active-duty soldiers in the Army today.

    Replace Annual Incomes for 19.2 Million American Families

    Median household income in the U.S. (half the families earn more, half earn less) was $52,029 in 2008, according to the Bureau of the Census. At that level, $1 trillion would be enough to cover the incomes of a sizable percentage of total U.S. family households. There are no recent official estimates, but the 2000 U.S. Census figured there were about 71.8 million family households.

    Pay the Estate Taxes for 2,222 Billionaires

    Let’s assume that, as we expect, Congress reinstates the federal estate tax retroactively to January 1, 2010, with a $3.5 million exemption and a rate of 45%. And assume that the late George Steinbrenner’s taxable estate is $1 billion. The tax bill would be almost $450 million. That $1 trillion would be enough to cover the estate taxes of a lot more billionaires who might die before Congress acts

  10. Charlie, Buck, and Mathius,

    Your world of regulation:

    Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Oh, that’s just the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And, just who does the rain belong to when it falls from the sky? What water rights,? I’m confused there on that one. So, if you have rain falling into your yard, or a bucket, you better get rid of it before you get into trouble. I don’t/can’t understand how catching rain water is against any law anywhere. Dumb, stupid, ridiculous, and just plain outrageous if you ask me.

    • OMG!!! That is just too stupid for comment! 🙂

      • It should be commented on because it is stupid and it can be enforced if they choose to enforce it-instead of finding away to exempt this one business-the law needs to be either gotten rid of or changed-not just left as it is.

        • Esom Hill says:

          Naw VH, I just mean that is so ridiculous, I can’t even think of anything apropriate to say.

          Talk about stupid Laws!

    • Being a Colorado resident who lives out in the rural mountains – let me say it is that ridiculous. So I may be locked up soon if they find “their” rainwater collecting in my rain barrel.

      It’s just like the fact that if you own less than 35 acres the only type of well permit you will be issued by the state is a household use only permit. It simply means you may pump water out of your well but you may NOT use it outside in any way. No watering the lawn, your plants, washing your car, your livestock (if you have any), etc. Which places the large majority of Coloradans in violation of the law.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      For growing Orchids? But, yet Oakland Calif, okay ed to growing pot farms, go figure.

      • Think about it, in both cases the government blatantly overreacted. Their response, find another reason to justify their actions. They had to go to jail to prove the government was just doing it’s job of protecting us. Ever had a cop pull you over for a bogus reason? I’ve even been given a warning ticket after that, “driving left of center”.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Yeah, but in the first part, even they didn’t know how to get those labels. No, never been pulled over for bogus reasons, but I have been pretty mouthy with them when it cam to my son’s about things, and I’m surprised they didn’t arrest me.

      • Yeah Judy, but you can’t get near as stoned growing Orchids! 😀

  11. John Lott has the list of all Journolist members. How many are supposedly unbiased?

    Some of the 400 who participated in Journolist
    From NPR to the Washington Post to Politico, there are a lot of well-known names here. The sources for these names is here. I haven’t double checked all the names.

    1. Ezra Klein – Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
    2. Dave Weigel – Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
    3. Matthew Yglesias – Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
    5. Spencer Ackerman – Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect
    6. Jeffrey Toobin – CNN, The New Yorker
    7. Eric Alterman – The Nation, Media Matters for America
    8. Paul Krugman – The New York Times, Princeton University
    9. John Judis – The New Republic, The American Prospect
    10. Eve Fairbanks – The New Republic
    11. Mike Allen – POLITICO
    12. Ben Smith – POLITICO
    13. Lisa Lerer – POLITICO
    14. Joe Klein – TIME
    15. Brad DeLong – The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkley
    16. Chris Hayes – The Nation
    18. Jonathan Chait – The New Republic
    19. Jesse Singal – The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
    21. Isaac Chotiner – The New Republic
    22. Katha Pollitt – The Nation
    23. Alyssa Rosenberg – Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
    25. Alex Rossmiller – National Security Network
    26. Ed Kilgore – Democratic Stategist
    28. Noam Scheiber – The New Republic
    29. Michael Tomasky – The Guardian
    31. Tim Fernholz – American Prospect
    32. Dana Goldstein – The Daily Beast
    33. Jonathan Cohn – The New Republic
    34. Scott Winship – Pew Economic Mobility Project
    35. David Roberts – Grist
    36. Luke Mitchell – Harper’s Magazine
    38. Moira Whelan – National Security Network
    40. Josh Bearman – LA Weekly
    41. Alec McGillis – Washington Post
    46. Adam Serwer – American Prospect
    47. Ryan Donmoyer – Bloomberg
    49. Kate Steadman – Kaiser Health News
    50. Michael Scherer – TIME
    51. Laura Rozen – Politico, Mother Jones
    53. Michael Hirsh – Newsweek
    54. Daniel Davies – The Guardian
    57. Thomas Schaller – Baltimore Sun
    58. Jared Bernstein – Economic Policy Institute
    59. Holly Yeager – Columbia Journalism Review
    60. Joe Conason – The New York Observer
    61. David Greenberg – Slate
    62. Todd Gitlin – Columbia University
    65. Sarah Spitz – NPR
    66. Jonathan Stein – Mother Jones
    67. Daniel Levy – Century Foundation
    68. Ben Adler – Newsweek, POLITICO
    72. Ryan Avent – Economist
    72. Greg Sargent – Washington Post

    NEWSBUSTERS
    The JournoList scandal is getting worse every day and The Washington Post is at the center of it. Blogger Ezra Klein ran the operation and at least three other staffers were members. (Blogger Greg Sargent claims he wasn’t a member after he joined the Post.) In addition, at least one member of Slate and two from Newsweek, also owned by Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, were members.

    The almost constant revelations of political activism and journalistic conspiracy raise an enormous number of questions about Post policies, professionalism and ethics. As a conservative, and therefore a member of the movement JournoListers sought to demonize, I feel Post readers are owed full disclosure.

    Any understanding of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics makes clear this list and the Post’s involvement violate a number of ethical guidelines. In fact, much of the code seems to have been ignored. Here are just a few examples from the code.

    Journalists should:

    * “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,”
    * “Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection,”
    * “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,”
    * “Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests [emphasis added] and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/07/28/brent-bozells-open-letter-wapo-editor-regarding-journolist-scandal#ixzz0v01GYxun

  12. also found at John Lotts website

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-07-28-column28_ST1_N.htm

    The ER myth

    By Marc Siegel
    One of the major myths attached to the new health reform law is that it will lead to fewer emergency room visits. Instead of having to go to the ER, the claim goes, more efficient care will be administered to the newly insured in doctors offices by primary care physicians like me.

    President Obama himself perpetuated this claim. A year ago at a town hall meeting on health care reform, he said, “We know that when somebody doesn’t have health insurance, they’re forced to get treatment at the ER, and all of us end up paying for it. … You’d be better off subsidizing to make sure they were getting regular checkups.” In late May, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in Roll Call that “the uninsured will get coverage, no longer left to the emergency room for medical care.”

    Now we know better.

    It’s not terribly surprising that real data from Massachusetts, which has had universal health coverage since 2006, show otherwise. From 2004 to 2008, ER visits in the Bay State rose by 9%, with no discernable improvement after 2006. Why? At least part of the reason has been the inability of patients to find primary care physicians for last-minute visits. Let’s face it: The ER won’t turn you away, but individual and overburdened doctors can and will. The Massachusetts Medical Society has reported that new patients wait for a primary care doctor visit up to two months.

    A problem for all of us

    With the new national health care law, Massachusetts’ problem very well may be manifested across the USA. Already, we don’t have enough doctors. Indeed, the Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that the U.S. will be 160,000 short by 2025. ERs, too, have downsized over time. A yearly survey by the American Hospital Association has shown a 10% decline in emergency departments from 1991 to 2008, despite an increasing demand for such care. So if we have depleted ERs, not enough doctors and millions of more patients, the math doesn’t work.

    To make matters worse, 16 million more patients will be eligible for Medicaid by 2014, but doctors are limiting the number of such patients they see. Where will these patients go? You got it. The ER. Medicare will soon have the same problem, as more than 70 million Baby Boomers begin to flood the system.

    Yet instead of simply complaining about our impending doom as we add 30 million more people to the health insurance coffers, I suggest that the folks in Washington transitioning the health care reform from law into reality must deal with the world as it exists, not as it was sold to the American people.

    What can be done?

    First, tackle the doctor shortage. In June, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that $250 million will be set aside to create 1,700 new primary care doctors, new clinics and to implement strategies to expand the workforce. This is a step forward — albeit a very small one. Medical students need to have incentives — scholarships, loan forgiveness or better pay — that will push more of them into primary care rather than more lucrative specialties.

    Second, we need strategies to make medicine more efficient so patients get better, rather than rushed, care. Recent research suggests that computer analysis and improved schedule strategies can decrease patient waiting time by 40%. Integrating nurse practitioners and physicians assistants into doctors’ practices also would help.

    Most important will be re-orienting our system away from emergency intervention. Diet, exercise and smoking cessation would unclog ERs in a hurry. New technology and education can help doctors and patients predict, prevent, diagnose and treat a disease before it requires an urgent medical visit.

    Consider the ER challenge just one of many we’re likely to see as the health care law reveals itself, bit by bit, to the American people.

  13. Charlie,

    How about instituting real term limits in Congress,

    You contradict your own theory of democratic republic.

    You believe the people should chose their representatives, then you go right at it to deny them their choice.

    This will never happen so it’s a moot point, but yes, I would deny them their choice; if everyone has to make the same choice (one term per political position), it’s as fair as it gets. Let’s not get into the politics (there is a government and it isn’t going away) of this because you’re paradigm is as likely to happen as Karl Marx’s.

    I mean real consequences

    Then eliminate the regulations and let free men compete.

    How is that a consequence, BF? And how would “free men” compete if all the gelt is the hands of X amount of individuals (and those dependent on them (some might call them slaves) can’t compete equally? You think you can compete with Bill Gates on equal footing? Nonsense. Imagine the “free men” at the bottom of the food chain seeking a competitive business?

    If a company makes such an act that is immoral upon the people, the people will abandon its support -by withdrawing voluntary spending- of that company.

    Baloney. You ASSUME way too much, my friend. Way too much. Why would a corrupt person in control of a company not seek to corrupt other individuals enough to monopolize an industry/business? Answer: They would– to retain their power. Why would shareholders who want more for their investment not engage in unfair practices? Please, it is the nature of the beast to desire more. They’ll do whatever they have to do (as they’ve always done).

    BP has lost $20 billion in lost sales already in Britain and the USA due to an unofficial boycott of the people – a loss that makes pale the cost of any clean up.

    Talk to me when BP goes bankrupt and their shareholders and officers have their homes repossessed (but not goes bankrupt because they want to avoid paying the cost of that cleanup). Many of those they effected with their spill will definitely go bankrupt in the meantime.

    Imagine BP’s losses if the market was free and open with 10,000 companies in competition with it (instead of the 5 or 6).

