Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model
Sorry, in my discussion of biomass, I did not mention US and world energy use for comparison or Brazil. Brazil could provide itself with the energy it uses from biomass. According to http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/br.html Brazil has 60 million hectares of arable land. This means a possible biomass output of 12 x 10^18 joules (12 Exajoules) per year. Currently, Brazil consumes about 5 Exajoules/year of oil. (The other energy sources listed by the CIA are much smaller.) So, Brazil should be able both to feed itself and provide itself with enough energy. The United States is another matter. In 2000, the US consumed about 10^20 joules of marketed energy , i.e. a rate of 100 Exajoules per year or 3.29 terawatts. (I cannot remember my source.) If it uses all its arable land for biomass, and grows nothing for food, it could produce approximate 36 Exajoules per year. According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html Global energy use in 2001 was 404 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) or 422 Exajoules, a rate of 13 terawatts This is a terawatt higher than total (marketed) global energy use in 1995, which was 383 Exajoules or 12 terawatts, according to http://www.cpast.org/Articles/fetch.adp?topicnum=13 My understanding is that about 5.5 million Exajoules of sunlight strike the upper atmosphere of the Earth each year and about 250,000 Exajoules of that make it to Earth's surface. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model
In round numbers, according to http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html the world has a little over 500 million hectares of arable land, which could produce approximate 100 Exajoules/yr if people starved. However, the world uses over 400 Exajoules/yr. Biomass, without genetic engineering, will not do, except for places like Brazil. Thus, the economic alternatives are: * Reduce the use of energy by non-inventive means; that is to say, get people to watch a Lucas film at home rather than drive a car to a theater. Since the poor tend to consume more energy intensive goods than the rich, who consume financial services and the like (speaking of the incremental increase and considering groups, not individuals), this means attempting to prevent the poor from getting a little richer. In rich countries, the unemployed or underemployed non-rich consume less. In poor countries, successful efforts by rich countries to keep them poor will cause them to consume less or at least, not more. * Invent and innovate alternatives; that is to say, support education, research, and development for the inventions, such as cheaper-to-install insulation, and support new companies taking on older more established companies for the innovations. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Matt Miller on SS reform
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/opinion/11mill.html?pagewanted=print New York Times, May 11, 2005 Wanted: Responsible Demagoguery By MATT MILLER You'd never guess from the Democratic hysteria that President Bush's plan to progressively index Social Security is an idea we liberals may one day want to embrace. So farsighted Democrats who want to (1) win back power and (2) use that power to fix big problems should quit carping about Bush's evil cuts and punish him instead with what I call Responsible Demagoguery: harsh politics that leaves sound policy intact. Why do I say this? Start with this poorly understood fact: Under today's system of wage indexed benefits, every new cohort of retirees is guaranteed a higher level of real benefits than the previous generation. Workers retiring in 2025, for example, are scheduled to receive payments 20 percent higher in real terms than today's retirees. Today's teenagers are slated to get a 60 percent increase. When Democrats cry about cuts, they mean trims from these higher levels. A Democrat might ask: Why would we ever change this way of calculating benefits, other than from some Scroogelike desire to slow the rise in future benefits? Well, we probably wouldn't think about it if we weren't on the cusp of the biggest financial crunch in American history. But we are. And with the baby boomers' retirement looming, Democrats need to think beyond Social Security alone to think intelligently about achieving progressive goals. Indeed, if you care about social justice and economic growth, the big policy question for the next generation is this: How do we square the needs of seniors with the needs of the rest of America, at levels of taxation that don't strangle the economy? Those who say today's Social Security structure is sacred are arguing that our top priority - before we even consider anything else - must be to guarantee that every senior will enjoy real benefit increases in perpetuity. But why is this fair or wise when there is no trust fund for the 45 million uninsured, or for the working poor or for poor children? Those who say hands off Social Security, but who (like me) want government to spend big money on these other needs, are implicitly saying that taxes as a share of G.D.P. will have to rise sharply. Today, thanks to Bush's misguided tax cuts, federal taxes are around 16.5 percent of G.D.P., lower