"flipper" wrote in message
...
The
interesting question, then, is... can it continue?
Depends on what you mean by 'continue'. As the premier world power?
No. Wealthy? No. Free? No. Will there still be humans? Yes. So it can
'continue'.

You may notice that the first two are considered 'evil' anyway by the
left and the third, managing the dumb human herd, is the means they
feel is necessary to rectify the evil.

The left considers power and wealth evil? If they do, they sure don't
practice what they preach -- they're just as power- and money-hungry as any
right-wingers are.

It reflects a deliberate 'progressive' strategy which, among other
things, involves feigning a false argument because the real intent
would never fly.

I don't think they're necessarily false arguments (although they might be
misguided) -- and even if they are, it doesn't really do any good to consider
them as such rather than trying to deal with the argument itself. I mean,
once you go from arguing about some principle someone is advocating (on the
left or the right) to arguing about whether or not they themselves really
believe the arguments they're putting forth or if they're just trying to
mainpulate you, how can you make any progress towards getting (at least some
of) what you want?

In general everyone tends to assume those on the opposite end of the political
spectrum from themselves are just evil liars. :-)

The government itself, that you claim has done a spectacular job, says
the poverty rate is no better than before it began the spectacular
job.

This is largely because the definitinon of poverty is updated occasionally to
keep up with the average standard of living: I guarantee you someone living
right at the poverty line today would volunteer that they're still far better
off than someone living at the povery line in 1940.

Well, sure. Why worry about the Constitution just because it's a
blooming contract specifically defining what the government is, and is
not, empowered to do? No reason to consider THAT.

It's inevitable, IMO -- regardless of how "solid" a foundation for a
government or religion is, over time people will always start re-interpreting
or just outright ignoring bits of it that no longer jive that well with
"popular culture." It's not worth the energy to be upset about this because
there's simply no way we could have one big vote and return the government to
the state it was in in, say, 1900 (or pick your date) -- the best we can hope
for is those incremental changes to get the government back on track to
something sustainable and closer to your own interpretation of the
constitution's and founding fathers' intents.

This is why none of Ayn Rand or Ralph Nader could ever be elected president.
(Apparently Ron Paul as well, although I had high hopes for him.) -- Even
though all of these people have done many great things.

Government does not 'come up with' better anything.

They fund research projects that historically have come up with plenty of good
things -- more productive/disease resistant crops, lots of far-more-effective
weapons for waging war/maintaining peace (take your pick), vaccines for
various childhood diseases, much of the technology that led to the Internet,
etc.

(But I'm not arguing that the private sector doesn't come up with better
mousetraps. They certainly do too...)

They're ALL 'good ideas'... to someone. And the money is free, free,
free, free... yeehaw. Or, if you're sober, it's just a matter of
extorting money from the evil rich, who deserve to be screwed anyway,
especially for a 'good idea'. And they're ALL 'good ideas'... to
someone.

This is a very cynical way to view it, IMO: There are elements of truth there,
but the "average man" recognizes that forcibly taking money from his fellow
man to fund some pet project is never to be taken lightly and should only be
done after a lot of deliberation as to the true potential/worth of that
project.

Even the "let's soak the rich!" crowd doesn't really get ahead much because,
well, there just aren't that many rich to soak. Soaking the middle class is
far more effective... :-)

Al Capone saw nothing wrong with theft either.

The difference is that he wasn't put into power via popular vote.

That's the most ridiculous, AND unrelated, argument you've come up
with yet (as if CPR HD radio has any connection with sanitation or
other vital services). There is no 'lack of interest' in, or
'unappreciation' of, sanitation technology by the poor, or anyone
else. It's a failure of government to deliver services and you're
about ready to pee in your pants cheering the government. (Notice the
terribly clever, in context, allusion.)

My point was that it often takes the government to "do good" rather than just
figuring that individuals or corporations will voluntarily band together and
"do the right thing." That's one part of what government is: An argeement
among people that it makes sense to empower an elected group of officials to
engage in acts that are sometimes going to be inviable or unpopular but that
we can trust are still often reasonably good ideas overall.

In practice how well this happens varies quite a bit, of course. Comparing
India vs. the U.S., it's rather worse in India because their government is
rather more corrupt than the U.S.'s.