    More fantasy, BF. What makes you think those with the gelt would permit 10,000 competitors? Why would they? We’re not all going to start from equal footing when you eliminate government/regulations. You’re assuming we’re starting from ground zero. We’re not. There will be those with a great advantage over others. New oil companies aren’t going to spring up because they’ll be blocked or bought out (especially without regulations).

    Let free people chose their own way – it is infinitely more effective then some guy with a club.

    I suspect (seriously) what would happen in your paradigm at some point is what has happened throughout history in the past. Greed would get the best of the haves and the have nots would storm the bastille. They might not do a very good job once they get there, but at some point, when the disparity between haves and have nots becomes too great, the have nots will revolt (club in hand). A totally free society is a wonderful concept … and a fantasy (as is communism); an ideological fantasy.

    If agencies permit companies to write their own reports, find the responsible party (making sure there is one) and send them to a state pen for a long time to reflect.

    Think about it, Charlie.

    Who is going to write your reg’s?

    Why would some moron in an office think about Charlie’s best interests???

    You are insisting on a behavior that is simply impossible – that strangers will keep your best interests in mind over and above theirs.

    What is the difference between a business owner acting in his best interests and the corruption you refer to above (i.e., BP)?

    This is the underlying ignorance of the position of Buck/Mathius et al. They deny that politicians and bureaucrats operate without self-interest.

    Greater Good, BF? I agree with it.

    Think about yourself, Charlie.

    If you were granted the sole legitimate right to pound anyone senseless for any reason – whose reason would you chose over anyone else? Charlie’s of course!!

    So demanding some regulator would make “law” for your benefit – and deny his – is simply irrational.

    Regulators held in check would have to act in accordance with those who put them there. If not, they’d get removed. I know you can’t swallow that. Neither can I swallow the “free entrepreneur” nonsense being held in check by the market. Once any business owner achieves ultimate success (monopoly over his or her product) why would you assume they’d act fairly?

    I don’t buy BF’s argument that it is the regulations themselves that force people to cut corners. Business can stay afload without cutting corners (GM, et al, gambled on big cars and lost; it was their management that failed, whether through bad negotiations with the UAW or their decisions not to produce Honda-like cars).

    Use those amazing brain cells and figure out why they did what they did, Charlie.

    Do you really believe men running GM are idiots?

    Do you really believe shareholders of GM would allow idiots run their company?

    These guys are among the smartest, achievement orientated men on earth. They do not fail – if they failed even once, they would not have made it to the “top” of the organization.

    They do not fail? You’re starting to slide off the edge of the cliff, BF. George W. Bush made it to the top of a few organizations and failed miserably at each of them (then he became President and failed at that … twice). You argue that he let the Saudi’s do what they wanted (he did that through political connections, my friend, and I thought your free society was against that?). GM ignored the writing on the wall regarding smaller cars. GM permitted shoddy workmanship (don’t tell me it was the union’s fault—if “These guys are among the smartest, achievement orientated men on earth. They do not fail …” GM was outsmarted at every turn.

    Please don’t try and sell the CEO world as being so smart, BF. You do yourself a disservice. Many of those over privileged SOBs never worked a day in their life. A good many have underlings running the show for them. “They do not fail?” … well, you could’ve fooled me (and the rest of the world).

    So, let’s work through your comments about them:
    (1) Business stay afloat even if their costs go up.
    How do you believe this happens, Charlie?

    Companies are in competition offering their goods and services to you, at a price.

    For no economic reason a cost goes up (political reason: a new regulation)

    A company now has these choices:
    (1) increase their price to you. But that will mean many of you will stop buying the product because it is too expensive and go and buy from another competitor that is not under that regulation (ie: Foreign companies). But you have protested with great fury at companies going foreign! So you deny them this: they CANNOT raise their price and they CANNOT avoid the regulation.

    So Charlie – what say you? What is left for them to do?

    (1) part of the free market; no problem …. (2) regulation precluding foreign companies from acting without regulation (tax their imports). Therefore, they can raise their price any time they want. Who said they can’t?

    But only one thing, good sir, cut costs somewhere else.

    But here you get all furious when they cut salaries or fire people! You deny this from them with your vocal outbursts and threats!

    I do not get “all furious” when they cut salaries or fire people. Sometimes it has to be done. I get “all furious” when they are granted $800 billion of our money and are allowed to outsource our jobs. Why can’t you grasp that, BF? It was criminal. It had little to do with regulations that Goldman Sachs, et al, scammed this country. It had everything to do with greed and the power of money (the gov’t they bought).

    So Charlie – what say you? What is left for them to do now?. They can’t raise their prices, they can’t leave and they can’t fire anyone.

    Your points below I don’t buy. Sorry, if they “don’t fail” my friend, then they don’t fail. I don’t agree with your perspective of what happened to GM. Some of it is legit, but the decision making at the top to continue building cars that were crap and big hurt them more than anything else. Unions definitely played a role, but you don’t get to blame unions alone for GM’s failure … and since “they don’t fail” use your “genius” to explain how they did (no, you don’t have to repeat yourself again—that was me having fun with your insistence that your version of the truth is sacrosanct). It isn’t.

    I’ll leave you to ponder – in your genius – what is left.

    They did not “fail” in negotiations. They were prevented by law to exercise their rights

    The Unions were allowed to strike and prevent alternative workers from replacing them.

    GM could not make cars. They would go bankrupt if they do not make cars.

    So what would you do, Charlie

    Me, I would’ve put it on the line: Either we do this contract renogotiation (assuming that’s the ONLY problem) or we fail. End of story. No drama. People are out of work by mutual consent, not some Board of Directors cashing in on golden parachutes while shareholders run for the hills. Simple, go broke or get to the table and negotiate. If at that point unions wouldn’t participate, everybody goes home and finds new jobs. End of story.

    Would you abandon the factory and move offshore? No, this angers you to the extreme

    Would you fire all the employees? No, this angers you to the extreme

    What is left, Charlie!?!?

    Asked and answered above.

    GM paid and paid and paid, until the cost per employee exceeded their ability to price a car in competition to Honda.

    With such an overhead, the only market that had the margins in sales to absorb it is the high end, big cars and trucks. How can GM make a cheap car for $12,000 when the cost of employees and their benefits alone accounted for $10,000!!

    Com on, Charlie! Let’ here what you would do better than “the morons at GM’s management…!

    Well, my genius would’ve never paid … so I guess that makes me a lot smarter then the geniuses over at GM that never fail.

    Geez, I could’ve skipped all this malarkey up top and just answered your last questions, huh?

    • Hey Charlie!

      This will never happen so it’s a moot point, but yes, I would deny them their choice;

      You do have a sense that your position is a huge contradiction, right?

      Let the People vote, but only if they vote the right guy in – shades of North Korea….

      How is that a consequence, BF?

      Because, Charlie, without the burden of pointless regulation – the market place would be flooded with competition hungry and waiting to exploit the slightest mistake of BP.

      And how would “free men” compete if all the gelt is the hands of X amount of individuals

      The issue with your position is that you do require all the gelt is in one hand – but that never happens in a free market. It is impossible.

      So your complaint exists only in fantasy – yet, you will insist on its existence so to continue to create in reality a force of violence that does cease “all the gelts” for itself

      (and those dependent on them (some might call them slaves) can’t compete equally? You think you can compete with Bill Gates on equal footing?
      Nonsense.

      Absolutely!

      It simply astonishes me that you raise an example of a boy, who directly competed with one of the largest companies on Earth and won!….. as an example of the futility of competing with big business!

      *blink**blink*

      The Free market (remember the word “FREE”) holds no barrier to entry to the market place. If you want to compete, you go and do it!

      Imagine the “free men” at the bottom of the food chain seeking a competitive business?

      The “other guys” tremble in fear, and that fear keeps their noses clean.

      If a company makes such an act that is immoral upon the people, the people will abandon its support -by withdrawing voluntary spending- of that company.

      Baloney. You ASSUME way too much, my friend. Way too much.

      No, I do not, ol’foe!

      People are doing that right now – so how can I possibly be assuming too much!!????

      BP gas stations are going bankrupt as people have withdrawn their purchases.

      BP has lost $20 billion in sales over the last 100 days – an total corporate disaster! They are unlikely going to survive as a company.

      And to you, this is all an assumption?!?!?!

      The sheer power of the Consumer is total. Withdrawing their purchases has essentially gutted BP.

      Why would a corrupt person in control of a company not seek to corrupt other individuals enough to monopolize an industry/business? Answer: They would– to retain their power.

      How can they do that in a Voluntary market place?????

      It is impossible in a free market to have a monopoly.

      A monopoly can only exist if by force a person/company is not allowed to enter a market.

      So how can a system free of force subject a company to force to prevent it????

      Why would shareholders who want more for their investment not engage in unfair practices?

      Because, sir, dealing with bad people tends to create bad results.

      Money follows trust. Bad people by definition cannot be trusted. Money flows away from bad people.

      Talk to me when BP goes bankrupt and their shareholders and officers have their homes repossessed (but not goes bankrupt because they want to avoid paying the cost of that cleanup).

      Your a strange man.

      You complain about how BP shareholders and officers can “skip” away – because of the very system you support that allows it – so your answer is: more of the very system that allows it.

      You do not see the cause/effect of this, do you?

      What makes you think those with the gelt would permit 10,000 competitors? Why would they?

      How would they stop the competitors???? You do understand the world Free when applied to the Free Market, correct?

      We’re not all going to start from equal footing when you eliminate government/regulations.

      I hope we do not!

      The power of the market place is due to the inequality – if everyone provided the same equal product and service –nothing would move.

      It is the massive differences of the offers of product that creates the market, not some fantasy of equality!!!

      Size is not a problem, nor is it enough to assure survival in the free market. It is merely size.

      You’re assuming we’re starting from ground zero. We’re not.

      You assume that equality is required when inequality absolutely desired.

      For you, Texaco could not exist because Standard Oil was huge and first. Yet, Texaco exists

      For you, Microsoft could not exist because IBM was huge and first. Yet, Microsoft exists

      For you, Redhat could not exist because Microsoft is huge and first. Yet, Redhat exists

      Examples that contradict you overwhelm you – but you, just in time, close your eyes to it! 🙂

      There will be those with a great advantage over others. New oil companies aren’t going to spring up because they’ll be blocked

      Please explain how they will be blocked in a Free Market.

      You are missing some serious economic foundations.

      or bought out (especially without regulations).

      Fantastic! You should cheer this, not???

      The Big Boys paying out huge cash in excess of book value for all the 10,000 competitors coming on stream.

      …because just because you buy “his” company does not stop me from starting my company doing what “his” company did!

      So what if they bought “him” out – they didn’t stop me from doing the same thing as him.

      They cannot buy the world, Charlie.

      Greater Good, BF? I agree with it.

      It does not, nor ever can, exist.

      There is no “greater good” – it is a contradiction.

      Regulators held in check would have to act in accordance with those who put them there. If not, they’d get removed.

      Who puts them there, Charlie? It isn’t you!!

      “..get removed…”

      Let’s test your theory.

      Please list the number and names of your regulators who have been fired.

      Yep, an empty list.

      Yet, BP has lost the CEO, and more heads will begin to roll down the line.