than at any time in 50 years. Even Newt Gingrich admits that taxes must rise as the boomers age. But to pay for a fuller progressive agenda while leaving Social Security and Medicare untouched (and without running crazy Bush-style deficits), federal taxes would need to rise past late-Clinton-era levels, 21 percent of G.D.P., toward something like 28 percent by 2030. Maybe that makes sense. Or maybe it will mean a descent into tax-induced sloth. Or maybe talking about such levels of taxation in the U.S. is a political fantasy. The point is that Social Security is not something to fix in a vacuum. Once Democrats adopt this broader vision, they may find they're open to fair trims in future benefits as part of a blueprint that sustainably pursues progressive goals for all Americans, not just the elderly. We know Democrats aren't making sense here because their chief argument is that progressive indexing (to prices, not wages) would cut retirement incomes too deeply by 2075. This may be true. But it's a little like worrying that Captain Kirk's phaser may malfunction in that year as well. By 2075, for all we know, genetically engineered seniors may be living in retirement utopias on Jupiter. Or people may be fit and routinely working at age 90. A million things will have changed, just as Social Security's benefit design has changed in the past. If, instead, you look out 20 to 30 years, the benefit trims consistent with Bush's idea are modest (and for low earners, unchanged). If there's a problem, 76 million stampeding boomers will make sure politicians fix it. This isn't a case for joining hands with Mr. Bush; it's a case for keeping political opportunism and policy conviction separate in the Democratic mind. Responsibly Demagogic Democrats will blast Bush for wanting to borrow fresh trillions to create dubious new private accounts. But they won't dis progressive indexing on the merits, even though it's a juicy gazillion-dollar pseudo-cut. I know this is asking a lot. Republicans didn't demagogue responsibly when they caricatured Hillarycare as socialist back in the 1990's. But being a Democrat may mean being a little better even when you're bad. Note: Maureen Dowd is on book leave until July 6. Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the author of The 2 Percent Solution, will be a guest columnist for the next four weeks. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Currently, Brazil consumes about 5 Exajoules/year of oil. (The other energy sources listed by the CIA are much smaller.) The CIA is, as usual, wrong. Oil is an important part, its part is increasing, but it is not even close to 50%. The major energy source is hidroelectric. So, Brazil should be able both to feed itself and provide itself with enough energy. Yes - but that is the current situation. Energy consumption tends to increase. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model
At 09:16 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Robert J. Chassell wrote: Currently, Brazil consumes about 5 Exajoules/year of oil. (The other energy sources listed by the CIA are much smaller.) The CIA is, as usual, wrong. Oil is an important part, its part is increasing, but it is not even close to 50%. The major energy source is hidroelectric. So, Brazil should be able both to feed itself and provide itself with enough energy. Yes - but that is the current situation. Energy consumption tends to increase. To be precise, energy consumption tends to increase _faster than population_ or _average per capita_ energy consumption tends to increase. So the problem is that while food consumption ought to increase more or less at the same rate as population, the energy requirement increases much faster. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:16:57 -0400, JDG wrote At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, you wrote: Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. Shirley, you can't be serious? The Pew numbers show that left-leaning or left-leaning/centrist/ unaffiliated is the mainstream, don't they? Certainly one cannot argue from this data that conservatism is mainstream -- it shows that 71 percent of Americans are not conservative. Those in possession of conservative beliefs appear to be in the minority by a margin that if applied to voting results would be called a landslide. It seems to me that one cannot assume that people vote for candidates because they share their political views. Seems crazy, doesn't it? Raises the question of why a whole lot of people in the mainstream vote for politicians whose political views are close to marginal. How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% And Nick Arnett wrote: Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. Shirley, you can't be serious? The Pew numbers show that left-leaning or left-leaning/centrist/ unaffiliated is the mainstream, don't they? First of all, that is not what Dave Land proposed. He proposed that 17% was the mainstream. Secondly, it appears that the Pew Report rather arbitrarily grouped things into threes. If one considers Conservative Democrats to be part of the Moderate/Centrist bloc, the analysis changes quite dramatically. How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? I'm sure that much of it has to do prioritizing key issues. For example, many people would never vote for a pro-segregation candidate or a pro-baby-killing candidate, regardless of the candidates' views on other issues. On the other hand, I know that if an election were held in 2002, I would probably have voted for a pro-choice pro-Iraq-war candidate over a pro-life anti-Iraq-war candidate. So, in that sense, I would have voted for a candidate with whom I very fundamentally disagreed. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jane Galt on retirement risk and pensions