---Joel

Joel Koltner wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
[$SOMEBODY'S NAME] got snipped...

The
interesting question, then, is... can it continue?

Depends on what you mean by 'continue'. As the premier world power?
No. Wealthy? No. Free? No. Will there still be humans? Yes. So it can
'continue'.

You may notice that the first two are considered 'evil' anyway by the
left and the third, managing the dumb human herd, is the means they
feel is necessary to rectify the evil.

The left considers power and wealth evil? If they do, they sure don't
practice what they preach -- they're just as power- and money-hungry as
any right-wingers are.

Yeah, and they get it by stealing it, unlike the right-wingers, who get it
by buying low and selling high.

Cheers!
Rich

Joel Koltner wrote:

In general everyone tends to assume those on the opposite end of the
political spectrum from themselves are just evil liars. :-)

That's because, no matter which wing you're from, for the most part, it's
true! ;-)

(for the irony-impaired - this means that your guys are evil liars too.)

Cheers!
Rich

Joel Koltner wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
The
interesting question, then, is... can it continue?
Depends on what you mean by 'continue'. As the premier world power?
No. Wealthy? No. Free? No. Will there still be humans? Yes. So it can
'continue'.

You may notice that the first two are considered 'evil' anyway by the
left and the third, managing the dumb human herd, is the means they
feel is necessary to rectify the evil.

The left considers power and wealth evil?

Yes, except for their own - that's "for the good of the people."

Cheers!
Rich

"flipper" wrote in message
...
Although, there is the point that one cannot say with certainty what
they 'believe' by what they say. But, then, you argue below that one
should so, for the moment, we shall.

I believe that enough people "believe what they say" that it's usually best to
try to debate with/influence them based on those stated beliefs rather than
trying to figure out what their true agenda is -- the later is just too hard
to do well, at least for me... although other people will surely be better at
it.

Publicly broadcasting ads touting "Clean coal. Yes we can! Yes we
can!" is demonstrably a deception when, in private, the same speaker
assures left wing enviro fanatics his cap and trade program will put
anyone dumb enough to believe the ad out of business.

Just as I can view social security as both "insurance" and "taxes" (or
"transfer of wealth" if you like), I can view both parts of the coal situation
as reasonable as well: Sure, Obama and friends would like to get rid of it
completely, but recognizing that that isn't viable any time soon, he's at
least going to push for making it cleaner in the interim.

I admit that I find it difficult to know whether programs such as
cap-and-trade are more about "let's try to motivate researchers to find even
better alternatives to what we already have (but if nothing pans out -- which
is actually kinda likely -- we'll just modify the program later)" vs. "energy
consumption is really kinda evil and we'll run out of it any day now and hence
it needs very heavy regulation and pricing far in excess of the actual
production costs" -- I expect that of supporters of cap-and-trade, there's
plenty of people at both of those extremes and everywhere inbetween.

Don't be ridiculous. Assessing whether someone is truthful is not only
valid but crucial in deciding whether one wants to hand them the
reigns of power.

That I agree with -- just that, once they're in power, even if you are
convinced they're pathological liars, it's still best to try to deal with the
actual issues rather than directly accussing them of lying, as the later is
likely to remove any avenue you might have had of influencing policy change.
Of course, meanwhile you should be doing whatever you can to get them out of
power too. :-)

------
I'm against going to war.
Great, you get my vote.
Now, off to war we go.
-------

And you think this is not only perfectly fine but it would have been
of no value to asses whether there was any honesty in the claims made?

I think anybody that two-faced would be tossed out of office pretty quickly.
Heck, Clinton was impeached for lying about his affair with Lewinsky...

How the hell do you make any 'progress' by agreeing to, or
'compromising' with, a deceptive argument the person never intends to
adhere to?

Very few people are completely two-faced. Managing to get yourself elected to
public office requires at least some semblance of keeping your promises to
others, after all. I just don't view republicans vs. democrats or liberals
vs. conservatives as so far apart from one another as you seem to, I guess; a
lot of what you view as people lying I suspect I would view as someone
changing their opinion based on new information or a new context.

It's inevitable, IMO -- regardless of how "solid" a foundation for a
government or religion is, over time people will always start
re-interpreting
or just outright ignoring bits of it that no longer jive that well with
"popular culture."
That's the rapist's argument: might as well lay back and enjoy it.