      You do not see your system as a complete failure – therefore, you wish to continue in wallowing in complete failure.

      (monopoly over his or her product) why would you assume they’d act fairly?

      Please provide your economic theory on how a monopoly can exist in a Free market which does not allow force to stop competition.

      They do not fail?

      Charlie, a choice between death by shotgun or death by 500lb bomb does not mean the man failed. It means his option to survive did not exist.

      GM management tried to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible – for a reason – and I believe they succeeded.

      They needed to wait out the economic bubble. They were betting on an economic collapse. At that point, they could easily point to the downturn as an excuse to rid themselves of the contractual burdens the Unions had placed on them.

      Had they acted this way during economic boom times, the government would have ignored GM, and let it fall.

      But at the point when any job is a good job, the government would not let GM fall.

      The GM management knew how to play a serious game of poker.

      You argue that he let the Saudi’s do what they wanted (he did that through political connections, my friend, and I thought your free society was against that?).

      A free society is sickened by it – but the fact remains Bush did an extremely good job in providing those political connections as he was hired to do

      Your political colored glasses distort your reality, Charlie.

      GM ignored the writing on the wall regarding smaller cars.

      God, I hope you have a good accountant because you do not understand finance at all.

      GM completely understands the small car market – they invented it

      You have not explained how you can build a $12,000 car when $10,000 of that car’s cost is employees and their benefits

      GM permitted shoddy workmanship (don’t tell me it was the union’s fault

      How do you build a cheap car when your single largest cost is employees?

      You have to reduce quality.

      You do understand this, right?

      I do not get “all furious” when they cut salaries or fire people. Sometimes it has to be done. I get “all furious” when they are granted $800 billion of our money and are allowed to outsource our jobs. Why can’t you grasp that, BF?

      Charlie, you have no financial sense.

      They cannot cut salaries – the Unions strike and prevented that.
      They cannot fire anyone – the Unions strike and prevented that.

      The only option is to avoid the Unions but since the USA government protects Unions anyone in the country, the only option is to leave the country and its Unions behind.

      You grasp this, right?

      It was criminal.

      No, its not. It is survival.

      Your points below I don’t buy.

      Explain how they can cut wages without Unions striking.
      Explain how they can fire people without Unions striking.

      Explain how they can sell cheap cars that are too expensive too make.

      Explain how you can cut costs to pay for the Unions without cutting quality.

      I am waiting for your economic genius to break out here, Charlie.

      Me, I would’ve put it on the line: Either we do this contract renogotiation (assuming that’s the ONLY problem) or we fail.

      The largest company in the world, supplying 10% of GNP to the USA will play chicken with the Union who have proven that they are willing to bankrupt the company by already demonstrating their will in forcing the doors closed on the company

      I sure hope you play Poker, Charlie – come to my table anytime!!

      End of story. No drama.

      You would been fired immediately as the CEO. The shareholders would not let you tank the company.

      • Poker? I’d clean your clock.

        But I digress … I dont’ have time to do this all day and night. I stand by what I initially wrote. You’re obsessed with a free market. I think it’s proved itself untenable. Bill Gates struck lightening (and beat the geniuses you claim couldn’t fail at IBM, etc.). Someone is more likely to win mega lotto than pull another Bill Gates.

        As for BP, again, let me know when their officers and shareholders lose their homes and apply for welfare (and don’t claim bankruptcy to escape paying claims).

        Was Kenneth Lay one of those geniuses who couldn’t fail? I already know you think George Bush was a “great” businessman.

        Time to do some real work. More another day.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          “Poker? I’d clean your clock.”

          Perhaps SUFA should sponsor a “heads-up” poker tournament between BF and Charlie???

          • I was wondering if Cyndi would be serving beer and pizza at this party.

            Sorry Charlie, my money is with BF 🙂

        • Charlie,

          It is so amusing to watch you use an example, like Microsoft and Gates, as a reason WHY you can’t compete with size – an example which shows HOW you can compete with size

          …and then watching you trying to dismiss the example you raised under the guise of “lightening”!

          But your comment does expose your thinking.

          You think Microsoft “beat” IBM. You believe one side “won” and the other side “lost”.

          You do not understand much at all.

          Microsoft “won” and… (wait for it) IBM won too!

          IBM sales, 1960 – $1 billion/yr
          IBM sales, 1965 – $3 billion/yr
          IBM sales, 1980 – $26 billion/yr
          IBM sales, 2005 – $91 billion/yr

          Microsoft sales, 2005 – $40 billion/yr

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I know there are some people here that believe that borders are invalid. I have not been converted to that view quite yet.

    Anyway, one only has to look at the protest signs on display in Arizona today:

    “The Workers Struggle Has No Borders” (in both English and Spanish of course) to realize that those who oppose immigration law (at least for this country) are largely Marxists.

    I think we should organize several million American citizens and all simultaneously cross their border the other way, and if they try to do anything about it, we should call them racist and demand free money and free food from them, as well as free medical care.

    Turnabout is fair play after all.

    • Peter,

      Look carefully at how Mexico treats illegal immigrants. We would be robbed, arrested or shot. If we were armed, they would claim we invaded them. PR wise
      its a no win situation for us. So what? The countries that hate us will find a reason, we should secure the damn border by any means.

    • Media Reality Check:
      Networks Protest Arizona’s Immigration Law With Cameras and Microphones
      By Tim Graham

      The TV networks have aggressively demonstrated their dislike of Arizona’s state law “cracking down on illegal immigrants,” a law that “pits neighbor against neighbor.” An MRC review of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC from April 23 to July 25 found the networks have aired 120 stories with an almost ten-to-one tilt against the Arizona law (77 negative, 35 neutral, 8 positive).

      The soundbite count was also tilted over the last three months — 216 to 107, or an almost exact two-to-one disparity. Network anchors and reporters sided against defenders of border control and championed sympathetic illegal aliens and their (usually American-born) children. In 120 stories, they never described “immigrants rights activists” as liberals or on the left.

      Between them, the three networks described the Arizona law as “controversial” on 27 occasions, despite its popularity in opinion polls. The Obama administration’s decision to sue file a lawsuit against Arizona to crush the law was never described as “controversial.”
      Story Continues Below Ad ↓

      Stories were evaluated as positive or negative if the talking-head count (and the themes forwarded by the reporter) slanted at more than a 1.5 to 1 ratio in favor of either side. A number of network reports were either unanimously in favor of illegal immigrants or titled by ratios like ten to one (as in one NBC report).

      On May 19, all three networks highlighted how Michelle Obama sympathized with a second-grader who said her mother doesn’t have any citizenship papers and “Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers.” Mrs. Obama replied, “We have to fix that.” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer underlined that “a child’s fear brings a new focus to the debate” since “the First Lady had to respond to a child’s poignant question” which, reporter Jake Tapper relayed, “immigration reform advocates called…the most meaningful exchange of the day.”

      This school visit was part of a trip by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who attacked the Arizona law both at the White House and before a joint session of Congress, where he received a standing ovation from congressional Democrats, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano. Calderon’s remarks on Capitol Hill drew speeches of protest from congressional Republicans like Rep. Tom McClintock, who pointed out Calderon was a hypocrite since Mexico’s immigration laws are “brutally exclusionary.” But only ABC noticed Calderon’s speech, and Diane Sawyer only highlighted his accusations of imported American guns causing violent crime in Mexico.

      The networks highlighted the “army” of protesters against the Arizona law and ignored their sometimes radical connections. As with sympathetic media coverage of large amnesty rallies in 2006, none of the stories allowed anyone to suggest it was improper for illegal aliens to petition the government whose laws they’re breaking or cancel out the votes of law-abiding citizens.

      On May 30, ABC anchor David Muir asked, “Will an army of protesters be heard?”

      On NBC, Telemundo correspondent Janet Rodriguez featured a woman holding a sign from Answer LA, the far-left/communist-affiliated group. Rodriguez, however, described her simply as “from Long Beach.” The woman smeared opponents as “racists.”

      Network correspondents routinely mourned how illegal aliens didn’t feel welcome in Arizona, and felt they had to move back to Mexico or other friendlier states. On July 8, NBC reporter Lee Cowan sympathized with Marcial Bolanos, who didn’t think Arizona was a good place any more. “He took his 15-year-old son out of school and is headed back to Mexico, which brings Hugo to tears. But you’re really going to miss your friends?” Hugo said “Yeah.” The networks didn’t apply this blatant emotional appeal on behalf of families who’ve lost loved ones in crimes committed by illegal aliens.

      In 18 of 120 stories, the networks mentioned the public opinion polls, in which broad majorities favor the Arizona law. One poll question the networks didn’t ask was if it might seem odd for the Obama administration to sue Arizona for trying to enforce immigration laws, but would not sue cities that vowed to ignore immigration laws, which call themselves “sanctuary cities.”

      A Rasmussen poll found 54 percent favored the Justice Department suing “sanctuary cities,” and 61 percent favored cutting off federal aid to them. But the three networks haven’t used the words “sanctuary city” since 2007, when it was a hot topic in the Republican primary debates. It was never mentioned, so was never described as “controversial.” Reporter Jeremy Hubbard began his story for World News: “In their most massive numbers yet, a deluge of adversaries rally and rail against what could soon be the law of the land in Arizona.”

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/07/28/media-reality-check-networks-protest-arizonas-immigration-law-cameras-an#ixzz0v0NeOumM

      • Sorry dudes and dudettes. MY OPINION:

        Put up ELECTRIFIED fences across the WHOLE border.

        Put up guard towers within sight of each other with crossing feilds of fire.

        One warning to stop, IF they get thru the fence. Then use them for target practice.

        Any and all means to prevent illegal crossing of the border. If you want to go thru the legal border crossings, fine.

        You would no longer be able to sneak across the boder of the U S illegally. You would now have to go thru legal crossings. And if you did, you would still be able to get “guest worker” status which would allow them to work in the US like you do now.

        If not. Stay your ass on your side.

        If you commit a crime on this side, and make it back to the other side, and we find out where you are. We come across the border and pop your ass and if the Federales don’t like it, screw them.

        Remember,

    • Cyndi P says:

      Not to be a smartass, but how will that happen if everyone who tries to make the point is full of bullet holes or rotting away in a Mexican prison? Do you think the Teleprompter in Chief will save you? He’ld like nothin’ better than to have a bunch white middle class American citizens neutralized.

      • Well now that the Government won their Court Injunction, They are all tickled pink.

        The Son-of-Bitches have made it PLAIN they don’t give a Rat’s furry ass what the American People think about ANYTHING!!!

        Can you say REVOLUTION?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’m pretty sure many of the American people (perhaps even a majority) agree with the court injunction…

          • Yeah well, the polls don’t support your opinion Buck. I know I sure don’t. But you are most certainly welcome to yours.

            After all, this still America. So far.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              From a quick search — a poll taken just last week show 55% of Americans support the law. Clearly a majority. However, that still leaves many Americans who are opposed to the law.

              • Well that’s Democracy for you ain’t it? At least that’s what the Deocrats say.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The other issue I was ignoring was whether or not it is an unconstitutional law — if so it doesn’t matter whether a majority agree with it.