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005309.html May 11, 2005 Regulating risk There's a debate that we should be having in this country, about risk, but aren't, because everyone's trading scare stories about Social Security. In a follow-up post, Matthew Yglesias argues with Alex Tabarrok about whether the United Airlines bankruptcy, in which they have just shed their pensions, means that Social Security is more obviously bad, or more obviously good, than it was before. (Will Wilkinson chimes in here). Defined benefit programmes are risky, Alex points out, because when conditions change, they tend to become insolvent. That's why the government needs to have one, argues Matthew; with corporate programmes blowing up left and right, people need some safe harbor in their sea of troubles. (That's one coherent metaphor, if you imagine the pension system to be something like Pearl Harbor. Luckily, that's not very hard to imagine.) Who's right? Well, basically, there are three entities that can bear retirement risk: a company, a person, or a government. There are problems with all three. People are too small to be actuarially sound; they can be wiped out by adverse events. Also, some of them are incredibly stupid about money; others like to gamble. The defined benefit corporate pension plan has been, for a long time, the holy grail of liberals. It was lavish and safe. It is also dying. Not that it was ever that prevalent in the first place, mind you; liberals who lionize the Golden Days of the fifties and sixties seem to believe that everyone worked for either IBM or GM, when in fact most jobs, just like today, were with small businesses. But the corporate pension was certainly *more* prevalent. Unfortunately, time has revealed its cracks; companies aren't very good vehicles for managing this sort of risk. Time is the biggest one; pensions require companies to plan over time horizons that span 30 or 40 years. That was fine in the cozy, protected, and highly regulated environment of the 50s and 60s, but when the market changed, the pension promises couldn't. This is what (among other things) is dragging down the major airlines; I expect that within the next decade we will also see Ford and GM default on their pension promises. The government, which is an actuarially sound pool, seems like a natural to take over insuring away this kind of risk. Unfortunately, government has its own problems. For one, it is even more rigidly unable to cope with changes in the pool than an old industrial firm coping with an intransigent union. T his is saying a lot. But it is justified. Look at Medicare, which everyone except the AARP agrees is a total financial disaster which will destroy the fiscal health of the United States unless something is done to control costs. Our politicians are well aware of the problem, and so they feverishly worked to--tack on a prescription drug benefit that will add trillions to the bill. At least when companies have insufficient accrued assets to meet their accrued liabilities, the government forces them to trim benefits or raise contributions. Government programmes, on the other hand, have a tendency not to self correct until the crisis is upon us--by which time the nature of the fix has gone from painful to catastrophic. And taxation to support government insurance programmes has a high deadweight loss. What's the best solution, then? I'd say we're converging on it: a system of minimal government insurance for those who have been unlucky, in life or investments, combined with a regulated forced savings plan to make sure that those who aren't unlucky aren't tempted to free-ride on society, and incentives to employers to encourage additional savings among employees. This won't make anyone ideologically happy. But it seems like the least intrusive, most fair, most economically sound possibility. Update Something I meant to say, but somehow forgot to, is that people have advantages, as well as disadvantages, the chief one being that they are the best judges of their ability to work, their basic needs, and the tradeoff between current and future consumption. When someone has a pension, that person should retire at the earliest year it will allow him to take a full benefit. On the other hand, when a person has assets, they have to decide between consuming more leisure now (by retiring) or consuming more goods later (by continuing working and leaving their nest egg untouched). In the first scenario, there's no tradeoff-you cannot maximise your later consumption by continuing to work. Given that older people have skills and experience that are generally valuable, it is in the best interest of society that they continue contributing those skills to the labor pool for as long as possible, rather than living off the work of others. People are also better judges of what is the basic standard of living they will be happy with than the government. (Though there's new behavioral research showing that