Might be, but unfortunately for the rapist the vast majority of people will
never buy it. It can go both directions anyway: If anything, at the moment
the country seems to be more in the mood for longer mandatory sentences for
criminals rather than letting judges or juries decide.

The fact of the matter is, there's no point to a Constitution if
you're going to simply 'reinterpret' whenever it feels convenient and
"living document" is just another progressive-liberal-socialist canard
for "dead contract."

The Constitution's relevancy to this country is just as much as, e.g., the
Bible's relevancy to a Christian: There's a fundamental belief that "somewhere
in there" some absolute truths can be found, but since the original framers
died long ago and you're dealing with a finite amount of text, people are
constantly shifting a bit on the exact interpretation.

And the Constitution doesn't even have to resort to parables for its
teachings. :-)

---
I agree to buy your car at $200/month for 12 months, nothing down.

We write a contract, both sign, you give me the keys, and I proudly
drive off.

Later I decide to 'interpret' the contract as 'meaning' to pay you
$200 only on the months I have $200 to spare. That's still 12 payments
of $200 but it doesn't look like there's going to be a spare $200 for,
oh, maybe a few years. I'll decide later if another 'interpretation'
is needed. After all, it might be I'm descendent from a previously
persecuted class and you 'owe' me.
---
Don't be upset. It's a "living document."

If you can get a court to agree with you, more power to you. :-)

I think it's unlikely, though. The savvy businessman also gives some
consideration to how likely the contractee is to flake and only enters into
the contract if they figure -- on average -- it'll be beneficial to them.

And where did I say anything about 'one big vote" or 'returning' to a
particular date?

You didn't, but I was thinking it might make you a happy camper. :-)

And just how do you muster 'hope' that will ever happen when you argue
no one should be 'upset' about the usurpations?

There's no reason I can't hope for a better situation while simultaneously not
being too upset with the present one. I mean, I have a standard of living
that spectacularly exceeds anything a very large percentage of people in the
world could ever expect to obtain and hence -- while I have hope the U.S.
government has some pretty significant changes implemented in the near
future -- I can't be at all unhappy about my lot in life in the interim.

Government spends billions on 'research' but you only hear about it
when a lucky cherry pops up.

Not surprising: A lot of what government funds is "basic research" that is too
much of a long shot for corporations to be interested in; it's expected that a
lot of it is going to fizzle, even though of all the "good ideas" the funded
one are presumably the best.

The main issue for me is the amount of funding; in general I'm confident that
the funds are being distributed to reasonably worthy causes -- even though it
is worrisome that politics now seems to affect those distributions far more
than in decades past (see, e.g., global warming scandals). "Billions" may
very well be too much, but "thousands" would be too little.

Even the "let's soak the rich!" crowd doesn't really get ahead much because,
well, there just aren't that many rich to soak.
Of course not, but that doesn't stop it from being a perennial left
wing class warfare ploy.

Agreed, but is the right any better with immediately trumpeting the "Obama's
visit to Indian will cost $200M/day!" fiction? Both sides need to take a deep
breath and calm down... a lot. This is what Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore
Sanity and/or Fear" was all about...

No, it was your 'argument' that technology needed 'government
stimulus', apparently under the typically left wing notion that the
'poor' there were to damn stupid to grasp the utility of toilets.

They're not too stupid to grasp the utility of toilets, but if it comes down
to toilets vs. a cell phone, in many cases they'll chose the later... hence
the argument that sometimes it's best to have government step in build a bit
of the initial infrastructure.

Just 'unfortunate', I suppose, that your hand picked example is of
government *not* 'doing good' and failing to provide services.

It's often easier to show the utility of government by pointing out an
"obvious" failing of one (India's) than just pointing to, e.g., the roads in
the U.S. where one could argue that perhaps they could have all been toll
roads and it would have been quicker or cheaper or something to have gone that
route anyway; it's harder to argue a hypothetical.

Well, you can forget the 'agreement' because, according to the
progressive-liberal-socialist left, that 'constitution' is a "living
document" to be 'reinterpreted' by the government for the convenience
of the government.

"The government" is largely just a reflection of the will of the people.
Well, assuming you vote, at least. It's not perfect, but until corruption
comes into play, I believe that in democracies (and constitutional republics
:-) ) people really do get the government they want... and deserve.

