Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:12, John Williams wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend the country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists decide they'd rather not pay for that? Defending the country is a public good, not redistributing wealth. Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Economic superstitions Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Perhaps there could. Still not redistributing wealth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Rceeberger wrote: Even the Anchorage paper endorses Obama. YeahI'd call that interestingG xponent Social Movement Maru rob Wait until Palin tries to fire the editorial board of the paper. :) (um .. ma'am, they don't exactly work for you .. OK, that's it, *you're* fired!) We're going to shape the future of jurisprudence, the laws that sustain our whole society. Or shove somebody in there to strike down those God-awful excuses for laws the Republicans are passing. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: not so, the public seems to have swallowed the latest redistribution of wealth upwards. More like the politicians stuffed it down our throats. and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the bush/cheny agenda, like they believe that real threat to america was terrorism, and now socialism... I'd like to be able to vomit up chunks of it. Julia p.s. if I need to refrain from using bodily functions in my analogies in the future for someone else's comfort, let me know Given that that's possibly the most vividly picturesque thing I've ever heard from you, no complaints from me. :) Giving kickbacks to the wealthy isn't creating wealth, it's just giving kickbacks to the wealthy. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: Let's just put an end to ALL redistribution of wealth. Let's start with the public schools and hospitals and keep going with the hatchet until nobody gets *anything* that they didn't pay for. Toll booths on every road and park! Go put a dollar in the streetlight, honey, I think the kids will be home soon. Don't bother dialing 911 unless you have your credit card handy. And remember, the military only protects you to the extent that you're paying their bill. Pay no taxes and the terrorists are welcome to have you. I think I might be channeling Heinlein, come to think of it. Nick Then again, an armed society is a polite society .. It should be a fight! We disagree on something important and immediate. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:52 PM, John Williams wrote: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] We do need need someone to ride in and save us from disaster! God will save us, if we have faith. I can think of a segment of the population who are counting on God saving them, who are very likely going to be unpleasantly surprised when they're still here when the things they were praying for start happening. Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Economic superstitions Maru Black water is a highly private militia just like Andrew Carnegie’s forces under Alan Pinkerton’s railroad militia which evolved into the secret police of the American Presidency under Abraham Lincoln. Those who served the private robber Barons are the same through out history and their interest are as narrow as their master. Barbitary http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/75/75we14.htm This reality is what we privates of the police state practice and the types of chevrons we wear are only material patched upon our arms. We can recite Voltaire or any scion from the Jacobean era it is just little difference in a crew cut marine and the skint head individual looking out for his own private terror using his own definition. We still come back to some private thesis or the anti-thesis and the beat goes on leading us into some mindless depth of the hell of a barbarian concept. There is no justification for the destruction of the people and denial of their wealth or the taking of the wealth of nations. It can not justify back pack bombs of the martyr or those 5000 lbs bombs dropped on communities of men from B-2 bombers. Use the clean kill scenario on yourself see how that comes out. Such slaughter definitely can not be justified by the idea of private property, boarders and fences, and the taking of labor and denial of trust. I know because been there done that http://kink9570.wordpress.com/author/kink9570/ What is constitution and laws if the people are not willing to defend a rule of law. Can the private party depart from the structured guides and deny each private person from following the same conduct. These invitations to chaos and intrigue remind me of someone like George Washington foot on the bow of the little boat crossing the Potomac with the caption under the painting saying “We are Winter Soldiers” with the subtext Father of a Free Republic. It was something drastically wrong with that picture because he held slaves as private property on his Virginia plantation. http://nvisibleink.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/morris-j-peavey-jr/ Now quote : Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. -- Original message from William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:12, John Williams wrote: William T Goodall So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend the country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists decide they'd rather not pay for that? Defending the country is a public good, not redistributing wealth. Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Economic superstitions Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
this is quite illogical what democrat has spent more than the present republican president? Check this out at a price of $10 to $15 billion dollars a month there you have it---your more than $700 billion dollars short fall. Cum on yall I'm sure yall can count and think better than the crew you keep putting in control over the wealth which the people create--give me a break! -- Original message from Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. North of Austin, TX. Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
Given that I was talking about how much a hypothetical Democrat would spend vs. what a hypothetical Libertarian would spend, I don't see how dragging a Republican into the mix refutes my statement. Your statement is irrelevant in the context of what was said. I'm not going to argue against your point (in fact, I think it's quite valid!), just point out that it doesn't address what was under discussion in the thread you're quoting. Julia On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is quite illogical what democrat has spent more than the present republican president? Check this out at a price of $10 to $15 billion dollars a month there you have it---your more than $700 billion dollars short fall. Cum on yall I'm sure yall can count and think better than the crew you keep putting in control over the wealth which the people create--give me a break! -- Original message from Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. North of Austin, TX. Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Anecdote seen on the internet: Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. The analogy is full of crap: 1) Obama's proposal raises the top two marginal tax rates and capital gains rate by a few percentage points, back to the Clinton-era level. At best, this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe $.50, and even then, only if the waiter was in the top few percent of the richest people in the country, and that money for the homeless person also went to pay for things like his town's police force, fire dept, hospital and schools. 2) Our current tax system under Bush, which McCain supports, is ALREADY a progressive tax system. The wealthy CURRENTLY pay more in taxes. Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is already going on and has been going on for probably at least 40-50 years. The argument here is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage points. And yet the republican reaction is like this: Top marginal tax rate of 35% on the richest 2% of Americans? Hell yeah, all god-loving America supporters stand behind this! Top marginal tax rate of 39.6% on the richest 2% of Americans? It's socialism! The freedom-hating commies are coming to take our livelihoods away! You can make an honest case that these tax higher rates are bad for the economy (though I'd disagree); there's certainly room for discussion and debate there. But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible and frankly make it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead. I'm inclined to agree with that. We tried this experiment in the 1980's -- it was better known as Reaganomics, which depended on the trickle down effect, and as experience has taught us, very little that trickles down is fit to consume. (And I could extend the analogy further and allude to certain wealthy party shills p***ing on our heads and trying to convince us that it's raining, but that would be too cheap to do the extraordinary irony of the situation justice.) We've been told by Republicans at least since the beginning of the Reagan administration, if not much earlier, that Taxes Is Bad, been sold that line for so long people who actually have the most to lose from GOP-style economic policy have begun to believe it. The truth is, the Republican mantra of downsizing government and cuttng taxes has historically and consistently led to deficit spending to keep the government operating, which just mortgages the future to live high on the hog in the present. Bush II started his administration with a balanced budget and a revenue surplus, and is going to end it with the most astronomical national debt in this country's entire history, the credit-default swaps that are the main market powering the current economic crisis were legalized by a Republican controlled Congress that was basically reversing laws passed to forbid similar gambling practices 100 years ago. The laws Congress reversed in the late 1990's were the ones passed in the wake of the Panic of 1907, which was partly due to the extensive gambling in off-exchange houses that basically just took bets on stocks, which made the market so unstable that it progressively collapsed under the strain of a failed bid to corner the copper market. (Note: The credit-default swap market is, even now, completely unregulated, completely unaudited, and with so little official oversight that even the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the