                But as far as popular opinion goes, I readily concede that I am in the minority on this one (though not a small minority).

              • Buck.

                I’m just yanking your chain a little. Although, since it absolutely mirrors Federal Law, I believe it will pass Constitutional muster. I guess we will see, a long time from now!

                As far as the Federal Government’s policy on their own enforcement of THEIR Law, it is absolute non-enforcement; which is why we have the situation that we have now.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Here’s the rub of it though – even if it absolutely mirrors federal law it can still be preempted (as it was, coincidentally).

                I agree much of the current situation is due to non enforcement of federal law, but also due to the existing federal law itself.

              • Esom Hill says:

                Buck. The “rub” I have actually has nothing to do with Illegal Immigration persay.

                It has to do with our elitist Federal Government that could care less what the people of this Nation think.

                ABOUT A SINGLE DAMN THING!!!

                Time after time. Issue after issue, they have proven that the average, everyday person is totally unimportant and only they, and their cronies, know ANYTHING, and they have demonstrated without doubt that thay are going to screw this Nation without benefit of Vaseline.

                That bullshit pisses me off slam to the frickin’ bone!

                And I don’t give a damn who knows it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So, let me just see if I understand what you are saying…

                You support the federal government in everything it says and does, correct?

                🙂

  15. Arizona immigration law decision:

    I. What is enjoined

    1. Requiring verification of immigration status: Requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.

    Reasoning: Pre-empted by federal law because it creates an additional burden on the federal government by increasing the number of immigration-verification requests to the federal government.

    2. Failure to carry immigration papers: Creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.

    Reasoning: Pre-empted as an impermissible attempt to create its own state immigration scheme by altering the penalties established by Congress under the federal registration scheme.

    3. Illegal for an illegal to solicit work: Creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work.

    Reasoning: Pre-empted because there is a comprehensive federal scheme regulating employment of illegal immigrants.

    4. Warrantless arrest for potentially removable alien: Authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

    Reasoning: Pre-empted because determining whether a specific offense makes an alien removable is a tough decision and there is “a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” thus impermissibly burdening legal aliens (and only the federal government can impose such burdens)

    II. What is not enjoined?

    1. No sanctuary cities: Prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

    2. Requiring cooperation with federal authorities: Requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to unlawfully present aliens.

    3. Permitting civil suits for sanctuary cities: Allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

    4. Human smuggling crimes: Amending the crime of human smuggling.

    5. Crime to pick up day laborers: Creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic.

    6. Knowing/intentional employment of illegal immigrants: Amending the crime of knowing employment of unauthorized aliens. Amending the crime of intentional employment of unauthorized aliens.

    7. Employee verification: Amending the requirements for checking employment eligibility.

    8. Funding for gang / immigrant enforcement: Creating the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund.

    • At least this won’t slow Joe Arpaio (Maricopa County Sheriff)down one bit!

      • G.A.

        You make me wonder everyday about what you are thinking.

        You champion the Constitution.

        They you champion a man who is on record for running over People’s Constitutional rights.

        • Whose constitutional rights? Those who have broken our federal laws by entering our country illegally?

          BF, to put it in a nutshell . . . you are full of BS.

          • G.A.

            Do some research on the man.

            He is corrupt, he abuses his power, he has illegally arrested citizens, etc.

            Because you like that evil being done on Mexicans you’ll ignore the evil done to everyone else too.

            • Flag,

              You MIGHT be right. Or you might be letting you bias give credibility where it is not deserved.

              from #15,
              The TV networks have aggressively demonstrated their dislike of Arizona’s state law “cracking down on illegal immigrants,” a law that “pits neighbor against neighbor.” An MRC review of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC from April 23 to July 25 found the networks have aired 120 stories with an almost ten-to-one tilt against the Arizona law (77 negative, 35 neutral, 8 positive).

              Consider also, From my I told you so file:

              Where is all the oil?

              The same media you are trusting to report accurately on Sheriff Joe are the ones who reported on the OIL SPILL DISASTER.

              • LOI,

                Be cautious of polluting information sources based on specious theory.

                Because they may report in error *here* does not automatically make their story *about this* wrong too.

                “Sheriff” Joe is a moron and a power hungry maniac. He will kill someone, maybe more than a few with his evil efforts.

              • Well maybe we can send over to namby-pamby land where the prisoners stay in air conditioned rooms and watch cable TV.

                If you don’t want in Sherriff Joe’s Jail, don’t do the crime.

                Sherriff Joe is an American Hero and you’re just jealous! 😀

              • Flag,

                (Be cautious of polluting information sources based on specious theory.)

                Back atcha, show some PROOF, or admit it’s your bias talking. Or do you blame him for his mothers death?

                Arpaio was born in Springfield, Massachusetts to Italian-American[3] parents. Arpaio’s mother died while giving birth to him, and Arpaio was raised by his father, a grocery store owner. Arpaio completed high school and worked in his father’s business until age 18 when he enlisted in the United States Army.[4] Arpaio served in the Army from 1950 to 1954 in the Medical Detachment Division and was stationed in France for part of the time as a military policeman.[5]

                Following his honorable discharge from the army in 1954, Arpaio moved to Washington, D.C. and became a police officer, moving in 1957 to Las Vegas, Nevada. He served as a police officer in Las Vegas for six months before being appointed as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which later became part of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).[6] During his 25-year tenure with the DEA, he was stationed in both Turkey and Mexico, and advanced through the ranks to the position of head of the DEA’s Arizona branch.[7]

                In 1992, Arpaio successfully campaigned for the office of Maricopa County Sheriff. The citizens of Maricopa County re-elected him in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.[8]

                Arpaio married Ava Arpaio in 1958. Arpaio and his wife have two children and four grandchildren.[9] They currently reside in Fountain Hills, Arizona [10]
                [edit] Actions as Maricopa County Sheriff

                During his tenure as Maricopa County Sheriff, Arpaio has instituted or strengthened several of the following crime prevention programs:[11]

                * bicycle registration
                * block watches
                * child identification and fingerprinting
                * Operation Identification (for marking valuables)
                * Operation Notification (which identifies business owners to be notified during times of emergency)
                * Project Lifeline (which provides free cellular phones to domestic violence victims)
                * S.T.A.R.S. (Sheriffs Teaching Abuse Resistance to Students)
                * an annual summer camp for kids near Payson.

              • Esom Hill says:

                LOI, I don’t feel a bit sorry for Joe’s prisoners.

                Sorry but I just don’t have much sympathy for criminals of any kind. And I don’t believe they should be pampered and babied while they are there either.

                IMHO, which is only mine, by the way, prisoners should have to work to pay their way in jail. After all why should the law-abiding citizens have to pay for their incarceration?

                And a little work is good for them. I’m not talking about slave labor. I’m also not talking about busy work. Let them cut grass and stuff like that like they do here in GA.

                Or bring back the chain gangs for serious crimes. Not wanting to do real work is how most get there to begin with.

    • In other words. Pure unmitigated absolute bull biscuits!

    • Displaced Okie says:

      Time for me to open a small can of worms… :)…You ever notice how the Federal Government does not have a problem with state and local laws against illegal drugs? If they want to say a state can’t enforce laws that the Feds already do then why aren’t drug laws treated the same way?

      • Good point.

        Why do you think the FEDs do not have an immigration “nightmare” mindset? Why do they merely “mouth” concern but do not act?

        • Follow the money trail from the Mexican drug cartels to the bowels of the U.S. Congress and Senate . . . also to the Presidential palace of Mexico.

          Most hard drugs are carried on the backs of illegals forced to be “mules” for the cartels and once the drugs are passed off, the “mules” are left in so-called “safe houses” without food and water – sometimes there are up to a hundred crammed into a two-bedroom house in the middle of Phoenix.

          If you want to stop all of this crap, then join “GOOOH” – The “Get Out Of Our House” campaign to remove each and every incumbent from the Senate and House of Representatives.

          THAT is how you can help!

  16. We were talking about asteroids and timing:

    A GIANT asteroid could be on course to hit Earth causing massive devastation, space boffins revealed today.

    Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3072347/Asteroid-could-raze-London.html#ixzz0v1AQ2NPQ

    Fortunately, we have 172 years to figure out what to do about it…. and we only need the last 20 to act …. if we haven’t figured even a better way 100 years from now….

    • Mathius says:

      I don’t know – can we address it 50 years in advance? It would make me somewhat more comfortable. You see, the further out it is, the smaller of a shift it requires to make it miss us. I expect us to be slightly more technologically advanced in 122 years, but moving an object of this size might still present some significant challenges.

      Adding, in FreedomLand, is the funding for a project such as this raised in “pass the collection tray” fashion? What happens if you cannot raise enough money?

      • Mathius,

        Do you believe that saving your life is worthless?

        I didn’t think so.

        Funding is easy – point to the risk, point to the necessary time and costs and ask for donations. You will be overwhelmed.

        People do not want to die.

        • If you pass a tray in front of Joe Schmo, he’s not going to give you much (if anything) for a threat 50 years out. Why? Because he knows that it’s in everyone’s interest to stop the asteroid. Therefore, he will expect everyone else to donate enough. But everyone thinks this way and you wind up with 60% of the necessary funding.

          Then, another pirate comes up with a different method for deterring the asteroid, and he siphons off another 30% of your pledged donations. Neither of you has enough to do anything.

          Someone – we shall call him Flack Blag – suggests that it doesn’t matter because at the rate technology is improving, we should be more than capable of stopping the asteroid cheaply in another decade or two. But two decades later, the technology hasn’t appeared because there’s no profit in developing it.

          So you stall and you wait for more money and more technology, but the asteroid approaches and becomes more and more expensive to stop every minute (larger trajectory changes become necessary = more force becomes necessary).

          Finally, a state of emergency emerges, and the people scramble to get the funds together. The spaceship is built but… it’s too late.

          60 Million Years Later

          Velociraptors are looking at what they refer to as the K-3 Boundary and wondering if history will repeat itself.

          • Mathius

            If you pass a tray in front of Joe Schmo, he’s not going to give you much (if anything) for a threat 50 years out.

            So you must be staggeringly amazed that things like insurance, and investments into production and capability that takes decades to achieve are actually done?

            You must go around all day thinking – my God how did they build this? No one thinks ahead more than one day….. yet, here it is! Must have been a government bureaucrat who did it because only they think ahead!

            Why? Because he knows that it’s in everyone’s interest to stop the asteroid.

            You do not understand Human Action very well, do you?

            Therefore, he will expect everyone else to donate enough. But everyone thinks this way and you wind up with 60% of the necessary funding.

            Again, you do not understand economic calculation.

            First, it does not require everyone to participate. It does not require anything or anyone.

            Since participation is voluntary, only those that wish to participate do so.

            Like a security wall, the wall I build to protect me, protects you at little or no cost. Same here, the cost for every extra person saved is zero.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              BF, It doesn’t matter that the cost to protect and save each extra person is zero. You still need to come up with the financing to have a program, to conduct research, and to change the trajectory of the asteroid.