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? A more likely explanation is that your average voter is lazy and insecure. They are lazy when it comes to searching out the facts and doing any kind of work that goes along with making an informed decision. They are insecure in that they will cling to a comforting lie rather than confront an uncomfortable truth. This makes them manipulable. It is only after bad information and bad choices that nose holding at the polls will occur. I have faith in American voters in the long run, but in the short run they resemble skittish herd beasts. xponent Shake 'N' Bake Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 11:28 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? A more likely explanation is that your average voter is lazy and insecure. They are lazy when it comes to searching out the facts and doing any kind of work that goes along with making an informed decision. They are insecure in that they will cling to a comforting lie rather than confront an uncomfortable truth. This makes them manipulable. It is only after bad information and bad choices that nose holding at the polls will occur. Sometimes it may be because the perfect (or at least best) candidate (in my opinion as a voter) is defeated in the primary and so when it comes to the general election all of the available candidates have something wrong with them (again, in my opinion as a voter), so I either have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils or sit this election out, but as a good citizen I feel it is my duty to vote. so . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 03:26 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Deborah wrote: Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is good, but their intervention has been illegal and unapproved by the UN. You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. You _cannot_ do both. raises eyebrows Do you really live in such a black-and-white, either/or world? Who are you to tell me I shouldn't go ahead and act if I can't get agreement because somebody(s) being weaselly, when I see clearly that action is needed? Because you have apepared to argue on this list that the US should not have launched Gulf War II in part because it did not have international consensus behind us. They are fundamentally inconsistent positions. According to you. I did my best to stay on the right side of policy and law, but do you think that ANY physician practicing hasn't had to twist, finesse, or outright slip the system in order to get at least one of their patients needed care? But you appear to be lambasting the Bush Administration for doing precisely that! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honoring soldiers on Mothers Day
At 01:13 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Deborah wrote: I had no idea -- but must admit that I was disappointed by the recent unimpressive voting turnout by women. War, even necessary war, is antithetical to what we are taught as girls. Are you suggesting that there are inherent differences among the sexes? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 07:34 PM 5/12/2005 -0700,Nick Arnett wrote: Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Whose ranking? I said one of the top 5, because I think that it would be difficult to place Saddam Hussein's Iraq lower than 5 among the worst regimes on Earth. I'm not going to argue with anyone who says that the DPRK or Zimbabwe is/are worse. After that, Iraq is in a mix with places like Turkmenistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, Togo, and Sudan.I think you'd be straining to place all of those as worse than Iraq, though, so Top 5 is about right. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 03:43 PM 5/12/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first- term/documents/1147.cfm In the elision represented above by [a] was the name of H. L. Hunt, the father of Ray Hunt, who was the finance chairman of the RNC Victory 2000 Committee, appointed by G. W. Bush. Their number may have been negligible in 1954 and they may have appeared to be stupid to the President, but they now are in power and believe that Jesus is telling them how to rule the world. *That* is a lesson that the Democrats had better learn and remember. Did you just accuse Christian politicians of proposing to abolish Social Security, unemployment benefits, labor laws, and farm programs??? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
State Secret: Thousands Secretly Sterilized
State Secret: Thousands Secretly Sterilized N.C. Woman Among 65,000 Sterilized by Gov't, Often Without Their Knowledge, in Twentieth Century Excerpts from article... From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing. The procedures that were done here were done to poor folks, said Steven Selden, a professor at the University of Maryland. They were thought to be poor because they had bad genes or bad inheritance, if you will. And so they would be the focus of the sterilization. http://tinyurl.com/a84d5 http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2286241B http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=708780 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jane Galt on retirement risk and pensions