I get the impression you think our government is currently rather more corrupt
already than I do...

---Joel

Hey flipper,

"flipper" wrote in message
...
I often refer to some as being "delusional" or "self propagandized"
but seldom use the L word. However, if you believe none of them are
intentionally deceptive then you are either naive or being
deliberately obtuse.

I think a lot fewer people are deliberatly deceptive than is generally
believed.

Insurance: monies (voluntarily) paid to hedge against a 'bad' event
one hopes never happens and, so, one hopes to never see the money
again. You put in and only get back some degree of 'restoration'
should the covered bad event occur.

Mmm... see whole life insurance? Plenty of insurers have offer various "cash
value" policies for many decades now.

Although when it comes to life insurance, whole life is generally considered
less of a value than term (traditional) life insurance. :-)

Taxes (general), as they are supposed to be: monies levied to fund
government services to the benefit of all members of society. You put
in and receive the benefit of services just like everyone else.

No country has ever had a tax system that benefits all citizens equally.

Taxes, for 'transferring wealth': monies levied under the notion that
some people have too much so it should be extorted and given to others
(voluntary giving by the owner is called "charity."). You put in,
someone else gets it, and you get nothing for your efforts.

Some people derive some psychic income from it...

Retirement: monies socked away (invested) during productive years for
future income after one is unable to work. You put in and (if you live
long enough) you get back.

After one is unable to work? At least today in the U.S., relatively few
people are incapable of not working after they retire; I sure view retirement
more as "future income such that one can *choose* to work ...or not."

Don't you think it matters which of these someone is trying to foist
on you and whether they're actually as represented?

I think the problem is that one word (insurance/taxes/retirement) isn't enough
to describe the motivations behind social programs today; most of the time the
motivations are numerous and varied.

I am quite aware of how one can justify things to themselves but,
again, that isn't the issue. The issue is presentation and argument to
the public.

A 'justification' hidden, because it wouldn't sit well, comes pretty
darn close to the L word, don't you think? How about deliberately
knowing the listener will misconstrue the meaning?

I agree with you there. It's a fine line being being very direct with people
and trying to sugarcoat or "spin" a policy you're pushing, but clearly at some
point the later degrades into outright mispresentation and becomes morally
questionable. As a group most politicians seem to place their "morality line"
far further out than you or I would...

Heck, I feel a little uneasy when, e.g., my boss tells me to change the
setting on a graph to, say, 10dB/division so that some +/-1dB perturbations
don't "jump out" at the customer on a 1dB/division graph and "scare" them. :-)

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." You know what
"sexual relations" are, don't you? Clinton knew what people would
'hear' and what he could claim he 'meant' if questioned under oath.

Clinton was clearly being dishonest there and deserved his impeachment for it.
(Yeah, it was a waste of time, but what else are you going to do when the guy
misbehaving is the president?)

Btw, care to make a guess as to what "clean coal" means? Does it mean
sulfur free?

No, I figure it means "less sulfur than what we've traditionally been
burning."

The reason you find it "difficult to know" is because it's
deliberately obfuscated.

Yeah, I expect you're correct there too. You make some good arguments there
for being wary of cap-and-trade and I'll have to go do some more reading on
the matter...

Pelosi does you one better. She just won't let you read the damn bill
at all and "you have to pass it to find out what's in it." smirk,
wave hand, grin, wave hand, giggle

I believe the new house is going to put an end to that nonsense, at least.

You mean like Roosevelt's primary 1940 campaign promise to stay out of
the war in Europe despite his firm conviction it was necessary and
inevitable?

Hmm, I'll have to read up on that -- I'm not familiar enough with it to
comment.

Progressive-liberal-socialists and Jeffersonian Constitutionalists are
opposite ends of the spectrum.

Yeah, but the distribution is more Gaussian than bi-modal, right? -- So in
practice most people aren't as far apart as you might think.

Might be, but unfortunately for the rapist the vast majority of people will
never buy it.
Then why did you propose it as rational?

I suggested the rapist might consider it rational, not that most everyone is
slowly going to come to decide that that's the case.

It ain't ever gone significantly the 'other way' yet, short a
revolution.