              Mathius’ argument is dead on — This is a multi-billion dollar project that needs to be continually funded each and every year for decades. Why am I going to participate to fund this project which may/may not be successful to begin with and which is going to avert a disaster over a century after I’m dead?

              • Buck,

                Then explain how insurance exists, if by your theory it would not be done.

                Please explain how a oil refinery gets built, if buy your theory it would not be done.

                BF, It doesn’t matter that the cost to protect and save each extra person is zero.

                If it doesn’t matter, stop using the argument regarding “why should -this person- get it for free?” – if you agree the incremental cost of people is ZERO

                You still need to come up with the financing to have a program, to conduct research, and to change the trajectory of the asteroid.

                No more a challenge then any other economic enterprise.

                It must utterly surprise you and Mathius that any investment happens at all.

                Mathius’ argument is dead on — This is a multi-billion dollar project that needs to be continually funded each and every year for decades. Why am I going to participate to fund this project which may/may not be successful to begin with and which is going to avert a disaster over a century after I’m dead?

                *shrug* I really couldn’t careless why you would or would not participate – that is totally up to you

                If you see no value in participating in saving your life, then *shrug* that’s just fine by me.

                There are millions of other people who do value their lives, and will participate – which is why we have such organizations in existence today.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You seem to be having trouble with my argument today. I have never argued that “why should this person get it for free?”

                My argument is that the incremental cost is irrelevant as whoever is going to start and run this program is going to need billions invested. You seem to believe that people will line up to save their lives and donations will be pouring from the sky. I just don’t see that happening.

                Its not that I see no value in protecting my life. Its just that this program doesn’t pass a simple cost/benefit analysis. Millions of dollars annually for a project that may well not work to protect myself from an event that only has a slight chance of happening during my lifetime. Sounds like a good project to invest in to me…

              • Buck,

                You seem to be having trouble with my argument today.

                Not one bit.

                I enjoy watching you argue yourself into a deep pit.

                I have never argued that “why should this person get it for free?”

                Hmmm, yes you have.

                You have complained ….”why should I pay, and you don’t…” for such goods as free-market police (security) protection and fire protection.

                Now, we can totally dispense with your arguments here as you agree than such delivery is incrementally ZERO (or near-zero) cost.

                whoever is going to start and run this program is going to need billions invested.

                Correct.

                The same decision matrix is one of insurance.

                You do know that insurance companies exist, right?

                So why is this concept – the existence and funding of insurance – so difficult for you when all you have to do is look out to the world and see tens of thousands of insurance companies.

                You seem to believe that people will line up to save their lives and donations will be pouring from the sky.

                Who said donations???

                Gee – Buck said it!

                Black Flag said investments.

                Unless you understand investments to be “donations” – I can see how you are utterly confused about the goings-on of free market enterprises.

                I just don’t see that happening.

                In that, I am perfectly clear regarding your inability here.

                For a some people, this inability will never abate.

                Its ot that I see no value in protecting my life.

                BINGO!

                Its just that this program doesn’t pass a simple cost/benefit analysis.

                Then you price your life a heck of a lot lower than I price mine – which is perfectly fine in a free market economics.

                Millions of dollars annually for a project that may well not work to protect myself from an event that only has a slight chance of happening during my lifetime.

                Maybe.

                That is your analysis that you make for yourself.

                Millions of others will conclude opposite.

                Sounds like a good project to invest in to me…

                If it is – for you – you will invest.

                If it is not – for you – you will not invest.

                That is how the free market works.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And what happens when those millions of people donating their money to this project don’t donate enough to get it off the ground? Or to have the project continue year after year?

                I say donations because that is precisely what it is. There is no chance or opportunity of getting your money back. Down the rabbit hole it goes.

              • Buck

                …continuing…

                But see your serious argumentative problem here

                (1) Protecting life has limited value for you, thus you will not invest.

                However, (2) you believe that the asteroid is a serious threat and your life is worth protecting, because you are willing to use guns and violence to force people to pay for it

                You are trying to argue both sides at the same time – it is not worth it for you to pay – but it is so worth paying for you’d kill people to make them pay.

                Which side are you on? Is it worth it or not?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You get it all wrong here — I do believe my life worth protecting and I do believe this is a great project.

                I just don’t believe it can be adequately run through donations.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I’m starting to like FreedomLand — no taxes, yet the benefit of protection from aliens and asteroids from benevolent businesses and individuals!

        • Buck,

          You should love Freedomland.

          But it is not due to benevolent businesses.

          It is due to self-interested businesses needing voluntary exchange to achieve their goals.

          That is your mindset problem.

          You believe that a man must act in interests other than his own – which is “benevolence” – a gift from him to you.

          You cannot conceive of a man acting in his own interests within a framework of voluntary exchange. To you, these things MUST be exclusive – for you, you cannot be BOTH self-interested AND voluntary.

          (Unless, of course, the meaning of benevolence that you were using was: a compulsory levy by certain English kings with no other authority than the claim of prerogative – that meaning would be far more suitable to your philosophical disposition)

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I have no problem with the concept of acting in one’s own self interests within a framework of voluntary exchange. I’ve never argued that these things must be exclusive. I just don’t have the blind faith you do that FreedomLand would work as you envision.

            • Buck,

              A couple of points here.

              First, I have no vision on how freedomland will work

              I am not a control freak that will impose my vision on it! That’s the point!

              It will work the way it works in or out or same or different to any vision I may have

              Secondly, because of (1), the way I think it will work is wholly based on reasoning and logic within the framework.

              So when you say “how will this X be done”, the answer is the same “somebody will make money doing it”. How they actually do it, *shrug*, how do I know? I don’t know how (in detail) you make gasoline out of oil either. I just know men make money figuring that out, and it doesn’t have to be me

              • Mathius says:

                Gasoline is made from oil in a process called “cracking.” When someone refers to the difference in prices of future contracts of various grades of oil products (ie, unleaded gas vs crude oil), they call this the “crack spread” – it is the money you essentially pay for someone to convert oil into gasoline.

                The way it is done is actually surprisingly simple: the crude oil is placed in a large tall storage tank called a fractioning column. Heat is applied at the bottom causing the chemicals with higher boiling points to rise to the top before condensing back into a liquid – this causes the chemicals to form layers. After a time, the layers are simply skimmed off one at a time (jet fuel near the top, heating oil near the bottom).

    • This is all your fault Flag! I asked very nicely for a small space program.
      No, no, no Illusion. No lightsabers or warp drives for you. You will not force me to pay for your toys. Last week you told us we would live a thousand years, now we’re gonna die in 172.

      😆 There it is, we’re all going to die, and it’s Flags fault! 😆

  17. From my I told you so file:

    Where is all the oil?

    Mighty oil-eating microbes help clean up the Gulf
    Gulf focus shifts, but where is all the oil?

    Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast. And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames.

    So where did the oil go? “Some of the oil evaporates,” explains Edward Bouwer, professor of environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. That’s especially true for the more toxic components of oil, which tend to be very volatile, he says. Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.

    • Time magazine reported Thursday that Rush Limbaugh might have been right about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico not being the environmental disaster that everyone warned.

      In an article surprisingly titled, “The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?”, author Michael Grunwald first insulted the conservative talk radio host:

      The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill – he calls it “the leak” – is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.

      Yet, in the very next paragraph, Grunwald shockingly changed his tune:

      Well, Rush has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it’s no leak; it’s the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It’s also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far – while it’s important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago – it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. “The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared,” says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.

      Yes, the spill killed birds – but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we’ve heard horror stories about oiled dolphins – but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region’s fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana’s disintegrating coastal marshes – a real slow-motion ecological calamity – but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year. […]

      Marine scientist Ivor Van Heerden, another former LSU prof who’s working for a spill response contractor, says “there’s just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good – I think they lied about the size of the spill – but we’re not seeing catastrophic impacts,” says Van Heerden, who, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid out of BP’s spill response funds. “There’s a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.” […]

      LSU coastal scientist Eugene Turner has dedicated much of his career to documenting how the oil industry has ravaged Louisiana’s coast with canals and pipelines, but he says the BP spill will be a comparative blip; he predicts that the oil will destroy fewer marshes than the airboats deployed to clean up the oil. “We don’t want to deny that there’s some damage, but nothing like the damage we’ve seen for years,” he says.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/29/time-mag-shocker-rush-limbaugh-might-have-been-right-about-oil-spill#ixzz0v52kDhjh

  18. Thanks, BF, for keeping me torn between the two options; Libertarian and Socialism (I continue to prefer elements of both). On the one hand, regarding our government, I see where it doesn’t work anywhere near where it should (and that blind faith in its expansion and influence can be a mistake). On the other hand, blind faith in a free market (what BF insists the universe demands) is no better and potentially worse (and certainly has it’s blind faith followers anxious to sprint toward a cliff).

    George Bush a “great” businessman? Really? CEO’s who “can’t fail” because they’re some of the best minds … ? And when they “appear” to fail, it’s because of government regulations; nothing to do with bad decision making, etc. FYI, I personally knew a guy who ran an international marketing research company whose decision making (opening satellite offices all over the country before correcting the New York central location) drove the company into the ground. His next resume highlighted all the offices he opened (expansion) … and he was promptly hired as a CEO again. Another IVY leaguer best mind scenario who couldn’t fail.

    And BF’s answer to GM’s potentially “playing chicken” with the UAW? They’re “too big to fail” (10% of GNP …). I guess, then, that BF thinks the bailouts were necessary after all. So much for his “free market” righting itself (unless he includes corporate welfare).

    But George Bush (who failed at just about every business he was gifted from his father’s privilege), well … he can’t fail either. Geez, you could’ve fooled the rest of us.

    BF, it’s that mindset that will guarantee clowns like President Fredo continue to stand a chance to be repeat offenders as Congressman, Senators & Presidents.

    Really, you should keep those thoughts to yourself. You lose a ton of credibility with statements like “George Bush was a great businessman.”

    And you never did answer regarding Kenneth Lay … although I’m sure he was forced to fail because of the government as well … except he can’t fail, can he?

    Oh, Lord …

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie,

      Do you understand what a “Great Businessman” is?

      A great business man:

      1. Understands that the market is anything BUT a free market.

      2. Devises ways to manipulate the non-free market in his own favor, while manipulating it AGAINST potential competition.

      3. Understands regulations and how to use them FAVORABLY.

      4. Understands when to cut bait and go elsewhere when new regulations are going to be UNFAVORABLE to current profitable operations.

      In THIS market, that defines a “Great Businessman”.

      • So, Peter, are you on record with BF as stating that George W. Bush was a “great” businessman?

        Buddy, that’s insane.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I do not know enough about George W. Bush’s business dealings to label him a great businessman or a crappy one.

          I was simply defining for you what a great businessman is in our economic system.

          If you use the proper definitions which I have given above, and still conclude that Bush was a terrible businessman, I cannot argue with you on that one specifically, because I have not personally studied his business dealings much at all.

      • Bush started in the Texas oil business, after Yale University and Harvard Business School. Wealthy family friends and others invested millions with him, but with poor results. A 1985 disclosure shows Bush’s track record: Investors got back only 45 cents on the dollar, but few complained.