Re: My two rules of politics
On Oct 26, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. North of Austin, TX. Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places Julia And, in many cases, the Libertarian Party candidates are something a little different from what I'd call small-l libertarian. The capital- L variety, around here at least, tend to be more than a little on the neopentecostal-theocratic side. Correct morality can only be derived from what man is—not from what do-gooders and well-meaning Aunt Nellies would like him to be. -- Robert A. Heinlein ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that. the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. I don't mind paying taxes Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Oct 26, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of the state local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which is why I came to the conclusion I did. I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. North of Austin, TX. Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places Julia And, in many cases, the Libertarian Party candidates are something a little different from what I'd call small-l libertarian. The capital- L variety, around here at least, tend to be more than a little on the neopentecostal-theocratic side. Maybe tend to be, but I wouldn't characterize George Paap that way, and he got on the ballot in Williamson County as a Libertarian candidate not too long ago In fact, I think that if there's a *cure* for neopentocostal-theocratic-ness, George could be an ingredient for that cure. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:25 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why assume that government is inevitably the worst way to accomplish anything? Why assume that you or anyone can determine how other people's money should be spent? Same old straw man. Consider me to have written the same answer. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:24 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. I take it you do not own real estate? I sure seem to have wasted some money involuntarily by trusting the valuations created by incomprehensibly complex financial industry instruments. How is that really different from trusting politicians? It was my choice to buy the house, but believe me, despite negotiating the price down a bit, I had very little choice about how much to pay. Yet somehow, I should assume that more regulation would have been bad??? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sure seem to have wasted some money involuntarily by trusting the valuations created by incomprehensibly complex financial industry instruments. How is that really different from trusting politicians? Force does not equal choice. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Same old straw man. Consider me to have written the same answer. You and that other guy with all your straw-man arguments. Maybe if you got together you could form a support group and make progress towards kicking your straw-man habits? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: My contribution to the bail-out
Dan M wrote: There are 40 _trillion_ of credit default swaps out there. Billions, trillions, quadrillions... Who cares? Dr. Evil was frozen for 30 years and had to raise the blackmail from 1 million to 100 billion. Now, 1 trillion seems like nothing :-) Let's adopt complex numbers in finance! Maybe in the next crisis we will be discussing things like the banks (or whatever) were negotiating 100 quadrillion i-dollars! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Racial and Gender bigotry
Maree, If, on your way South from Redding to Santa Monica you find yourself in the Bay Area (somewhat unlikely, if you're going via Yosemite, but hey), Nick and I are in the South Bay. I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to meet another list member in 3Space. Dave On Oct 25, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ray Maree Ludenia wrote: On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Subject: Racial and Gender bigotry Welcome to the list and to America, Maree! I have travelled extensively in AUS and New Zed and would be curious to hear how different racial and gender bias is in America, compared to down under, and how it is dealt with in your educational system, and in families? American television is being exported all over the world, but not Fox News Network, yet... (although Rupert Murdouch is now an American citizen, I believe.~) We do have many television programs that do promote tolerance and sensitivity, many of which are spinoffs from European programs. If you pass by Santa Monica, CA in your travels please contact me. Jon Mann (310) 664-3712 Hi Jon and thank you for your kind words. Australians are as xenophobic as Americans in a generalist sense. It was only with the recent change in government that an apology for the treatment of our Aboriginal people was being formulated. The apology may have been made by now, but if that is the case I missed out on hearing about it over here. Although education is an essential part of the solution to the problem, there needs to be a broader response for this to work. This should IMHO include carefully monitored affirmative action programs. Positive role models in various positions in media also help mitigate bias. Community education projects can also help. Churches, and other institutions for social control and organisation, can have a great effect. We could also use are more activists like Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King. I am sure there are many other approaches that will work as well. My comment about broadening the solution came from my experience as a secondary school teacher. Over the years, whenever there is a societal problem the call goes out Get the schools to deal with it. Schools are instruments of social control and can be quite effective in that role. However, the more social programs foisted on schools the less time they have to devote to teaching thinking, researching, arguing, reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography and all the other important subjects that an educated person needs to know to effectively function in our society. It is a difficult job getting the balance correct and one that schools at home do amazingly well. I know so little about the system here in the US that I would not like to comment on how well things work here. Of course between you and me we can solve all the world's problems ;-). Regards, Maree Ludenia PS We are currently in Redding CA and moving south - Yosemite calls before it gets too cold. We may end up in the Santa Monica area and if we do I would love to catch up with you. ML ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote: the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that. Sorry, you're right, predict was a poor choice of words. Nobody can predict future market behavior, and on that you're right. They can, however, forecast based on mandatory reporting of transactions in most markets, and make reasonably accurate assessments of the impact of changes in those markets based on that forecasting. Not even that is possible with the credit-default swap market, because there is no oversight, auditing, or reporting at all, so it's not possible to even guess at the long term impact of the collapse of that market or assess how risky the speculation in it was, or its long term effects on the brokerage firms that were trading in it. And I wouldn't be quite as emotional about that if it weren't a clear cut example of precisely how the corporate interests have been telling us all along, since before Reagan, that the market *should* be run -- no oversight, no auditing, no accountability, no reporting, none of that government interference in the market. I agree that if everyone trading in a given market is responsible about the risks they take and the funds they have on hand to back those risks if they turn sour, then oversight and accountability do make the market somewhat less efficient than it can be otherwise .. but that, in turn is a *huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of irresponsibly risky behavior? I don't know what kind of salad it is. I'm eating a salad, okay? I'm doing it. Do I have to know the names? There's no difference between them. It's a bowl of weeds. Some of 'em have cheese. This isn't the kind with cheese. Does that answer your question? -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote: the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. I'm glad we at least agree that the financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. And I would tend to agree also, to some extent, that the political industry has a fair number of such people in it as well. I'm not convinced that the financial industry can't force me to waste my money, though, because there are ways to get involved in the securities market that aren't exactly obvious to most people, and I *am* involved in the securities market in a few ways that would, pre-crash, have been considered very sound places to put my money. And I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at the statements for those accounts, I'm going to find they pretty much tracked the Dow during its free-fall. But even if I wasn't appreciably long or short in any stock-based securities or complex derivatives or anything along those lines, this mess is still going to have a fairly significant impact on my life. I may not have *wasted* money, but I'm going to *lose* money in the long run until the repercussions of this event are over, if only in terms of day to day living expenses. I'm reasonably certain my employer will be able to keep operating without laying me off, but there are no guarantees there -- and if I fall on the down side of that, I'm going to have a tough several years ahead because it will be next to impossible to get a job that doesn't involve a fairly substantial pay cut and giving up on a career that I have a lot of experience and training invested in. And it may come down to me becoming one of those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to mouth in a homeless camp somewhere. I'd kind of like for those programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying for them, if this thing turns out to be as bad as the direst assessments. When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening family life, which would include health care, education, and retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and sentence structure. And one on fractions. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Senior Liberation Act