On 5/15/05, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005309.html May 11, 2005 Regulating risk There's a debate that we should be having in this country, about risk, but aren't, because everyone's trading scare stories about Social Security. In a follow-up post, Matthew Yglesias argues with Alex Tabarrok about whether the United Airlines bankruptcy, in which they have just shed their pensions, means that Social Security is more obviously bad, or more obviously good, than it was before. (Will Wilkinson chimes in here). Defined benefit programmes are risky, Alex points out, because when conditions change, they tend to become insolvent. That's why the government needs to have one, argues Matthew; with corporate programmes blowing up left and right, people need some safe harbor in their sea of troubles. (That's one coherent metaphor, if you imagine the pension system to be something like Pearl Harbor. Luckily, that's not very hard to imagine.) Who's right? Well, basically, there are three entities that can bear retirement risk: a company, a person, or a government. There are problems with all three. People are too small to be actuarially sound; they can be wiped out by adverse events. Also, some of them are incredibly stupid about money; others like to gamble. snip Who is Jane Galt? ~Maru /had to ask ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honoring soldiers on Mothers Day
JDG wrote: At 01:13 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Deborah wrote: I had no idea -- but must admit that I was disappointed by the recent unimpressive voting turnout by women. War, even necessary war, is antithetical to what we are taught as girls. Are you suggesting that there are inherent differences among the sexes? Has anyone suggested that they are not? -- Doug Large mamalian protuberences maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 05:54 AM 5/4/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: why is increased anti-poverty spending so important to you? I'm not advocating spending, Well, you managed to lambaste Republicans in several posts for not spending enough JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A dependable safety net (was Re: Social Security)
At 07:58 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: In a plan that creates a shortfall by moving money into private accounts, progressive indexing means that the the most needy of the needy will be hurt less than everyone else. If we were actually solving the problems of hunger, health care and education, then perhaps it would make sense to move our investment in Social Security, which is an investment in today's needy people, to private markets that might benefit future needy people if the investments perform well. But we're not; poverty, hunger and illiteracy are rising. First, that shortfall is only relevant if it causes the US to default on Social Security promises - which I think that you and I would both agree is extremely unlikely. Secondly, Social Security has no investments, so that's a bit of a non sequitur. Thirdly, Social Security it is inaccurate to describe Social Security as merely an investment in today's needy people. After all, Bill Gates is going to get a Social Security check. Moreover, Social Security provides some *increased* benefits based on having worked longer, or worked for higher wages, which I would expect to be inversely correlated to need. Lastly, your position as described above would lead to the logical conclusion that one should not save so long as there are needy people - that that money would be better spend on charity than on savings. I don't see anything wrong with using our common wealth and our government to provide assurance that there will be a dependable safety net. The question is not: Should there be a government safety net' The question is: Should the government construct policies such that as few people as possible need the safety net. Isn't that the very purpose of government -- to band together for the common good? What greater measure of the common good is there than the willingness to sacrifice for the neediest? That is one proposed measure - I believe by Galbraith. Another would be the Pareto Criterion - any policy which makes no one in the society worse off. Another would be the Pragmatic Criterion - the policy that does the most good for the most people. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honoring soldiers on Mothers Day
JDG wrote: At 01:13 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Deborah wrote: I had no idea -- but must admit that I was disappointed by the recent unimpressive voting turnout by women. War, even necessary war, is antithetical to what we are taught as girls. Are you suggesting that there are inherent differences among the sexes? There are certainly differences *between* the sexes imposed by the culture, which is where we are taught. (There are also *inherent* differences between the sexes, not the least of which is the general ability to lactate or lack of that ability.) Julia Lactation Nation Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jane Galt on retirement risk and pensions