        Investors also got tax deductions averaging more than 80 cents on every dollar invested. Those early Bush ventures were mainly tax shelters.

        When his father was president, there were suspicions that the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain tried to enrich the younger Bush. Bahrain granted an exclusive drilling contract to Harken Energy Corporation, in which the younger Bush held stock. But he says he opposed the deal.

        Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes says, “He felt the company just was not large enough, that it was outside the scope of their experience.” And the deal turned out to be a loser, abandoned after two expensive dry holes.

        In 1990 Bush unloaded most of his Harken shares for $835,000 about two months before Harken announced a big loss. That triggered an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into possible insider trading by Bush, but the SEC took no action.

        A look at Harken’s stock price may show why: Bush sold for $4 a share. Harken stock did dip to $2.38 the day after the bad earnings were released, but four days later bounced right back to $4 a share, exactly what Bush had been paid.

        And the stock kept rising: Bush attorney Robert Jordan said, “A year later, in fact, the value had doubled to $8 a share.”

        So Bush could have done much better if he had waited.

        Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

        Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.

        Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more.

        So, Peter, BF, I ask … is it corporate welfare you think George was GREAT at … or business?

        The guy, without his daddy’s clout, would’ve been washing dishes.

        • Charlie,

          My question is, if Bush was/is such an idiot, why is Obama
          doing exactly the same thing Bush did on:
          War in Iraq
          War in Afghanistan
          Financial bailouts(TARP)
          Medicare Part D?

          Face it, Obama’s only criticism of Bush is he didn’t spend enough of our money. And you are pissed at yourself for buying Obama’s Hope and Change bulldookey.

          Bush sucked.
          Obama sucks more.
          Who’s next? Will they say Obama just didn’t spend enough?
          Or will they say he spent too much, but still sign every bill expanding government?

          • LOI, check out my blog, I dump on Obama at every opportunity; Bush-light (or heavy) … you have to scroll past the reviews and get to the video (politics starts there).

            http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2010/07/late-rain-by-lynn-kostoff-joe-barton-ii.html

            why my very conservative friend (DOC–the only one who gets to comment on my blog) labelled him President Fredo. I’m not Bush bashing … just telling it like it is. I voted for the numskull twice myself (and I do regret it), but I’ll never vote for either party gain. Ever. I was a lifelone Dem before that. The difference between the parties is a dirty pubic hair; that’s it.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Again Charlie,

          READ MY DEFINITIONS!

          By your OWN ARGUMENT ABOVE:

          1. Bush and his investors LOST MONEY in the oil business BUT MADE UP FOR IT IN GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES:

          Success!

          Was paid $835,000 for his Harken stock, but could have made much more if he had waited:

          No one has a crystal ball Charlie, if HE PAID LESS THAN $835,000 for his initial investment in Harken, it was… Success!

          And your last example:

          “Bush takes credit for conceiving The Ballpark at Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he bought in 1989 with a wealthy group of investors. Among them: billionaire Richard Rainwater of Fort Worth.

          Bush invested just over $600,000, but Arlington taxpayers invested a lot more.”

          And yet when Bush sold the Rangers he MADE A BIG PROFIT, which is… Success!

          ALL, EACH AND EVERY ONE, of Bush’s actions FITS THE DEFINITIONS which I gave above.

          Bush understood that the market was anything but a free market.

          Bush knew the regulations well enough to know how to turn a loss on an oil project into a gain using GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES,

          He knew he smelled blood in the water and BAILED before his Harken stock crashed (regardless of whether it rebounded and even doubled later),

          And he used government regulation and subsidies to turn a profit on the purchase of a sports team.

          You see, Charlie, GREAT businessmen KNOW that the system is NOT a capitalist system, and they KNOW how to game the non-capitalist system in their favor in order to make money off of nearly any circumstance.

          I think you just proved my point.

    • Washington Post reporter David Brown found “rage and panic” at a recent meeting of AIDS activists in Vienna, placed on page A-10 of Thursday’s paper:

      The rage is directed at the Obama administration, which many activists say is reneging on a commitment to continue big annual increases in global AIDS spending. The panic arises from the knowledge that in some African countries, patients who want antiretroviral treatment are being turned away and will soon start dying.

      Some activists pine for former president George W. Bush, who launched a much-praised multibillion-dollar fund to fight AIDS around the world. But now, in the eyes of many, the U.S. government has replaced the pharmaceutical industry as the main impediment to progress.

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz0v5BSp3P4

    • “Thanks, BF, for keeping me torn between the two options; Libertarian and “Socialism (I continue to prefer elements of both). On the one hand, regarding our government, I see where it doesn’t work anywhere near where it should (and that blind faith in its expansion and influence can be a mistake). On the other hand, blind faith in a free market (what BF insists the universe demands) is no better and potentially worse (and certainly has it’s blind faith followers anxious to sprint toward a cliff).”

      We are no where near Libertarianism but we are coming real close to being a socialistic country- Man is going to do bad things with or without government power-we’ve seen this throughout our history – it is time for an adjustment and the adjustment needs to be towards liberty. There isn’t much I am very sure of but in this I am sure. People want to take the power out of the hands of the rich and powerful by putting the power into the hands of the Federal government which just creates more rich and powerful people-it is a vicious game which ends up controlling us because the power still remains in the hands of the rich and powerful -so the evil continues. The outcome-we the people-can no longer do anything about it. You will have no confusion anymore because your opinion just won’t make any difference.

      • The drift is definitely left but without a restructured gov’t (smaller or bigger) and term limits, forgetaboutit … the powers that be will remain where they are.

        • How do you think we the people get the power to restructure the government Charlie-by giving the government elite more power.

    • Charlie

      Thanks, BF, for keeping me torn between the two options; Libertarian and Socialism (I continue to prefer elements of both).

      I fully operate within both “systems” and others as well everyday

      The big difference: I apply each system appropriate in my life.

      I do not use Socialism/Communism as a means to interact with strangers.

      I do not use Capitalism as a means to interact with my family.

      I use Socialist philosophies as a means to interact with my family.

      I use Capitalist philosophies as a means to interact with strangers.

      Using the right “tools” in the right place makes the job RIGHT.

      Socialist philosophies cannot scale. They must be relegated to close and small groups of individuals where economic trade is secondary to emotional attachment.

      Capitalist philosophies scale incredibly well all the way to infinity. They are the best system to manage interactions between strangers, including people you do not know even exist. However, the do not operate inside interactions that are NOT economic.

      The great challenge is the People misuse these systems – Socialism for large groups and economics and Capitalism inside political (ie: non-economic systems) and small, closed groups (cartels/monopolies).

      It’s like using a hammer as a screwdriver and a drill as sander…yep, the screw is driven into the wood but it can’t hold much and no matter how hard you try to steady the drill, it still causes divots on the table top.

      Really, all it takes is to disentangle these systems and apply them appropriately and 99% of the human-caused misery would abate.

      On the other hand, blind faith in a free market (what BF insists the universe demands) is no better and potentially worse (and certainly has it’s blind faith followers anxious to sprint toward a cliff).

      But it isn’t “blind faith” – it is (1) articulated by reason and logic …. which should be enough and (2) by historical review – the greatest increase in wealth, health and prosperity of all men has occurred under circumstances of increase in freedom – where the reverse is completely true under circumstances of decreasing freedom.

      You have reasoned argument from principle PLUS reality as an example.

      Yet you continue to deny both.

      George Bush a “great” businessman? Really? CEO’s who “can’t fail” because they’re some of the best minds … ?

      No, I didn’t say “They can’t fail”

      I said “They could not have achieved their position IF they failed during their climb “up the ladder”.

      There is a big – and key – difference.

      And when they “appear” to fail, it’s because of government regulations; nothing to do with bad decision making, etc.

      You can make a bad decision and where pink socks to a dinner party – but compared to the other guy that ran the red light and killed you the way to the dinner party … your pink socks are not that important.

      Same here. Perhaps they made a bad decision … or a good one…. the fact is the larger situation of the Unions and their costs overwhelmed any other decision.

      FYI, I personally knew a guy who ran an international marketing research company whose decision making (opening satellite offices all over the country before correcting the New York central location) drove the company into the ground.

      I love when my argumentative adversary continues to offer up examples that support my argument.

      Exactly, Charlie – that is how the free market works.

      You screw up, the company tanks.

      The free market has no resources for companies that consistently make mistakes. The free market by the voluntary actions of men REMOVE resources away from “screw ups” and places those resources into the hands of more capable men.

      That is how it NATURALLY controls itself – bad people, either morally or by incompetence, are avoid and good people, either by morals or by competence (and best, both) are sought out.

      And BF’s answer to GM’s potentially “playing chicken” with the UAW? They’re “too big to fail” (10% of GNP …). I guess, then, that BF thinks the bailouts were necessary after all. So much for his “free market” righting itself (unless he includes corporate welfare).

      Again, you are stuck in a paradigm.

      You do not consider for one second – to end the law that prohibits a company from firing striking workers and hiring new ones.

      The reason the Union can ransom the company is because the company cannot avoid the trap by law.

      I support the right of men to not work.

      I also support the right of companies to fire those they do not want to work.

      That is the balance of power. But government twisted that balance and effectively destroyed the company.

      Had GM been allowed to fire striking workers, they would have done that. There are hundreds of thousands of men who would have loved to work at GM at half the hourly rate the Unions were demanding.

      BF, it’s that mindset that will guarantee clowns like President Fredo continue to stand a chance to be repeat offenders as Congressman, Senators & Presidents.

      No sir, not one bit.

      It is those that believe government can heal – that will continue to hold a system in place that will attract the likes of Bush/Obama and the whole mess.

      My mindset is not to hold such a system – if you do not have rotting meat, you will not attract flies.

      And you never did answer regarding Kenneth Lay … although I’m sure he was forced to fail because of the government as well … except he can’t fail, can he?

      Lay completely depended on government force for his business plan. Without it he was doomed, and when it was removed, he lost everything.

      • BF … you’re lost, brother.

      • wait a minute … “attract the likes of Bush/Obama and the whole mess.”

        ???

        But Bush is a GREAT businessman!

        Look what he did for the country!

        And Obama thought so too (why he’s following Bush’s lead–just ask VH).

        Man, you really outdid yourself here, BF. Can’t take you as serious anymore. Sorry.

        • Charlie,

          You cannot disassociate one thing from another thing. For you its always one color.

          A man can be a good businessman but a terrible father.

          A man can be a good father, but a terrible businessman.

          You want to bundle unrelated beliefs or traits to be interconnected but they are not.

          • Your words:

            Bush was a great businessman.

            My words: you’re crazy.

            But I still love ya, brother.

            Let’s agree to disagree. I can’t get passed that one.

        • No offense Charlie, I actually agree that having no government would bring with it huge problems. But I honestly believe that your problem is that you are so busy hanging onto your anger that it has completely blinded you. Perhaps you should go back and reread BF’s post because I don’t see much correlation between what he said and your response’s. It doesn’t seem to matter what is said-you simply respond with rich people are evil, we must control them. You keep harping on the Bush was a good businessman statement-BF has stated over and over why he said this but you simply ignore how he arrived at this statement. He’s not saying Bush is a good man-he’s not saying Bush didn’t use his money and power to achieve-reread the posts.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie,

          I can’t take you seriously AT ALL.