Relative to 1776, perhaps so, but it certainly ebbs and flows every two years,
even if the overall trend is monotonic.

If anything, at the moment
the country seems to be more in the mood for longer mandatory sentences for
criminals rather than letting judges or juries decide.
That hardly qualifies as an increase in 'freedom', now does it?

Crime *victims* might think so.

'Text' surrounding the Constitution is not nearly so 'rare' and
'mysterious' as you try to imply.

Actually I'm not trying to imply that it's rare -- just (sometimes)
mysterious, as with the Bible. (...and I imagine several orders of magnitude
more texts regarding the Bible have been produced than those regarding the
U.S. constitution!)

people are
constantly shifting a bit on the exact interpretation.
It isn't "a bit."

A bit here and a bit there and soon we're talking major migrations...

The left has so successfully mangled the Constitution that many, if
not most, people have no idea what it really says and means.

Ouch. Well... what should we do about that? Revolt or still try to fix
things?

You either don't hear, haven't heard, or don't believe what liberals
tell you. You consume way too many resources. You not only steal it
from the rest of the world but it's unsustainable and you're either
going to learn how to live with a lot less or they'll make you.

You can only push people so far and so fast before they do revolt, though...
so perhaps our country will suffer the death of 1,000 cuts rather than having
revolts in the street, but at least it gives some folks (those with marketable
skills and/or wealth) time to get out. Heck, that was Jim's strategy for
awhile, as I recall...

even though of all the "good ideas" the funded
one are presumably the best.
Presumed by who? A government bureaucrat that's doesn't know a quark
from a quack?

Well-known and respected people working in the field. Granted, sometimes it
becomes a bit circular -- as with climate research -- but that's the best
approach I can think of.

Like snail tunnels under overpasses, airport terminals where there are
no passengers, and HD radio because, otherwise, no one would know it
worked?

I don't expect all research projects to be successful -- just most of them.
:-) The examples you've cited are, indeed, largely failures insofar as the
public getting a got bang for its buck goes.

Repeating something that was 'reported' may be unwise but it's nothing
at all like the deliberate tactic of class demonization.

Agreed, but it's hard to believe that at least *some* of the folk repeating
"$200M/day!" either were purposely out to misled or at least "didn't want to
know" if it was correct or not.

By the same token, liberals are all for quiet respect when they're
speaking. It's only when conservatives are speaking that you're to
disrupt and shout them off the stage.

Yeah, that does happen a distressing amount of time and it's sad when
liberal-types don't realize just how hypocritical it is.

A false argument based on a false premise. They do not 'chose' a cell
phone OVER toilets. They do not HAVE the choice.

Why not? Shouldn't the government just stay out of the way and figure that
sooner or later they'll voluntarily choose to pool their own meager savings
together and buy some toilets?

Uh huh. And I suppose you show the safety of air travel by pointing to
crash sites.

If, e.g., one country had a lot more crashes than another you certainly could
(...and people do...).

The price of freedom is vigilance.

Good point...

Let me ask you a question. What do you imagine the scope of 'special
interest groups' would be if government were not funding and
controlling their interests?

It'd be greatly reduced, I expect.

---Joel

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:34:10 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:
I think a lot fewer people are deliberatly deceptive than is generally
believed.
Pardon me but that is nothing but weasel words. Just 'how many' is it
that "people generally believe'? How many is "a lot fewer"?

I'd wager that if you took a poll at least half the people would agree with
the statement "politicans from politcal parties other than my own routinely
act in a deceitful manner." In actuality I would wager it's really less than
10% of the time.

I made no claims as to gross quantity and the point was simply that
there are people who try to deceive.

Agreed, I'm just trying to quantify things a little since at the end of the
day I don't think things are nearly as bad as my impression of your take on it
is. :-)

But perhaps I'm not understanding just how bad of shape you think the country
is in...

No country has ever had a tax system that benefits all citizens equally.
So, your theory is if one cannot achieve perfection then might as well
go to hell, eh?

No, just that there's little point in being unhappy that we haven't achieved
perfection.

By virtue of happenstance one may or may not perceive 'precisely equal
benefit' from each and every service but one can observe whether
they're specifically 'targeted' or deliberately excluded and whether
someone else is.

Well, in the U.S. various services certainly are specifically targeted or
excluded from various groups or individuals, but this is done on some (often
highly subjective) basis of being "fair."