Maru Dubshinki wrote: Who is Jane Galt? Ouch! Good catch! Quite obvious and I didn't even think of it.G xponent Randissimo Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm clearly out of *your* main stream... Main stream of what, I'm not entirely sure, but I am happy to be out of it. Dave Well, I like to think about politics, you like to posture about them. It's not surprising that we'd come to different positions, is it? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam, et al, I'm writing to retract my previous message. I reject your categorization of me as being out of the mainstream. Moreover, I found your message a little short on what I'll call intellectual honesty. I was pointing out - using a hypothetical - that your statements didn't even vaguely resemble rational thinking. It's a fairly obvious technique. But, again, I like to _reason_ about politics, and that does make it hard. First, you admittedly pulled your numbers out of your ... um ... head, whereas this thread was discussing *actual* numbers from a poll that has been conducted for 15 years by the Pew Research Center. Guess which ones I consider to have more weight? Guess how much I care? Since I was using a hypothetical, they weren't supposed to be real numbers. Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. Only if you believe that _conservatives_, that is, people who are _actually defined as conservatives_, Conservative Democrats, are liberals. That is an odd definition. As a rule of thumb, if you ask people, are you conservative, moderate, or liberal they'll split ~40/40/20 pretty consistently. The Pew thing was based on a series of very strange questions - I took the categorization myself and ended up in a very odd place. It's not surprising that you scored as a liberal. If you're purely doctrinaire in what you believe, it's easy for a poll to categorize you. If you are a little more thoughtful in your positions, it's harder. Guess which one I think is more likely to be useful? In particular, the categories are not continuous, obviously enough. You have most Americans, and you have people who think that, say, the United States needs the approval of Communist China, Russia, and France in order to act in the world. These are not, in fact, positions on a continuum. The difference in our positions really comes to this. You selected a small amount of data, took it completely out of context, and then distorted it to support your own positions. Kind of like what you think President Bush did, I guess, but more blatant. On the other hand, I looked at what the data actually meant and pointed out that your assertion - essentially, the single largest group must be the mainstream - even when it was only 17% of the total - is, on its face, nonsensical. Which one of us has problems with intellectual honesty, again? At least this time you didn't quote me maliciously out of context, so I guess you're improving. Small mercies, I suppose. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jane Galt on retirement risk and pensions
* Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ouch! Good catch! Quite obvious and I didn't even think of it.G Her real name is Megan McArdle. Despite the reference to Atlas Shrugged, she is not your typical Randian. Perhaps a kindler, gentler, smarter, more...generally feasible flavor. Although she did endorse Bush, which subtracts a few points...but her blog is well worth reading. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
JDG said First of all, that is not what Dave Land proposed. He proposed that 17% was the mainstream. No, he did not. He said As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. Note the key phrase: one might say. Also, note that the word mainstream is in quotation marks. Dave emphasizes that the numbers are *as defined by the Pew report* [emphasis his]: Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% JDG, you weaken your argments when you take Dave's words out of context. For example, you also queried whether Conservative Democrats should be considered `Left-leaning'. That is a good question. I have not the foggiest idea whether Pew-defined `Conservative Democrats' are for borrowing and spending, like the current Republican administration, or for government frugality, like the current Democrats; whether they are for life-inducing policies, such as abortion when necessary, or for death (over all), by apposing such policies; whether they are for public investment in long term activities, like the invention and innovation of sustainable energy sources, or for public investment in short term activities only. But who is going to think about that question when you give the appearance of disregarding what people say? I doubt you want to become known someone to be ignored as irrelevant. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honoring soldiers on Mothers Day