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506801638770679.html For all of America's cherished belief in choice and freedom, it remains an astonishing fact that the U.S. government forces citizens over the age of 65 into a subpar health plan of its choosing. And so it is with some hope that we greet a new federal lawsuit that aims to allow senior citizens to flee Medicare. The suit comes courtesy of Kent Masterson Brown, a lawyer who has previously tangled with the government over Medicare benefits. Mr. Brown represents three plaintiffs who are suing the federal government to be allowed to opt out of Medicare without losing their Social Security benefits. Amazingly, this is not currently allowed. While the Social Security law does not require participants to accept Medicare, and the Medicare law does not require participants to accept Social Security, the Clinton Administration in 1993 tied the programs together. Under that policy, any senior who withdraws from Medicare also loses Social Security benefits. Mr. Brown's plaintiffs are three men who do not want to be in Medicare, even though they paid Medicare taxes throughout their income-earning years and though they are not asking for that money back. The three instead saved privately to cover their health care expenses. They now prefer to contract with private doctors and health facilities that they believe are superior to those offered by Medicare. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] They can, however, forecast based on mandatory reporting of transactions in most markets, and make reasonably accurate assessments of the impact of changes in those markets based on that forecasting. ROTFLMAO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] *huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of irresponsibly risky behavior? LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save us! Despite all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this time! Worship the government! Government is God! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] most people, and I *am* involved in the securities market in a few ways that would, pre-crash, have been considered very sound places to put my money. And I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at the statements for those accounts, I'm going to find they pretty much tracked the Dow during its free-fall. Way to blame somebody else for your problems! You should run for office! those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to mouth in a homeless camp somewhere. I'd kind of like for those programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying for them, That is one of the least evil forms of government spending, I agree. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: An armed society, ( was distribute the wealth)
On Mon 10/27/2008 6:39 AM Bruce Bostwick wrote Then again, an armed society is a polite society .. Bruce, We have found that in general Americans are the politest people we have met. They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have certainly speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms we have seen. I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a supermarket car park with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window. When the driver opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there was room for him to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is more weapons than I had seen in my lifetime. The local Sherriff pulled in beside him and they had a conversation. I think from the body language that the Sherriff was admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not want to hang around to find out. Regards, Maree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
I am convinced that if the Fed or the government, despite all evidence to the contrary, actually did have some ability to predict or even make good guesses at what markets are likely to do, then it would have little need of regulation. If the Fed chairman or Treasury secretary would have spoken up a few years ago and stated that it is likely the housing market is overvalued, or that a number of investment banks and insurers (and Fannie and Freddie) are so undercapitalized that they are unlikely to survive a steep market downturnthen investors and speculators would probably pulled their money out sooner, resulting in a less severe downturn since things would not have had as much time to inflate to such instability. Alas, several years ago Bernanke and Paulson were saying that everything was okay, that we weren't in a bubble, all problems were contained, etc. Tough to be saved by non-omniscient gods. Have faith in God almighty instead! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and appears to be a thing even though the matter in it changes every second. It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance. I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells. The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have now. Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same way a whirlpool is real? And I'm not asking this rhetorically; I really am interested in your take on this. -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
An armed society
Then again, an armed society is a polite society .. Bruce, We have found that in general Americans are the politest people we have met. They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have certainly speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms we have seen. I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a supermarket car park with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window. When the driver opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there was room for him to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is more weapons than I had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in beside him and they had a conversation. I think from the body language that the Sheriff was admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not want to hang around to find out. Regards, Maree someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy. one gun should be sufficient for self protection. if gun toting red necks are polite to you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't vote for obama!~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at the statements for those accounts, I'm going to find they pretty much tracked the Dow during its free-fall. Way to blame somebody else for your problems! You should run for office! who do you think bruce is blaming, john, and who do you blame? acorn, fannie, freddie and the people who were suckered into bad loans, or the people who made the loans? so you think the war in iraq had anything to do with our economic problems? now that people are starting to drive less the price of gas is settling, but the market is still going down... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An armed society
Lt Saavik wrote: We have found that in general Americans are the politest people we have met. They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have certainly speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms we have seen. I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a supermarket car park with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window. When the driver opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there was room for him to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is more weapons than I had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in beside him and they had a conversation. I think from the body language that the Sheriff was admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not want to hang around to find out. Regards, Maree someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy. one gun should be sufficient for self protection. if gun toting red necks are polite to you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't vote for obama!~) jon (no comments... except the misnomer and the canonical Star Trek quote...) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save us! Despite all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this time! Worship the government! Government is God! You need to take your meds, John. The government is Satan, under Bush/Cheney; lesser demons take over when there is a Dem in office. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
what does that say about the republicans that did not vote for it? Hmmm, I guess it says there were more of them than Democrats. at least those democrats who had the integrity to vote against the bailout did so for the right reasons. To get re-elected! always with the sarcasm, the last refuge... Don't worry, I have plenty of refuges. Do you need any? why, am i in danger, from who...? are you really that dense, john, or are you deliberately ignoring the different motives why the extremes voted the way they did? let me explain, the reactionary republicans wanted a bigger bailout (and got it), the progressive democrats wanted to bail out homeowners, NOT corporate crooks. how many times do i need to spell it out? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