The more your argument applies the more it means government should
simply not be 'in that business' to begin with.

Logically I agree with you, but pragmatically I just don't see such a
government as viable in today's society.

I suppose that's kinda what it boils down to... I consider myself a
pragmatist, and while I do have great respect for the founding fathers and the
constitution, I'm OK with considering their words and the document "living."

I'm probably a bit of a moral relativist too. :-)

Taxes, for 'transferring wealth': monies levied under the notion that
some people have too much so it should be extorted and given to others
(voluntary giving by the owner is called "charity."). You put in,
someone else gets it, and you get nothing for your efforts.
Some people derive some psychic income from it...
That won't buy a pack of bubble gum.

True, although if I really stretch the argument perhaps it'll save them from
the cost of treating an ulcer? :-)

OK, that's not really a serious argument -- I doubt very many people get as
much psychic income from being taxed a dollar (and assuming it goes to good
cause) than do people who are able to donate a dollar to the charity of their
choice.

Retirement: monies socked away (invested) during productive years for
future income after one is unable to work. You put in and (if you live
long enough) you get back.
After one is unable to work?
That was the reason for the concept.

Interesting, I didn't know that...

In both cases,. however, you're 'disabled': one by nature and the
other by 'social planner' policy.

Those Frenchies are really up in arms that their official retirement age has
been raised from 60 to 62, you know.

You're just rich enough to
chose to work or not and that could be said at any time in life,
including if you simply inherited enough to be a member of "the idle
rich."

Hmm, good point.

You also seem to ignore what you *are* told. As to the 'poor' the
clearly stated reason, by some, is "society owes" them and the rest
(only the rich if you're shooting for votes) "have an obligation." But
if you object we'll call it charity. Oh, wait, that would be voluntary
so it isn't. Ok, we'll call it 'insurance'.

See, the point is to call it something you'll like because you might
not like what it is.

Yes, this is "spin control." It's really just an "entitlement," but of course
politicians avoid that word because it has a lot of baggage -- as does "taxes"
(especially "tax cut" or "tax hike"), but not so much "insurance."

I agree with you there. It's a fine line being being very direct with
people
and trying to sugarcoat or "spin" a policy you're pushing, but clearly at
some
point the later degrades into outright mispresentation and becomes morally
questionable. As a group most politicians seem to place their "morality
line"
far further out than you or I would...
What happened to "I think a lot fewer people are deliberately
deceptive than is generally believed?"

What I'm saying is that many a politician seems to be able to engage in what
might appear to be deceptive when, in actuality, their morals are really just
looser than mine. I realize that's a slippery-slope argument (lots of
criminals will claim they didn't think they were doing anything wrong), but I
try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Clinton was clearly being dishonest there
I agree but using your own gray blobs in a gray fog logic he can
theoretically 'justify' to himself the 'technical accuracy' of what he
said.

I expect you're correct. What I'm saying up there is that Clinton was clearly
being dishonest in my (gray fog logic -- I like that phrase!) opinion; I can
accept that (at least at the time) he might not have felt he was behaving
badly. ...but clearly the house of representatives didn't believe him either!

Why did you clip and ignore where I told you the new definition?

The one about carbon footprints?

I think a lot of the carbon footprint stuff is just mumbo-jumbo.

It begins, of course, with the premise of 'man made climate change' so
I suggest you look for the "scientific" validation of the conjecture.

Indeed, AGW is clearly a very hot potato item right now -- look at its
popularity here on SED! I tend to lean towards the side that the man-made
"input" is likely nowhere near as large as most AGW supporters believe, but I
also readily admit that (1) I'm not at all an authority on the matter nor do I
really care to want to take the time to become one and (2) my stance is
definitely the "easier" one in that it doesn't imply drastic changes in the
economy and my lifestyle (as "cap and trade" might), so I tend to have a
natural bias to not want to believe it.

I also like John Larkin's point that the implicit supposition that "climate
change is always bad" needs to be questioned; some parts of the economy
clearly benefit if we, e.g., warm up the planet a bit.

AGW proponents do a terrific job of explaining, in excruciating
detail, what the conjecture is but the argument boils down to "we
believe therefore it is" and that's not "science" regardless of how
much data you collect and how many numbers you crunch.

It could qualify as a "soft science" in the same vein that, e.g., astronomy or
archaeology do: The time scales involved are so huge that you can't really do
any direct experiments, but perhaps you can do experiments or make predictions
on a smaller scale and demonstrate something useful. E.g., feed the climate
data up to (only) the year 2000 into your computer models and then see how
well it models 2000-2010...

In 2008 the people voted for, as we have been told over and over,
"change." Well, hell, that can be anything. Going bankrupt will be a
'change' but I am not convinced that's what they voted for nor am I
convinced they intended to make Pelosi 'Queen'.

"Change" is a popular wildcard at times -- 2008 was essentially the devil you
knew vs. the devil you didn't know, and the later won out.

There isn't any with regard to Jefferson. Madison, Franklin, et al
and, as I already mentioned, their scope of government is considerably
simpler than explaining 'all things'.

Didn't the freemasons or some other secret society slip a few changes into the
constitution while Jefferson and friends weren't looking?

Oops, no, sorry -- I've been taking those National Treasure movies too
seriously... :-)

You're on the brink of discovering why they call for "world
governance."

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean.

But our system is founded on the principle that political power, when
granted by the people, should be exercised as close to the people as
possible. As such, local, city, county, State, and Federal governments
have different powers and responsibilities with the Federal government
having the *least*, which will come as a surprise to many.

....especially when they look at the size of their state tax return vs. their
federal tax return...

To wit, the 'they' called States do have the power to require
insurance as a prerequisite for use of the public roads but the 'they'
called the Federal government was never granted the power to mandate
EITHER auto insurance OR health insurance.

Did the federal government have the power to impose the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act which is what compels hospitals to provide
emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, legal status, or
citizenship?

---Joel

Hi flipper,

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:10:25 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:
[percentage of deceptive people]
And how would you prove it? Especially since you've argued it's not
worth figuring out anyway. In fact, how do you even arrive at the
opinion other than simply 'wishing' it were so?

I can't prove it. I arrive at my opinion based on how people I've observed in
"the real world" behave when they're just giong about doing their regular
jobs, shopping for groceries, taking the kids to soccer practice, etc. vs. how
they behave on the Internet or while at political rallies.

I gather you're trying to make the argument that since 'everyone' (you
moderated with half) makes the same claim about 'the other guy' then
the claim is universally nothing more than partisan perception.

I won't go so far as to say "universally," but "typically" would apply.

Face it, the mark of a good liar is he sounds at least 'plausible' so
that 'two sides' may appear on the surface to be 'similar' means
nothing.

Agreed, although I don't think there are very many good liars out there
either. :-)

Worst economic situation since the great depression with virtually
universal agreement the country is accelerating toward bankruptcy at
an unprecedented rate and you think things are peachy keen?

I probably am wearing rose-colored glasses...

On this graph things don't look so bad:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html -
- but I've seen other illustrations where things look much more dire.

There's more than one issue. Obviously the one above but you also
don't seem to give a whit whether anyone bothers with the Constitution
so, and I repeat, what's the point of having one?

I actually do give a few whits, just not nearly as many as you. :-)

Look, I'd have to admit here that you're in a much better position to debate
all this than I am -- you appear to be more knowledgable on the topic than I
am and I think you're more passionate about it. I do admire that, and like to
think your input to this has taught me a lot. But at the end of the day, when
it comes to the Constitution and how it holds this country together, I am in a
bit of a "gray fog logic" about it all.

We aren't quibbling about gnawing on the edge of perfection. We're
talking about economic collapse, a dead Constitution, and whether
we're going to have a country based on individual freedom, as the
founding fathers created it, or one ruled by a self anointed elite
class who claim omnipotent power over the ignorant, dumb, incompetent
chattel.

I think the "dead (well, dying, at least) constitution" and "country based on
individual freedom" is a ship that sailed some ~60-70 years ago now. I don't
think we're at a precipice that we're to fall over -- it's more like the
founding fathers scaled up a nearly-vertical cliff side back in 1787, and
while there were the occasional steep hills since then (e.g., 1791, 1861,
possibly the 1930s, etc.), in general since then we've been on relatively
level ground with a few rolling hills here and there... although the overall
trend since 1787 has been back towards the ground.

and while I do have great respect for the founding fathers and the
constitution, I'm OK with considering their words and the document "living."
I must have done a poor job for you to have the Gaul to even
contemplate uttering those words again.

:-) -- I'm attempting to wrap up the discussion in that I don't think I'm
really adding much value to it any longer and we're largely just re-hashing
things already said.

"Spin control" is another of those phrases that's been mangled to mean
nothing, or anything depending on how you view it.

"Spin" means emphasizing a thing in your favor that the listener
doesn't think is the 'important' thing. Like, say, loosing a historic
number of House seats and claiming it's better than things could have
been. You're trying to 'spin' the perception.

Of course, you could also just flat out lie for the same purpose but
to lump that strategy in with 'spin' makes the word meaningless
because there's already a word for the other: lie.

Hmm, OK -- I agree "spin" isn't really the right word there, but there has to
be a phrase for when you try to convince someone of your "interpretation" of
events without resorting to lying. Not really "puffery" either...

You won't buy this horse manure if I call it horse manure so I'll call
it a perfumed beauty facial pack.

Any business doing that would be hanged, drawn and quartered but you
apparently think it's perfectly fine for government.

It's a matter of degree -- no one advertises hot dogs based on how they're
made, nor does anyone trying to sell you that perfumed beauty facial pack
prominently mention that it contains cow dung, for instance.

As an interesting side note to the euphemism, women were burned at the
stake out of a concern for 'public decency'. Look up "hanged, drawn
and quartered" and you'll see why.

Even Ronald Reagan promoted a "kinder, gentler nation?" :-)

opinion; I can
accept that (at least at the time) he might not have felt he was behaving
badly. ...but clearly the house of representatives didn't believe him
either!
As I said, that statement is not why he was impeached.

Wikipedia seeems to think it was? Quote
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_cl...n_the_Senate):

"The two charges passed in the House (largely on the basis of Republican
support, but with a handful of Democratic votes as well) were for perjury and
obstruction of justice. The perjury charge arose from Clinton's testimony
about his relationship to Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit
(later dismissed, appealed and settled for $850,000 brought by former Arkansas
state employee Paula Jones."

Sounds funny doesn't it? On the other hand I once though "next they'll
be telling you what to eat" sounded funny but that's the popular rage
now.

San Francisco banning Happy Meals seems pretty silly, IMO...

Now you're into a different area with "models" and they've been trying
to validate the climate models with the historical temperature record,
a task not made any easier by the gurus cooking the books. By that I
mean, even a good model isn't going to match bad data, now is it?

True, although I would like to believe that a good chunk of atmospheric data
collected over, say, the past 100 years at least had assigned error
tolerances, and if you know what the input error tolerances are, you can then
figure out the output error tolerances... although I suppose they could easily
be so large as to make the actual prediction meaningless. (I.e., you don't
need a fancy computer model to tell you that next year's average temperature
will be within +/-10 degrees of this year's...)

Perhaps we just don't have enough high-quality data yet to try to build good
models from yet.

But, back to models, to begin with they can't make the models work and
it's worse than that because a model 'working' is not proof the
underlying conjecture is correct.

The later doesn't really bother me -- if you have a model that makes useful
(accurate) predictions, I'm not too worried about how the model is built.
(Indeed, the folks building pyramids and cathedrals had various tables and
formula that let them perform very good architectual engineering, even though
their "models" weren't derived from physics directly.) The important thing to
try to understand is the limitations of the model -- where it will lead you
astray. (E.g., everyone here knows that it's really electrons that flow in
wires, yet we still use the model of positive current flow.)

When people perceive a 'problem' they want 'change', namely the
problem to go away.

That doesn't mean 'anything' is fine.

Ow, I've got a leg cramp. Okay, we'll cut it off. Whoa!!!!! That's not
what I had in mind.

Well, it won't 'hurt' any more.

And it's certainly a 'change', now isn't it?

Yes, but it's a safe bet that no Republican nor Democrat who wins the
primaries is such a radical candidate that they're going to be able to do the
equivalent of cutting the leg off the country. Politicians, I suspect, *wish*
they had that much power!

On EMTALA... I agree with your analysis (...and I personally think EMTALA was
generally a good idea, but given the analysis, I can understand why some
people would disagree).

---Joel