At Deborah wrote: ... War, even necessary war, is antithetical to what we are taught as girls. JDG wrote Are you suggesting that there are inherent differences among the sexes? Please note her language: she said `taught'. In ordinary language, `taught' implies something other than `inherent'. Perhaps Deborah does have opinions about inherent differences, but from her statement that you quoted no one can tell. She just talked about what girls were taught. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: JDG, you weaken your argments when you take Dave's words out of context. For example, you also queried whether Conservative Democrats should be considered `Left-leaning'. That is a good question. No, it is not a good question. This whole thing is really silly. Start with a label liberal, and then come up with another 2 labels. You can bet that one of the other two labels will have the plurality. If instead you add 20 more labels, then liberal will probably have plurality. Play around with the labels and you can get whatever you want. It is just silly. Why the need to arbitrarily pigeonhole? We already have the labels Democrat and Republican. And the Republicans have been winning lately. I'd venture a guess that the Democrats would have done better recently if the more left-leaning ones had less influence on the party. Robert, you weaken your arguments by engaging in this silly slicing, dicing, and labeling. Do you want people to ignore you as irrelevant? I have not the foggiest idea whether Pew-defined `Conservative Democrats' are for borrowing and spending, like the current Republican administration, or for government frugality, like the current Democrats; Ha, the Democrats frugal? No. Both Democrats and Republicans have failed to fix Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which together have a present value deficit in the tens of trillions of dollars. The main difference that I see between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Republicans spend more and tax less, and the Democrats spend more and tax more. Granted, the latter is better than the former, but hardly frugal. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
In any case, labels aside, the center is pretty much by definition the mainstream. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq
I came across a thought provoking article today by Christopher HItchens that relates to our recent discussion on what's going better in Iraq for the Iraqis. Excerpt: Ian McEwan observed recently that there were, in effect, two kinds of people: those who could have used or recognized the words Abu Ghraib a few years ago, and those to whom it became a new term only last year. Whole article: http://www.slate.com/id/2118306/ JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On May 15, 2005, at 11:03 AM, JDG wrote: At 03:43 PM 5/12/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first- term/documents/1147.cfm In the elision represented above by [a] was the name of H. L. Hunt, the father of Ray Hunt, who was the finance chairman of the RNC Victory 2000 Committee, appointed by G. W. Bush. Their number may have been negligible in 1954 and they may have appeared to be stupid to the President, but they now are in power and believe that Jesus is telling them how to rule the world. *That* is a lesson that the Democrats had better learn and remember. Did you just accuse Christian politicians of proposing to abolish Social Security, unemployment benefits, labor laws, and farm programs??? I was referring, in a manner evidently too snide and oblique for you, to the President and his crew. Or perhaps you're only pretending not to understand. I didn't say that they *are* getting their instructions from Jesus, only that *they* believe so, and act as though they had that authority. You may disagree. I suspect it is the case. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 15, 2005, at 12:52 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm clearly out of *your* main stream... Main stream of what, I'm not entirely sure, but I am happy to be out of it. Dave Well, I like to think about politics, you like to posture about them. It's not surprising that we'd come to different positions, is it? You persist in making personal attacks on me. Knock it off. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 15, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? This does not appear to be the case. People often vote *against* their self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved by the understanding that people vote their identities, not their interests. The Republican party did a superior job in the past election of appealing to the middle in this way. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq
On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:06:38 -0400, John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I came across a thought provoking article today by Christopher HItchens that relates to our recent discussion on what's going better in Iraq for the Iraqis. Excerpt: Ian McEwan observed recently that there were, in effect, two kinds of people: those who could have used or recognized the words Abu Ghraib a few years ago, and those to whom it became a new term only last year. Whole article: http://www.slate.com/id/2118306/ If the Abu Ghraib incidents were an isolated incident he might have a point, but as the Bush administration has demonstrated disdain for the Geneva Convention and a willingness to condone torture in many other instances, his diatribe falls flat. -- Doug The buck stops where? maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