I think government is best at taking other people's money and spending it less desirably than those who earned it. Most people agree with me, judging by the tiny number of people who voluntarily pay more taxes. But believing you know better than others how to best spend their money is apparently quite seductive to many people. i think the socialist democracies are much better job of providing services to their people, of course they don't spend nearly as much of their revenues on defense agains exaggerated threats... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
Defending the country is a public good, not redistributing wealth. who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons. bush/cheney have done more to help al qaeda recruit than if mohammed were alive!~) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
So you rank among the very wealthiest people in America? Congratulations! I doubt that,he's justjust another Joe... The anecdote you posted depicts Obama as wanting to take ALL the money from the haves to give to the have-nots - i.e.: that he's a socialist. Wow, there you go again with the straw-man arguments and calling Obama a socialist. I wish he were a socialist! Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
why, am i in danger, from who...? No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just trying to help redistribute the refuges. are you really that dense, john, I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never measured it, though. how many times do i need to spell it out? Could be a lot, until I finally get it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons. Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An armed society
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Then again, an armed society is a polite society .. Bruce, We have found that in general Americans are the politest people we have met. They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have certainly speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms we have seen. I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a supermarket car park with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window. When the driver opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there was room for him to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is more weapons than I had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in beside him and they had a conversation. I think from the body language that the Sheriff was admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not want to hang around to find out. Regards, Maree someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy. one gun should be sufficient for self protection. if gun toting red necks are polite to you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't vote for obama!~) jon If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one rifle for doing so. (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler. Just remember to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with that bag, m'kay?) And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes jabs. If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes about people who do. Julia who may have the only gun-free house in the neighborhood, but it's certainly not *weapon*-free ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: Anecdote seen on the internet: Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. --Claire Wolfe ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/27/2008 9:24:30 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that. But he aint letting us in on the skinny.G the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. No, but unless you don't understand the financials as well as you seem to, they can make what money you have worthless. It hasn't really been said aloud lately, but that is pretty much one of the basic points of this discussion. Right now, deflation is a very real concern, and money is not the same thing as value. You use the word money quite often, but what I think you are actually concerned about is your affluence. And that is something a bit different. In my case, my affluence and the value of my work (as an index of affluence) are my greatest concerns. xponent Chaotic Functions Maru rob I don't mind paying taxes Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
Wayne Eddy wrote: From: Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] The I that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of perception and memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, ?and modern science is showing him right. Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. If matter couldn't exist outside this universe, would that mean that matter is an illusion? Software can't run outside a computer, does that mean it's not real? What exactly does real mean? My mind is real, in the same way that a language is real, or a computer program, and in the same way that Islam, Christianity and Buddhism are real. Abstract, but real, because it is meaningful to reason about as real, and because it has real consequences. There exists such a thing as mathematics. It is an abstract construct, a concept, and it only exists in our minds, but if one person says it does not exist, and the next person goes on to use that which does not exist to predict astronomical events, what is then the meaning of exist? That which exists is real, right? /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Have you got John Galt in a case? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] they can make what money you have worthless. If they means the financial industry, then no, they cannot. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/27/2008 3:28:52 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons. Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades! Now that you mention it, that would be preferable. xponent Robber Mudkips Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
Mauro Diotallevi wrote: I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells. The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have now. Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same way a whirlpool is real? I am firmly of the opinion that your skin is real. You may say that it is real in the same way that a whirlpool is real, or the Great Red Spot of Jupiter. If your skin is more real than the whirlpool, simply because its constituent matter is replaced at a slower pace ... assume that the Spot, or something else of similar characteristics, has a replacement cycle longer than that of your skin. Is then that Spot more real than your skin? I find the above not a very interesting discussion. More interesting is the question of identity. Since I have stated that your skin exists, I can also ask if your skin now is the same as your skin 20 years ago. In the case of myself, my intuition tells me that I am the same person occupying the same body that I was and occupied twenty years ago. Mostly because this is a useful and intuitive definition of identity. I have changed a lot, but I am the same person. There are cases where the intuitive definition is less obvious. This is the classical problem of identity and the ship of Theseus. Good summary available here: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html Summary of the summary: - If Theseus has a ship and replaces a plank in the ship, is it still the same ship? - If he subsequently has replaced all the planks and other parts of the ship, is it still the same ship? - If a scavenger took each part as Theseus threw it away and built those into a replica of his ship, which ship is the original? The one Theseus is on, or the one the scavenger built, which consists of all the parts of the original? - If we put Theseus's ship in dry dock, disassembled it and again assembled it, is our intuition as to the identity of the newly assembled ship still the same as in the case of the scavenger? Modern version (and possibly a digression): (1) If a country's government is forced out of the capital and loses control of most of the country, is the area controlled by that government still the original country, only with a drastically diminished territory? (2) If the opposition of a country's government forces the government out of the capital and announces a new constitution, is the entity ruled by the new constitution simply the same country, only with a new constitution? In 1949-1972 the governments of the world seem to have felt that the answer to (1) was yes and the answer to (2) was no. In 1972 the position was reversed. So which is true? I believe that both propositions are true and that people should just get along, decide on some functional-enough terminology on the two countries and move on to find something more useful on which to spend their energy... /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/27/2008 4:44:45 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] they can make what money you have worthless. If they means the financial industry, then no, they cannot. If you ever end up wiping your ass with dollar bills because they are cheaper than toilet paper, give me a call. xponent Historical Notes Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you ever end up wiping your ass with dollar bills because they are cheaper than toilet paper, give me a call. Government is good at printing money. Financial industry, not so much. Get your toliet paper from Paulson! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades! Now that you mention it, that would be preferable. So long as the robber comrades have a good supply of rubber condoms. Please bend over, sir, it is for the good of the country! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/27/2008 5:07:40 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you ever end up wiping your ass with dollar bills because they are cheaper than toilet paper, give me a call. Government is good at printing money. Financial industry, not so much. Get your toilet paper from Paulson! Government doesn't make toilet paper. Prices come from the finance industry. Dollar bills have little intrinsic value. xponent Consensual Myths Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Senator Ted Stevens found guilty