          You are WAY TOO CONFUSED!

          A GREAT BUSINESSMAN does NOT do what is best for his company IN THE LONG RUN!

          A GREAT BUSINESSMAN does what is best for his company’s bottom line ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.

          That is the way our screwed-up non-capitalist system works!

          Also, please show me where BF ever said that a great businessman would make a great president?

          By careful definiton, it is easy to show that Bush actually was a pretty darn good businessman. It is also ridiculously easy to show that he was a pretty terrible President. SO WHAT? What do the two have to do with each other????

          Obama, on the other hand, HAS NEVER BEEN A BUSINESSMAN. One of the reasons he is failing so miserably as a President, is that he is taking ALL of the bad things that Bush did, and magnifying them, and taking any and all halfway decent things that Bush did, and eliminating them 🙂

          However, the statement that you made, “But Bush is a GREAT businessman!

          Look what he did for the country!

          And Obama thought so too (why he’s following Bush’s lead–just ask VH).”

          Makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

          Being a good businessman and being a good President have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

          However, Obama is probably stupid enough to think that they are interrelated, which is why he is emulating Bush and expanding on all of the BAD STATIST things that Bush did!

          WHY would you think that being a good buisinessman and being a good President had anything to do with each other at all?

          • Peter … meds … take them … quick.

          • Can you guys ever argue a point without qualifying it two seconds later.

            Now it’s a non-capitalist system.

            Brother, come on already with this bullcrap. This is as non-capitalist as Obama is a socalist. You like playing on the fringes, but you always come home to papa, it seems.

            I don’t know what to tell you. You’re all over the place with George; he’s a great businessman who can’t fail, except when he fails, then it’s the gov’ts fault … but when he runs the country, what? He puts on his socialist vest?

            • Charlie,

              You are a fine example of how a normally lucid man can lose his mind in a fury and fall totally into irrational comments.

              • Mine may be irrational (to you) but yours (Bush was a “great” businessman) are insane.

                So there …

              • Charlie,

                First, there is only one rational, the Universe makes it so – though there can be an infinite number of irrationals.

                Second, I wonder what to think when an irrational man claims me insane.

                Does that make his claim
                (1) an act of insanity?
                (2) an act of irrationality
                (3) make me perfectly sane in his mind
                (4) or I am insane.

                Hard to tell – ’cause that’s the feature of irrational – nothing comes of it.

  19. Fox Business is reporting that the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that President Obama signed recently includes a provision that exempts the Securities and Exchange Commission from responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. Fox wrote:

    The law, signed last week by President Obama,

    exempts the SEC from disclosing

    records or information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.” Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

    Several years ago, the media was confronted by several similar issues involving attempts by the Bush Administration to narrow the provisions of FOIA and exempt certain agencies from having to respond to requests filed under that act. The question that remains in these next few days as the media reports on this story is weather their response will be as condemnatory as it was when George W. Bush was in office.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz0v5FHUwfG

  20. A carbon tax is for history deniers
    Ben-Peter Terpstra
    Republicans, take note. Here in Australia, it is election season and the right-of-center Liberal Party has launched a provocative anti-carbon tax pollution ad.

    And, on the other side of the boxing ring we have PM Julia Gillard, a history denier:

    Julia Gillard’s Climate History Timeline:

    Younger Dryas: 12,900-11,600bp

    Holocene Warming a: 11,600-8,500bp

    Egyptian Cooling: 8,500-8,000bp

    Holocene Warming b: 8,000bp-5,600bp

    Akkadian Cooling: 5,600-3,500bp

    Minoan Warming: 3,500-3,200bp

    Bronze Age Cooling: 3,200-2,500bp

    Roman Warming: 500BC-535AD

    Dark Ages: 535AD-900AD

    Medieval Warming: 900AD-1300AD

    Little Ice Age: 1300-1850AD

    (Didn’t copy right, all the above had a line drawn through them. It’s from American Thinker)

    Manmade Climate Change: 1850AD-…

    No debate over who I’m rooting for.

  21. You know, I read through these posts, both Liberal and Conservative, Progressive and indifferent, and I can’t help but laugh. Not laugh at the discussions, but at the sheer stupidity of it all!

    I laugh because if I didn’t I would bust out crying. This situation the Progressives and their Government have gotten us into defies belief. I am ready to see an armed revolt. At least a peaceful one.

    I laugh because there is nothing else I can do. We find ourselves at a crossroads. And the Devil is the Government, ready to make you a deal for your soul.

    • I’m still pretty hysterical about Bush being a “great” businessman myself, Essom … that’s water cooler material if I ever heard it.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Charlie,

        Your own analysis of Bush’s business history PROVED that he was a great businessman by mercantilistic definitions!

        By free-market defintions, he was a terrible businessman, but WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET, so THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY HERE!

        • Peter, you’re living in a fantasy with this already. Let’s deal with the real world. He failed over and over again.

          But never mind that (it was the gov’t’s fault–no way possible it could’ve been a Yale graduate CEO’s fault–even if this putz couldn’t get into a junior college on his own merits).

          He’s so good, run him again. With this line of thinking, you might as well.

          And what happened to all the “We don’t like Bush either” rhetoric? Is this Libertarian dream just another Republican surrogate?

          Seriously, defending Bush on business is pretty scary. And it further enhances a progressive argument about starting on equal ground. Bush inherited his wealth and did nothing with it outside of being a President’s son. There’s nothing “earned” about it.

      • Charlie,

        As typical, you have no measurement to evaluate the quality of his business acume.

        I will provide one.

        Bush made his fortune as part owner of the Texas Rangers major league baseball team. His initial investment of $530,000 in 1989 soared to almost $15 million when he sold his share of the team to venture capitalist Tom Hicks in 1998.

        Bush made 303% return EVERY YEAR on his $530,000 investment.

        I doubt you can make even 1/100 of that yourself.

        • You’re seriously whacko, my man. Bush never made a friggin’ dime in his life. He was born into the “investment monies” he “bought” the team with.

          Christ, give it up.

          Or give me $530K and we’ll see what I can do with it.

          He’s regarded as one of the “worst” businessman ever … but not in your eyes. In your eyes he’s a “GREAT” businessman.

          Like I said, he didn’t have his trust fund, he’d be washing dishes.

          • Yes, Charlie, ignore the facts – that will make them go away.

            • Bush earned that $530K?

              Yeah, right.

              BF, you just dropped an entire nother notch on the to be taken seriously ladder.

              And that’s why I’m FULLY AGAINST inheritence.

              • Charlie,

                Why does it concern you so badly?

                It’s not your money.

                It never was your money.

                It never will be your money.

                So why do you believe you have a Right to the money?

              • Because it wasn’t George’s money either, BF. He has as much “right” to his daddy’s fazools as I have to yours. Why is that so hard to see?

              • Charlie,

                He has as much “right” to his daddy’s fazools as I have to yours. Why is that so hard to see?

                Now you’ve got it!

                He does not have a Right to his father’s money

                …because it is his father’s money!

                and his father can do whatever he wants with it, including giving it to his children.

                See, I knew you could figure it out if you wanted to….

          • Charlie,

            Give me $530K and we’ll see what I can do with it

            Please demonstrate with the funds you have currently that you can return a profit of 300%+ for 10 years –

            and I guarantee you, you will have millions of dollars from people invested with you

            The fact is, you can’t do it.

            Thus, no – I will not give you my $500,000 either.

            • Brother, I’ll have to do the math, but when I was into street finance, I might’ve done better’n that.

              • And that makes me a genius too, right?

                Okay, I’m ready to take possession of the WH. There will be executions. There will be national health insurance. There will be equal rights for everybody (gays can marry, adopt, etc.). There will be a mandatory draft. There will be serious immigration control (and no more born here-auto citizenship) … and the Buffalo Bills will be required to remain in New York State until I say otherwise.

              • Charlie

                ..street finance…

                Ok, I’ll admit that perhaps you probably did do better than that….

                …but your contract enforcements would be a bit harsher too.

              • it doesn’t count unless i get to be president

              • Charlie,

                Methinks you’d fit right in with the political class.

    • Esom Hill says:

      I don’t five a flying f… what kind of businessman George Bush is. Nor do I care what kind of businessman Barack Obama is. What the hell does that have to do with absolutely anything?

      What I have problems with is the, by now obviously PLAIN fact that Obama’s election win was all, and I mean ALL, a win by a great talker with absolutely ZERO experience or brains to be in the office he is in. And he ain’t getting any smarter as time goes by, in fact he’s getting stupider.

      Oh and he’s not alone!!!! The Democrats gained power in Congress in 2006, and the Presidency in 2008. And now they have it all. The Republicans, despite Obama and others like his protests to the contrary, can’t do shit to stop them. He can call them “Obstructionists” all he wants. How exactly can they stop him? They are like He-Man. THEY HAVE THE POWERRRRR!!!!!!

      And all they have managed to do is totally and unequivically f*** everything up from the beginning of their reign of terror.

      And they are trying to get all of their bullshit passed before 2010 because after the mid-terms, the show is most likely going to grind to a halt. So, despite the protests of the vast majority of the citzenry, they are cramming this shit down our throats whether we likw it or not. And most likely, once passed, none of it will EVER be repealed.

      Most likely they have already damaged us beyond repair. Probably we are doomed by their actions already. I guess we will just have to see.

      And THAT, is why I laugh to keep from crying. Because MY Nation, that I grew up in is gone. And ya’ll still sit here arguing whether or nor George Bush was a good businessman!

  22. Can anyone explain the legal theory that allows the FAA to close the airspace around MS. Clinton’s wedding location?

    Why does she rate and not Charlie or Peter?

    • Good question? And we shouldn’t have to pay for the patrol over her airspace either. If she’s paying for it, it’s fine with me (even if disturbs you, BF). But we sure shouldn’t have to foot the bill for that. I’m with you (at least halfway) on this.

      • Charlie,

        Even if she “paid for it”, by what Right does she have to stop you from using that air space?

        • I knew you’d have an issue with that. You’re entitled to have the issue, BF. I’m just saying it doesn’t bother me one way or the other (so long as she pays).

          That make me a slave again?

          • Charlie,

            No – it merely means you have operate with and under whimsical applications of violence.

            You cannot determine the right thing to do by a rational basis. Just like your previous incarnation of “Greater Good” – you fall back to complete irrational behavior and argument as if it was a rational response.

  23. Buck

    And what happens when those millions of people donating their money to this project don’t donate enough to get it off the ground? Or to have the project continue year after year?

    Question: Why do you care? You didn’t participate, you didn’t care in the beginning, why do you care now?

    If the project “doesn’t fly” then the project wasn’t valued enough to fly. You didn’t value it, right?

    If enough do not support it, then human life on Earth simply wasn’t that important to most humans. Democracy, in the broadest sense, was fulfilled.

    • Buck,

      …if however, suddenly, you sense that it is so important that you would kill people to pay for it, then I’ll bet further you spend every penny and waking hour to make it happen.