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102700289.html?hpid=topnews No time to comment myself, but I thought some folks might be interested. There's plenty of fodder in the article itself for commenting upon, I think. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/27/2008 5:11:49 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades! Now that you mention it, that would be preferable. So long as the robber comrades have a good supply of rubber condoms. Please bend over, sir, it is for the good of the country! Robber barons make you supply your own condoms. It is part of the cost of being businessed. xponent Centrist Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Senator Ted Stevens found guilty
On 10/27/2008 5:18:13 PM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102700289.html?hpid=topnews No time to comment myself, but I thought some folks might be interested. There's plenty of fodder in the article itself for commenting upon, I think. I can only think of one thing to say: AmericaAaAaaa F*ck Yeah xponent Team Police Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM: Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. You mean like Blackwater? Greed and Corruption Maru -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Government doesn't make toilet paper. Prices come from the finance industry. My dollar bills say Federal Reserve Note and The Department of the Treasury. What do yours say? Dollar bills have little intrinsic value. Must be because the government prints so many of them! Damn them! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to mouth in a homeless camp somewhere. I'd kind of like for those programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying for them, That is one of the least evil forms of government spending, I agree. Wouldn't that just be redistribution of wealth? Have I misunderstood that you consider redistribution of wealth bad and spending on public goods acceptable? /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: from Saturday's blog
Ever notice that Sarah Palin anagrams to Sharia plan. So, clearly, she's the one who plans to institute Muslim law in the United States. Other anagrams include: a sharp nail a plain rash. Any chance of a numeralogical match with 666? Pleze? Numerology is an easy science! Sarah Palin Vice President USA if we add the _roman_ digits, we get: Palin = L + I = 51 Vice = V + I + C = 106 President = I + D = 501 USA = V = 5 adding together, we get 663. Now, why we should add 3? - she was the third children from her parents - she finished third in Miss Alaska - she has three terms as administrative experience (2 in Wasilia + 1 in Alaska) So, it's clear that _3_ is Palin's lucky number. Adding 663 + 3, we get 666! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Claes Wallin [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Williams wrote: That is one of the least evil forms of government spending, I agree. Wouldn't that just be redistribution of wealth? Yes. Have I misunderstood that you consider redistribution of wealth bad and spending on public goods acceptable? I don't consider any process that involves the government forcibly taking money from people good, but some processes are less bad than the obvious alternatives, such as the country being taken over by tyrants or people starving to death in the streets. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Closest Planetary System Hosts Two Asteroid Belts
1) Closest Planetary System Hosts Two Asteroid Belts (27 October 2008) http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2008-19/release.shtml New observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope indicate that the nearest planetary system to our own has two asteroid belts. Our own solar system has just one. The star at the center of the nearby system, called Epsilon Eridani, is a younger, slightly cooler and fainter version of the sun. Previously, astronomers had uncovered evidence for two possible planets in the system, and for a broad, outer ring of icy comets similar to our own Kuiper Belt. Now, Spitzer has discovered that the system also has dual asteroid belts. One sits at approximately the same position as the one in our solar system. The second, denser belt, most likely also populated by asteroids, lies between the first belt and the comet ring. The presence of the asteroid belts implies additional planets in the Epsilon Eridani system. This system probably looks a lot like ours did when life first took root on Earth, said Dana Backman, an astronomer at the SETI Institute, in Mountain View, Calif., and outreach director for NASA's Sofia mission. The main difference we know of so far is that it has an additional ring of leftover planet construction material. Backman is lead author of a paper about the findings to appear Jan. 10 in the Astrophysical Journal. Asteroid belts are rocky and metallic debris left over from the early stages of planet formation. Their presence around other stars signals that rocky planets like Earth could be orbiting in the system's inner regions, with massive gas planets circling near the belts' rims. In our own solar system, for example, there is evidence that Jupiter, which lies just beyond our asteroid belt, caused the asteroid belt to form long ago by stirring up material that would have otherwise coalesced into a planet. Nowadays, Jupiter helps keep our asteroid belt confined to a ring. Astronomers have detected stars with signs of multiple belts of material before, but Epsilon Eridani is closer to Earth and more like our sun overall. It is 10 light-years away, slightly less massive than the sun, and roughly 800 million years old, or one-fifth the age of the sun. Because the star is so close and similar to the sun, it is a popular locale in science fiction. The television series Star Trek and Babylon 5 referenced Epsilon Eridani, and it has been featured in novels by Issac Asimov and Frank Herbert, among others. The popular star was also one of the first to be searched for signs of advanced alien civilizations using radio telescopes in 1960. At that time, astronomers did not know of the star's young age. Spitzer observed Epsilon Eridani with both of its infrared cameras and its infrared spectrometer. When asteroid and comets collide or evaporate, they release tiny particles of dust that give off heat, which Spitzer can see. Because the system is so close to us, Spitzer can really pick out details in the dust, giving us a good look at the system's architecture, said co-author Karl Stapelfeldt of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. The asteroid belts detected by Spitzer orbit at distances of approximately 3 and 20 astronomical units from the star (an astronomical unit is the average distance between Earth and the sun). For reference, our own asteroid belt lies at about 3 astronomical units from the sun, and Uranus is roughly 19 astronomical units away. One of the two possible planets previously identified around Epsilon Eridani, called Epsilon Eridani, was discovered in 2000. The planet is thought to orbit at an average distance of 3.4 astronomical units from the star -- just outside the innermost asteroid belt identified by Spitzer. This is the first time that an asteroid belt and a planet beyond our solar system have been found in a similar arrangement as our asteroid belt and Jupiter. Some researchers had reported that Epsilon Eridani b orbits in an exaggerated ellipse ranging between 1 and 5 astronomical units, but this means the planet would cross, and quickly disrupt, the newfound asteroid belt. Instead, Backman and colleagues argue that this planet must have a more circular orbit that keeps it just outside the belt. The other candidate planet was first proposed in 1998 to explain lumpiness observed in the star's outer comet ring. It is thought to lie near the inner edge of the ring, which orbits between 35 and 90 astronomical units from Epsilon Eridani. The intermediate belt detected by Spitzer suggests that a third planet could be responsible for creating and shepherding its material. This planet would orbit at approximately 20 astronomical units and lie between the other two planets. Detailed studies of the dust belts in other planetary systems are telling us a great deal about their complex structure, said Michael Werner, co-author of the study and project scientist for
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I don't consider any process that involves the government forcibly taking money from people good, Oh, please. You live in the United States, right?. We had a revolution against, among other things, taxation without representation. In case you forgot, we won. So I don't think any of us can justify whining about being forced to pay taxes unless there's been another revolution that I haven't heard about. Whether or not we deserve the government we have, we chose it, give or take some voting irregularities. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:12 PM, John Williams wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] *huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of irresponsibly risky behavior? LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save us! Despite all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this time! Worship the government! Government is God! Huh?! OK, whatever .. not at all sure how you got to that, and don't really particularly *want* to know .. Good, 'cause, you know, we want to report that the country's a lot stranger than it was a year ago. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick said: So I don't think any of us can justify whining about being forced to pay taxes unless there's been another revolution that I haven't heard about. So if you aren't forced to pay taxes, what happens if you choose not to? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Have you got John Galt in a case? Who is John Galt?~) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/27/2008 7:07:33 PM, Jon Louis Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Have you got John Galt in a case? Who is John Galt?~) Look him up on wikipedia. Probably under Ayn Rand and various other nutcases. xponent Utopians Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
why, am i in danger, from who...? No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just trying to help redistribute the refuges. are you really that dense, john? I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never measured it, though. how many times do i need to spell it out? Could be a lot, until I finally get it. you get it alright, you choose to ignore what you can't refute and resort to sarcasm (your last refuge)... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: from Saturday's blog
Thanks Alberto I hope we don't let you down... - Original Message From: Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:09:41 PM Subject: Brin: from Saturday's blog Ever notice that Sarah Palin anagrams to Sharia plan. So, clearly, she's the one who plans to institute Muslim law in the United States. Other anagrams include: a sharp nail a plain rash. Any chance of a numeralogical match with 666? Pleze? Numerology is an easy science! Sarah Palin Vice President USA if we add the _roman_ digits, we get: Palin = L + I = 51 Vice = V + I + C = 106 President = I + D = 501 USA = V = 5 adding together, we get 663. Now, why we should add 3? - she was the third children from her parents - she finished third in Miss Alaska - she has three terms as administrative experience (2 in Wasilia + 1 in Alaska) So, it's clear that _3_ is Palin's lucky number. Adding 663 + 3, we get 666! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
My two rules of politics
1) I am a fan of gridlock. I think if Obama wins, with a Democrat dominated Congress, there will be a lot of new spending. I'm convinced Clinton would have spent more if the Republicans didn't dominate Congress during most of his 8 years. 2) A surplus does not equal less spending. Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes and and keeping the rate of spending growth in control. He was lucky to have a period of rapidly growing GDP and tax revenues, and a Republican Congress for most of his years made it more difficult to pass new spending bills. Not that a balanced budget is bad, but I'd rather see the budget balanced by cutting spending rather than raising taxes. i prefer taxing the rich. if clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes, at least he created a surplus, whereas bush/cheney are leaving us with a huge deficit and economic collapse. if the supreme court had not given the election to bush, the world would be a different place now... if obama wins in a landslide then he will be able to undo the damage done by bush/cheney in ways the FDR did when the democrats controlled all three branches of government... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Have you got John Galt in a case? Who is John Galt?~) Look him up on wikipedia. Probably under Ayn Rand and various other nutcases. i was being ironic, rob. i read atlas shrugged, and understand what the title is supposed to mean. we have some people on this list (and on wall street) who actually buy into rand's ravings... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 27 Oct 2008 at 18:52, Lance A. Brown wrote: William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM: Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. You mean like Blackwater? Try the local Mafia. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An armed society
If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one rifle for doing so. (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler. Just remember to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with that bag, m'kay?) And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes jabs. If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes about people who do. Julia sorry, julia, i don't like rednecks (or religious zealots) and they don't like me. i wouldn't have it any other way!~) i lived in texas in the 50s and even back then i didn't know any gun toting cowboy types, or people who relied on hunting to put food on the table; maybe in the 1850's... however, i am sure there are exceptions to the rule and some rednecks may even vote for obama, especially after seeing what bush did to texas and then to the u.s. (and the world)... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My two rules of politics
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] i prefer taxing the rich. I prefer taxing Jon Louis Mann for all his money to reduce my taxes! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Redistribute the wealth
A Democratic congress will tax the wealthy and redistribute the wealth to the poor and middle class. If McCain wins he will continue GOP policies of subsidizing the corporate state and cutting social programs. Jon This is something I don't understand. If Obama is the anti-corporation candidate, how he gets 2-3x more money for the campaing than McPalin? Alberto Monteiro PS: former terrorist, bank-robber, kidnapper, communist, quasi-nudist and marijuana apologist Gabeira lost the Rio election with 48.5% of the valid votes _for him_. That's a pity, he had some really interesting ideas. sounds like my kind of guy!~) obama raised much of his contributions in small donations from the internet. i expected he rec'd a lot from labor, and endorsements from capitalists like soros and buffet, as well ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
death and taxes...
i prefer taxing the rich. I prefer taxing Jon Louis Mann for all his money to reduce my taxes! you won't even get enough to pay for your meds, john. the most i have ever made in my life was $50,000, (in a year) and that was working two jobs... i pay the max because i use the short form. it would cost too much to hire an accountant to figure out ways to avoid paying my fair share. in the spirit of full disclosure, how much did you amke in your best year? jon __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
We had a revolution against, among other things, taxation without representation. In case you forgot, we won. I'd be ecstatic to go back to the taxation/spending levels of that time. Or even the pre-war 1900's. Whether or not we deserve the government we have, we chose it, give or take some voting irregularities. So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] you won't even get enough to pay for your meds, john. the most i have ever made in my life was $50,000, (in a year) and that was working two jobs... That's okay, I'll take it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Andrew Crystall said the following on 10/27/2008 8:40 PM: On 27 Oct 2008 at 18:52, Lance A. Brown wrote: William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM: Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. You mean like Blackwater? Try the local Mafia. As if I'd like to turn over our national defense to either group. This conversation reminds me of the situation in Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash. --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
death and taxes...
you won't even get enough to pay for your meds, john. the most i've ever made in a year was $50,000, and that was working two jobs... That's okay, I'll take it. i have $10 for julia, but i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social programs... as usual you dodge the question... how much did you make in your best year? i assume you must earn 5 times my best, since you are so opposed cutting taxes for low earners like myself, and NOT cutting taxes for those in the more than $250,000 a year bracket... jon __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same way a whirlpool is real? It means that seeing your skin as some kind of permanent continuous thing is a fallacy. The skin you had twenty years ago was real and the skin you have now is real, but they are not the same thing. It is only a linguistic convention and function of memory in the brain that make them seem that way. What is not real is the idea that there is something called my skin which is continuous through time despite constantly changing. The same thing with conciousness. Brain cells are a little less transitory (on the time scale of a human life) than skin cells, and the patterns laid down in our brains as memory endure (although anyone who has ever discussed their childhood with a sibling or parent, or even re-read an old diary, should know how changeable our memories really are -- they are constantly revised), but conciousness is a process, not a thing. Imagine if I said, my heart was beating twenty years ago and my heart is beating now, therefore there must be some thing calle d a heat-beat that is continuous through time. But of course a heart-beat is not a thing, it's the ongoing working of the heart, in the same way conciousness is the ongoing working of the brain. If the heart stops working, the heartbeat is gone. If the brain stops working -- and I'm as sure of this as I am of anything in the world -- conciousness stops. I see no reason why it should be any different than any other biological process. Over a long enough time span, everything is like the whirlpool -- a temporary form with no fixed, permanent substance. Buddha called it the coming into being and passing away of all things. Olin - Original Message - From: Mauro Diotallevimailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:08 PM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and appears to be a thing even though the matter in it changes every second. It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance. I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells. The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have now. Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same way a whirlpool is real? And I'm not asking this rhetorically; I really am interested in your take on this. -- Mauro Diotallevi The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] t i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social programs... And you prefer even more to have the goverment spend OTHER people's money on social programs. But you don't want other people to spend YOUR money on their preferred applications. Robber baron, robber comrade, you fit right in! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
death and taxes...
i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social programs... jon And you prefer even more to have the goverment spend OTHER people's money on social programs. But you don't want other people to spend YOUR money on their preferred applications. Robber baron, robber comrade, you fit right in! where do you fit in, john? maybe if you would reveal your tax bracket i would understand how you prefer the government to spend your taxes? jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] where do you fit in, john? 50% of taxpayers (by AGI) collectively pay for about 97% of the total government spending, and the other 50% of taxpayers only pay for 3%. I'm part of the 97% group. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)
At 04:48 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Claes Wallin wrote: [snip] Modern version (and possibly a digression): (1) If a country's government is forced out of the capital and loses control of most of the country, is the area controlled by that government still the original country, only with a drastically diminished territory? (2) If the opposition of a country's government forces the government out of the capital and announces a new constitution, is the entity ruled by the new constitution simply the same country, only with a new constitution? In 1949-1972 the governments of the world seem to have felt that the answer to (1) was yes and the answer to (2) was no. In 1972 the position was reversed. So which is true? Which specific country[ies] are you thinking of which changed in 1949 and 1972? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 04:40 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Rceeberger wrote: On 10/27/2008 9:24:30 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that. But he aint letting us in on the skinny.G Perhaps because many folks playing the markets don't necessarily seem to be trying to make money to further God's purposes? Woke up this mornin', turned on the t.v. set. there in livin' color, was somethin' I can't forget. This man was preachin' at me, yeah, layin' on the charm askin' me for twenty, with ten-thousand on his arm. He wore designer clothes, and a big smile on his face tellin' me salvation while they sang Amazin' Grace. Askin' me for money, when he had all the signs of wealth. I almost wrote a check out, yeah, then I asked myself (chorus) Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car? Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressin' room have a star? If He came back tomorrow, well there's somethin' I'd like to know Could ya tell me, Would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show. Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth? Have His second home in Palm Springs, yeah, a try to hide His worth? Take money, from those poor folks, when He comes back again, and admit He's talked to all them preachers who say they been a talkin' to Him? (chorus) Just ask ya' self, Would He wear a pinky ring, Would He drive a fancy car? Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star? If He came back tomorrow, well there's somethin' I'd like to know: Could ya tell me, would Jesus wear a Rolex, Would jesus wear a Rolex Would Jesus wear a Rolex On His television show-ooh-ooh? Ray Stevens, Would Jesus Wear A Rolex . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An armed society
At 03:30 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Then again, an armed society is a polite society .. An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. Robert A. Heinlein, _Beyond the Horizon_, 1942 Bruce, We have found that in general Americans are the politest people we have met. They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have certainly speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms we have seen. Another possible hypothesis is that people who are familiar with firearms and their use and handling tend to be independent and self-sufficient in other ways, and so may have fewer worries about things being out of their control and so have less reason to be fearful or suspicious of strangers and their intentions. (And not just because they can pull out a .45 and blow the stranger away if he threatens them . . . :P) I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a supermarket car park with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window. When the driver opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there was room for him to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is more weapons than I had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in beside him and they had a conversation. I think from the body language that the Sheriff was admiring the guns, but I can't be sure Obviously I was not there to observe, but based on my experience I expect you are correct. When they get together socially LEOs discuss the tools of their trade and their relative positive and negative points in the same way geeks discuss the relative merits of different operating systems. and I did not want to hang around to find out. Regards, Maree someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy. one gun should be sufficient for self protection. if gun toting red necks are polite to you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't vote for obama!~) jon If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one rifle for doing so. (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler. A gun is a tool for a particular job. A toolbox that contained only a single #3 Phillips screwdriver would not be very useful for many jobs a technician or a DIYer will encounter. Similarly, the right gun (and ammo) for one purpose may be too much or too little for another purpose. And FWIW in many cases the best load for a sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler is a shot shell rather than a regular bullet. OTOH, depending on what you're hunting, you may want a large-bore sidearm with a heavy round in case when you approach something you have shot with a rifle from a distance it is not yet entirely dead. Especially if it's something that might be able to get up and hurt you before it expires . . . (And FWIW IANAH . . . ) Just remember to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with that bag, m'kay?) I hope you are not talking from personal experience. And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes jabs. If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes about people who do. Julia who may have the only gun-free house in the neighborhood, but it's certainly not *weapon*-free And I doubt you or anyone else familiar with them would claim that a single type of sharp object would be adequate or even usable in all situations. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: My contribution to the bail-out
At 11:38 AM Monday 10/27/2008, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan M wrote: There are 40 _trillion_ of credit default swaps out there. Billions, trillions, quadrillions... Who cares? Dr. Evil was frozen for 30 years and had to raise the blackmail from 1 million to 100 billion. Now, 1 trillion seems like nothing :-) Let's adopt complex numbers in finance! Maybe in the next crisis we will be discussing things like the banks (or whatever) were negotiating 100 quadrillion i-dollars! Alberto Monteiro i bottles of beer on the wall, i bottles of beer, take one down, pass it around . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules? That's the sort of statement that results in complaints about straw man arguments. No, that's not my position. Not at all. My position is that it is wrong to misrepresent democracy as coercion. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Rceeberger wrote: On 10/27/2008 7:07:33 PM, Jon Louis Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Have you got John Galt in a case? Who is John Galt?~) Look him up on wikipedia. Probably under Ayn Rand and various other nutcases. Umm, actually Who is John Galt? is sort of the catch-phrase of the book. I was about to write it myself, but Jon beat me to it. :-) /c ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, John Williams wrote: So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules? No, that's not my position. Not at all. My position is that it is wrong to misrepresent democracy as coercion. LOL! I wasn't expecting slapstick! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 07:13 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: why, am i in danger, from who...? No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just trying to help redistribute the refuges. are you really that dense, john? I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never measured it, though. how many times do i need to spell it out? Could be a lot, until I finally get it. you get it alright, you choose to ignore what you can't refute and resort to sarcasm (your last refuge)... Sarcasm is some people's second language. As I've said before, it's my milk tongue . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
Jon Louis Mann wrote: i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social programs... jon And you prefer even more to have the goverment spend OTHER people's money on social programs. But you don't want other people to spend YOUR money on their preferred applications. Robber baron, robber comrade, you fit right in! where do you fit in, john? maybe if you would reveal your tax bracket i would understand how you prefer the government to spend your taxes? jon My favorite quote is from Nero Wolfe: A man condemning the income tax because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of civilized discourse. Among the things you need to be extremely careful about are: 1) unsupported assumptions; 2) inflammatory language; and 3) false analogy. I am seeing many of these being used in accordance with the principles developed by the Cult of Rand. Unsupported assumption: It's your money, and the government is stealing it from you. This is one of those things that never stands up to close investigation, unless you are willing to take it on faith as an axiom. Taking things on faith as axioms is of course the primary method of the Rand Cult. In this case, as a member of a society that does various things to allow people to make a living in relative security and safety, you have obligations to that society. The money you earn derives in part from the social structures that make that possible. If you ever doubt that, start suggesting that we get rid of the army, the police, the courts (and didn't we go through all this back in the days of Hobbs?), and watch how quickly the Libertarians will start talking about public goods. In practice, a public good is anything they find necessary, and wasteful spending is anything they don't find necessary. (As an aside, there is a technical definition in economics for what should be a public good, but this is rarely brought into the argument.) How government raises and spends money should be subject to intense debate, since there is a definite tendency for governments to spend more money than they should on things we probably don't need, but even there for every man's wasteful expenditure you have another man's vitally important program. But no matter how intensely you debate these things, to imply that government, by being government, is immoral, marks you as outside the realm of intelligent discourse. Inflammatory language: Taking your money by force Again, this is intended to give you the image of being mugged in a dark alley by scary robbers. By definition, everything the government does has the implied ability to punish you if you don't go along, but how would you enforce any law otherwise? Unless you are an anarchist and believe that everyone should have the right to decide for themselves which laws they feel like observing, you will have to have some type of law enforcement. Governments also punish you for driving while intoxicated, and are quite willing to use force to do it. And they are also quite willing to force you to support your children. In fact, most people would prefer that the government do a better job of enforcing those last two. False analogy: John used one earlier to imply that stiffing a waiter was a good analogy for Obama's economic policies. Mostly that was just a weird story that leaves you going Huh?, but false analogy is used a lot. One of the best ones was popular some years back, before the Republican party descended into outright criminality. It goes like this: The government is just like a family, it cannot live beyond its means. Many people who gave the outward appearance of intelligence bought into this one, but it fails at the outset. The government is not just like a family. In fact, one could search far and wide and have trouble finding two institutions more unlike than a government and a family. Apples and oranges are identical twins when placed next to governments and families. And yet many people focused on the second part of the statement, while ignoring the fact that the premise was stupendously wrong, so wrong that it should have invalidated anything that followed after it. Now that the American people have realized the right-wing is batshit crazy, you will hear a lot of bizarre stuff as they desperately try to stop their slide into total irrelevance. So pay attention. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 If you're going through hell, keep going. - Winston Churchill ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An armed society
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:30 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Julia Thompson wrote: If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one rifle for doing so. (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler. Just remember to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with that bag, m'kay?) I hope you are not talking from personal experience. No, just 2 incidents I heard about, the second involving the owner of the Dallas Cowboys. And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes jabs. If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes about people who do. Julia who may have the only gun-free house in the neighborhood, but it's certainly not *weapon*-free And I doubt you or anyone else familiar with them would claim that a single type of sharp object would be adequate or even usable in all situations. No. The katana isn't going to work all that well if you've got limited space, and the Klingon knife isn't going to work at arm's length all that well. Just to name 2. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, John Williams wrote: So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules? No, that's not my position. Not at all. My position is that it is wrong to misrepresent democracy as coercion. LOL! I wasn't expecting slapstick! So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: Mostly that was just a weird story that leaves you going Huh?, but false analogy is used a lot. One of the best ones was popular some years back, before the Republican party descended into outright criminality. It goes like this: The government is just like a family, it cannot live beyond its means. Many people who gave the outward appearance of intelligence bought into this one, but it fails at the outset. The government is not just like a family. In fact, one could search far and wide and have trouble finding two institutions more unlike than a government and a family. Apples and oranges are identical twins when placed next to governments and families. And yet many people focused on the second part of the statement, while ignoring the fact that the premise was stupendously wrong, so wrong that it should have invalidated anything that followed after it. And I see identical twins in there, and wonder, Monoamniotic? I should probably head for bed now Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch? Nicely put. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch? Nicely put. Not original to me. Maybe Benjamin Franklin? Or at least I think I've seen him credited with it, whether or not he actually said it. Just trying to get a somewhat better feel for your position, and your response was very helpful to me in that regard. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not original to me. Maybe Benjamin Franklin? Or at least I think I've seen him credited with it, whether or not he actually said it. Good memory. It sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it. The source seems to be somewhat obscure, but you remembered the most common attribution: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=389308 The most common wording seems to be: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] My favorite quote is from Nero Wolfe: A man condemning the income tax because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of civilized discourse. ... Inflammatory language: Taking your money by force Now that the American people have realized the right-wing is batshit crazy, you will hear a lot of bizarre stuff as they desperately try to stop their slide into total irrelevance. So pay attention. Yes, history has shown it is a lot easier to mistreat people if you first censor them and then demonize and dehumanize them. Helps keep the conscience clear. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
At 10:05 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: Mostly that was just a weird story that leaves you going Huh?, but false analogy is used a lot. One of the best ones was popular some years back, before the Republican party descended into outright criminality. It goes like this: The government is just like a family, it cannot live beyond its means. Many people who gave the outward appearance of intelligence bought into this one, but it fails at the outset. The government is not just like a family. In fact, one could search far and wide and have trouble finding two institutions more unlike than a government and a family. Apples and oranges are identical twins when placed next to governments and families. And yet many people focused on the second part of the statement, while ignoring the fact that the premise was stupendously wrong, so wrong that it should have invalidated anything that followed after it. Okay. Disregard the flawed analogy, then, since all analogies are flawed to one extent or another. Government living beyond its means has worked so well, might living within its means perhaps be worth trying? If not, why not? (Serious questions.) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Jon Louis Mann straw-manned: a lot of people called congress, against the bailout, but the people who didn't are the sheep and they are largely those who buy into the war and straw man attacks against obama. I doubt very much that you actually know what was in the hearts and minds of every person who did not happen to call Congress to complain about the bailout, and yet you find yourself in a position to call us sheep and to claim that we are those who buy into the war (I don't) and the straw man attacks against (my preferred candidate) Obama. Perhaps I didn't call Congress because I was working a huge amount of overtime during the period during which the bailout was being planned. Perhaps I didn't call Congress because I am just so sick and tired of a system that couldn't possibly care less about what I think that it's just not worth the effort. Perhaps I didn't call congress because I do not pretend that I have a better grasp of a financial system so complex that the world's leading experts on the subject were caught completely unawares. Perhaps there are 300 million other reasons, none of which is because I am a sheep, as you blithely assume, that explain my fellow Americans' inaction. i have no problem paying any kind of taxes for the common good; i do have a problem paying for bureaucratic waste, idiotic wars and bailing out crooked brokers, who commit insurance, mortgage and financial fraud! It is beyond almost everyone (although perhaps not you) to know what portion of their taxes go to bureaucratic waste, idiotic wars, and bailing out crooked brokers. It is against the law to withhold that portion, even if you could calculate it. What would you have us do, then? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Folks, On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:28 PM, John Williams wrote: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons. Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades! Please lighten up on John. He's cornered and his messages sound like he's becoming unglued. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