      If you are willing to kill for it, why are you not willing to pay for it?

    • Mathius says:

      Flag,

      No.

      I value it very highly. The total value of the project is extremely high to me. What is virtually worthless is the marginal benefit of my small contribution. Since the marginal benefit is so small, I am unlikely to contribute. This (unlike your theory of de-legitimization) is why so many people don’t vote – because the value of that one extra vote is so low even if the value of the outcome is high.

      It is the same reason that air is free and diamonds are valuable. There is a lot of air, so the value of just one more unit is small and thus inexpensive (free). But there are few(er) diamonds, so the value of on more unit is high. But the total value of having air is much higher than the total value of having diamonds. Follow? I can’t really draw you a graph here, but I’m sure I could find something online.

      • Mathius

        I value it very highly.

        If this is true, then you will pay to save it.

        The total value of the project is extremely high to me. What is virtually worthless is the marginal benefit of my small contribution.

        Then it is not true, and you will not pay to save it.

        Boy, how many laps will it take until you land.

        Since the marginal benefit is so small, I am unlikely to contribute.

        You value your life to be a marginal benefit – thus, you will not pay it (Lap Two)

        This (unlike your theory of de-legitimization) is why so many people don’t vote – because the value of that one extra vote is so low even if the value of the outcome is high.

        No.

        Most who do not vote are
        (1) don’t care about politics
        (2) don’t feel anything they do in that area has meaning
        (3) are like me.

        It is the same reason that air is free and diamonds are valuable.

        Your economics has already been show to be terribly faulty.

        Value is subjective

        Diamonds are NOT valuable to me
        Air IS valuable, but has no cost because it has no owner

        There is a lot of air, so the value of just one more unit is small and thus inexpensive (free).

        No.

        It is because it is not property – it is not scarce – it is not diminished to me by your use – thus, it has no price

        You try living without it for 4 minutes and we’ll see how valuable it is to you.

        But there are few(er) diamonds, so the value of on more unit is high.

        There are fewer ounces of silver than diamonds – so why isn’t silver “more valuable” in your economic theory???

        Follow? I can’t really draw you a graph here, but I’m sure I could find something online.

        You use the same basic flawed argument of value as Karl Marx – and that screwed up economic theory and killed millions of people.

        • Mathius says:

          That’s one of those perpetual hazards when you use too many nested blockquotes – sometimes you forget the “/”

        • No.

          Most who do not vote are
          (1) don’t care about politics
          (2) don’t feel anything they do in that area has meaning
          (3) are like me.

          BF, I am not sure you can say something about “most” people and say they are like you in the same sentence. 😛

  24. Buck,

    …through donations…

    You and Mathius are the strangest fellows.

    You argue: “No one sees value, thus it won’t be paid”
    Then you argue: “But see, I SEE VALUE and I will pay”.

    And -worse!- you don’t see your statements as a contradiction!

    • Buck,

      Simply, if you think it is valuable and would pay so would millions of other people.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Go back and re-read our arguments. We never say that there is no value. We argue that despite the very high value (in saving our own and others lives) there is very little reason for us to donate (given the marginal benefit of our contribution; the marginal possibility of success of this program; etc.).

      No contradiction here.

      • Buck,

        You have created economic nonsense.

        (1) It is “very” high value
        (2) It is obviously not “very” high enough to protect.

        You obviously do not value it high enough to act or you would act.

        Mathius used voting as an example. I use it back at you. No one vote matters, yet 70% of the People vote. And this is a matter of irrelevance compared to an “extinct level event”.

        Yet, you argue the People will do worse than their vote percentage.

        *shrug*

        Whether you wish to participate or not is your choice, and the choice of everyone.

        If the participation is not high enough, the People have voted their extinction on their own – and that is their choice too.

        But for you two – you do not feel it valuable enough to do pay for it – but it is valuable enough for you to attack people for them to pay for it

        This is the contradiction I point to.

      • Marginal benefit? If that is the case, then you believe charities to be lying, since they constantly repeat that every little bit helps. Obviously, they must be lying cheats out for money and they just want your nickels and dimes to get rich. I guess all the care for the needy is just a front.

        Much better to trust the government because they are far more caring and competent in helping people. Especially the whole overhead thing, you know the government takes your dollar much further than those wasteful free clinics. And just in case overhead is unavoidable, I guess the government has it in the bag because they don’t use nickels and dimes, they extort millions.

        Funny, the people the government is “helping” arent getting any better off, and tons of people fall through the cracks. The only people I see getting real help are the ones helped by real people, like the ones in those free clinics and charities and churches.

        Sorry for all the sarcasm, but I really get annoyed by the belittling of charities. Nothing has done more to destroy people, both the needy and the caring, than government safety nets. People stopped caring about people because they had the chance to be lazy and pass the buck to the government. Needy people stopped believing in others and became envious because they were reduced to getting a check from a nameless faceless government instead of people who give a damn. Charity is the glue that binds us to our neighbors and represents real care for others and lets people build bridges between the classes. Social safety nets have taken that and destroyed it. All that is left is the judgementalism, the liberals with their fake “caring” claiming to give a crap about the poor, and telling the conservatives they hate the poor because they dont want welfare, even tho welfare is the bane of the poor. The poor judging the haves because they have been trained to believe they are entitled, that they will be happy if they have more stuff, and that people must be forced to “give”. And the conservatives yelling at the poor for not working and at the liberals for stealing their money, and embracing a mindset of every manf or himself.

        Good job government.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’m not belittling charities in the least — charities do tremendous good and yes, every little bit helps.

          But there is a major difference between a charity geared to help those in need by providing food, clothing, shelter, or what not, and a ‘charity’ geared towards funding researchers and instituting a space program to hopefully change the trajectory of a meteor one day years in the future so that it misses Earth and human life as we know it is preserved.

          If you can’t see the difference here, not really sure what else I can say…

          • Buck,

            So let’s see your argument>

            People give billions of dollars in charity to help people to eat, but they won’t to save the human species because there is a difference you can’t explain.

            Yep, I think I understand Buck better everyday.

          • Ok, didnt read back far enough I suppose. Still, some of the facts remain.

            People still will be lazy and pass the buck until its not an option. Necessity is the mother of invention. Besides, a voluntary tax to pool money for research and coordinate efforts with other countries would not be turned down by most. Especially since, for instance, we would have no option with current technology to do anything at all until the last 20 years. It will be well known what is coming and plenty of people will be concerned enough to pool their efforts.

            Yea, there is a difference in charity and research, but the government is just as incompetent with both. Even the space exploration of the 50s and 60s was more a result of people being behind the idea than because of the great job government did.

  25. If you get this worked up over a little air space, now I understand how you go batshit over taxes.

    I guess in your personal paradigm (I think Kent M is with you here), you can’t give the inch from fear of losing the yard, etc.

    But there are people who choose not to live on super high alert about losing inches that “they” believe don’t matter. As I said, if they pay the freight, I don’t mind. Many people won’t mind. We don’t see it as the end of the world; the start of socialism.

    If this makes you feel better, I’d be perfectly okay with you paying the freight so you could secure your daughter’s wedding (or for whatever reason you want the security). You pay, I’m okay.

    • Charlie,

      If you get this worked up over a little air space, now I understand how you go batshit over taxes.

      If you do not understand how your Human Rights slowly become destroyed, then you will suffer the destruction.

      I stab you with a pin or a knife – so far, you argue the former does not take your Rights away, but the latter does – thus, I can stab you with a pin, right?

      I guess in your personal paradigm (I think Kent M is with you here), you can’t give the inch from fear of losing the yard, etc.

      It isn’t giving an inch. It is giving up the root principle of your Rights

      Again, an example close to home – you are “ok” with me stealing a few bucks from you – right? It’s not a lot, so it’s ok to do it. You don’t really call that theft, right? It’s not “really” theft – because it’s not a lot of money.

      Now if I stole a MILLION – why! That’s stealing! It’s “different”…right?

      So, I can steal from you a few bucks everyday, because its not theft!

      …get it now, Charlie?…

      • What I’m “getting” BF, is a royal headache.

        No, I wouldn’t let you steal a few bucks from me but I don’t equate that to air space over a wedding someone wants to pay for out of their own pocket.

        Apples … oranges … where the hell is the Tylenol!!!

        “my” human rights aren’t threatened by the air space issue … they would be by a pin or a knife. A stab is an act of aggression. Purchasing air space (that isn’t infringing on my business) just isn’t the same thing.

        But feel free to get worked up over it. Whatever floats your boat.

        • Charlie,

          I see your misunderstanding.

          This is not Ms. Clinton flying jets around at her expense.

          It is Ms. Clinton preventing you from flying – period

          • Esom Hill says:

            BF.

            I get it. Chelsea is violating our rights by denying us the right to fly over her wedding.

            And the taxes we should not have to pay are going to foot the bill for it.

            I even agree.

            But as Charlie says, or at least I think what he means is, it’s going to happen whether you like it or not.

            I don’t like it. You don’t like it. Charlie doesn’t care one way or the other. But it’s still gonna happen.

        • Charlie says:
          Apples … oranges … where the hell is the Tylenol!!!

          LMAO!!!!! Poor Charlie!!!!!!!! It will be Ok! You’re doing fine up against Flag!!

          Still laughing 😆

          • Thank you, Anita … the Flat … I admire the guy no end … except for that Bush being a “great” businessman thingy.

            Thank God it’s almost Friday.

            Peter, this is our year (Buffalo) … Peyton should make the move while he still has a few years left. Winning in Buffalo would make him the all-time greatest … what say you?

  26. Ray Hawkins says:

    Hostile Senators Unload on ex-Arlington Chiefs

    Jack Metzler, the former superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, and his ex-deputy, Thurman Higginbotham, faced a hostile Senate investigative panel on Thursday as they struggled to answer questions about the burial scandal that played out on their watch.

    At various times, Metzler tried to say he was unaware of the issues at the cemetery, which include graves with no headstones, unknown remains in graves, urns of cremated remains tossed out in the landfill, and the apparent waste of millions in public funds that were designated to address the problems. (Salon documented these issues and others in a year-long investigative series.) Metzler also claimed that, as he became aware of problems, he fixed them — but Sen. Claire McCaskill, who chaired the panel, would have none of that.

    “You did know about it and you did nothing,” she said. Then she turned to Higginbotham: “And you knew about it, Mr. Higginbotham, and you did nothing.”

    Metzler went on to blame an inadequate budget — which senators quickly pointed had increased dramatically during Metzler’s tenure — and a busy burial schedule. But again, McCaskill was unsatisfied.

    Read the rest here: http://www.salon.com/news/arlington_national_cemetery_investigation/index.html

    I guess file this under “Government is incapable of scratching its own ass”. This is offensive on multiple fronts – at least (a) the horrific manner in which our military heroes are treated like shit – its not enough that many of these folks gave their lives in service and were likely treated like shit while alive – now we cannot even give them and their families some dignity in death and (b) if these same Senators would shine the same light of outrage on themselves maybe we’d get somewhere.

%d bloggers like this: