tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6158596190590793788..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Santa frets about melting North Pole! Call N. Korea “Chinese”! Plus who is anti-science?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger162125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64622773601968828482012-01-01T11:14:54.022-08:002012-01-01T11:14:54.022-08:00Rob -
Actually, no one has provided any data one...Rob - <br /><br />Actually, no one has provided any data one way or the other. Someone linked to something that was barely tangentially related, but not responsive to my question.<br /><br />And, frankly, I'm not asking for reams of data - at this point, I'm merely asking Brin if he actually HAS any data comparing Fox's accuracy in scientific matters as compared to other mainstream media outlets - I want to know if he actually had any data supporting his assertion, or not. From the way he's continued to evade and toss epithets, I take it he has none but is too embarrassed (or something) to admit as much. <br />Surely a 'yes, I have the data' or 'no, I don't have the data' isn't so difficult to muster. <br /><br />Finally - I have no interest in trolling.. it's predictable, boring, and tired. I merely asked a question with an initially snarky attitude. If there has been any 'trolling' going on, I'd say, from the looks of his missives to me, it was from Brin.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65270607009116810552012-01-01T00:32:03.575-08:002012-01-01T00:32:03.575-08:00Fox "anti science"?
The six years I sp...Fox "anti science"? <br /><br />The six years I spent watching it (from 2000 through '08) there was never a breath of anything except ad-fixing populism. (After '08 we had cancelled satellite and cable altogether; the price-benefit ratio was no longer less than 1)<br /><br />Ad-fixing: Their content was designed with the single purpose of keeping your attention long enough to put your eyes in front of an ad, full stop. Still is; all commercial TV is. <br /><br />They were clearly willing to say anything, air anything, manufacture anything into a controversy to make sure you paid attention through a commercial break. <br /><br />That's the hallmark of entertainment, not news, and thoroughly emotion-centered, therefore also by definition not-science. <br /><br />As for the commentary shows, their editorial bias was always against progressives and against accepting AGCC, by my witness, for that entire time, denying what a seventh grader with his Earth Science class material could have told you.<br /><br />Whatever anyone else says about it, that's what I mean if I'm ever caught calling Fox "anti-science". The fact that CNN is little better doesn't give Fox a bye.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541997928359883625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33125524418592166402011-12-31T21:05:31.658-08:002011-12-31T21:05:31.658-08:00Kind nothing. Taunting the trolls is as much fun a...Kind nothing. Taunting the trolls is as much fun as trolling. And best of all, the Trolls can't help but respond even as they realize they're being manipulated. =^-^=<br /><br />I'm an evil evil man. I freely admit it. Though yes, I must admit it's also enjoyable watching people grow beyond their old tendencies and becoming responsible members of internet communities. I've done it on several occasions... and must admit it's always nice to see someone else grow beyond their trollish roots and become protective members of an online social network.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2293814169875805162011-12-31T21:00:56.934-08:002011-12-31T21:00:56.934-08:00Geez Robert. You are a full citizen here, so feed...Geez Robert. You are a full citizen here, so feed him if you must. But the shrill whines and moans are sufficiently monotonous and grating that I am no longer even skim-glancing.<br /><br />You are too kind, sometimes.<br /><br /><br />Onward to next posting!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75451935872275685322011-12-31T20:06:42.402-08:002011-12-31T20:06:42.402-08:00Greg, first of all add line-breaks between your pa...Greg, first of all add line-breaks between your paragraphs. A wall of text is incomprehensible and makes people not want to read it.<br /><br />Second of all, we HAVE posted data to you. You have ignored it. You keep whining that you want Dr. Brin ALONE to provide you with statistics and information. Dude. There is plenty of data out there THAT YOU CAN FIND YOURSELF that proves Dr. Brin's point. That he isn't gently guiding your hand to those links suggests one thing (and I say this having seen Dr. Brin extend a hand in friendship dozens of times in the last few years only to have it spat upon): he sees bullshit in your words.<br /><br />Now, given that I'm among the more conservative of people on this site (Tacticus has me beat, as do one or two others) and I see your claims as being suspect... well, that says something about how you are wording things. <br /><br />And that is? You sound like a troll and you act like a troll. And I say this as someone who HAS trolled in the past. (It's easy. All you need to do is say something that doesn't hold dirt with the mainstream audience and you get quite the flareup, and sometimes a flamewar. I'm no innocent here and I've instigated some flamewars I'm not proud of in the past. Not here, mind you.)<br /><br />So when I say you are sounding trollish and your actions are reminiscent of an internet troll, I say this as someone who has played the part. You claim otherwise? Take responsibility for your actions and words. Find the evidence yourself. Or find evidence proving this allegation is false and post that.<br /><br />It's called the Scientific Method. And outside of people who prefer to think religiously rather than intellectually (with their "gut" rather than their mind), it's a well-respected method that encourages decent and viable debate which can change opinions and minds of those who accept logic and reason to emotion and religiosity. <br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34511699329697668972011-12-31T17:54:30.625-08:002011-12-31T17:54:30.625-08:00Read The Fine Novels
And the word verification is...Read The Fine Novels<br /><br />And the word verification is:<br />"denybo"<br /><br />I swear there's an AI in there.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77329801180692939332011-12-31T17:44:14.730-08:002011-12-31T17:44:14.730-08:00If it's absurd, then it's an easy $500. Po...<i>If it's absurd, then it's an easy $500. Pony up, say I. </i><br /><br />... I don't understand why I'm not being able to make my point. I don't mean that in a snarky way - I genuinely don't understand why some don't seem to grasp what I'm saying - I don't know how I could articulate it any clearer, but something's clearly being lost in translation. <br />Brin's 'bet' was beside the point, a distraction from my question to him - which was "Do you have data supporting your conclusion about Fox being the most anti-science network" (or however he phrased his assertion). A wager at this point wouldn't answer that question, and in fact the very idea that he would need to wager on the issue implies that he, in fact, HAS NO DATA IN HAND. THAT was my suspicion in my original post - that his assertion was hyperbole, bravado. A $500 wager of what Fox does or doesn't do in the future isn't responsive to the original question, and is, in fact, deflection. <br />THAT is my point - and I must assume that Brin knows it at this point, after I've repeated it over and over, and he's descended (odddly) into a kind of ad-hom frenzy. I'm a 'troll', 'prickly','pouty whine[r]', 'I'm the only free thinker' (? Where the hell did this come from? Not from me - I neither said nor implied anything remotely like this. For what it's worth, despite what I've come to conclude about Brin's ability to debate objectively or tolerate challenges to his assumptions, I'd never hesitate to acknowledge that he was a 'free thinker', exceedingly creative and intelligent. As for anyone else here, I don't know any of you, but have no reason to believe you're NOT intelligent, well-meaning free-thinkers. <br />This has been a very odd experience for me. I asked some pretty obvious questions, albeit admittedly with some snark, initially, but an avalanche of ad-hom isn't what I expected. I guess I'm puzzled and a little disappointed more than anything - I was expecting some vigorous and elevated debate, not table-pounding and name-calling. <br />Whatever. It didn't cost me anything, so no harm, no foul, I guess. <br />Apparently others aren't forbidden to communicate with me, from the looks of things, though Brin would prefer to lob ad-hom bombs, it appears. <br />If anyone is interested - I've seen some references to 'uplifting' animals in one of Brin's speeches that was on Youtube, I believe. What's the purpose of 'uplifting' something that can't consciously make the choice to be uplifted?Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21722605856031071822011-12-31T17:20:05.327-08:002011-12-31T17:20:05.327-08:00So, Tacitus, then why do you come back?
No you ha...So, Tacitus, then why do you come back?<br /><br />No you have ALWAYS been made welcome here and always been treated as the gentleman you are. Do not insult yourself by calling yourself even remotely comparable to a whiney, obnoxious little twerp-troll.<br /><br />(I'd have tried again with him if ONCE he had offered a missive that was NOT a pouty whine. Even once.) Enough.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66314547264484853552011-12-31T14:20:44.383-08:002011-12-31T14:20:44.383-08:00LarryHart
Land on your feet. There will always be...LarryHart<br />Land on your feet. There will always be work for the capable and diligent, as you certainly seem to be.<br />Regards the recent dust up.<br />I tend to agree with Greg, Brin does not always play fair in debates. I have just gotten used to it.<br />Hey, he's paid (well we hope) for hyperbole!<br /><br />felix novum anno<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41450079424891748192011-12-31T13:47:03.954-08:002011-12-31T13:47:03.954-08:00LarryHart we are with you! Here's good vibes ...LarryHart we are with you! Here's good vibes for success and an even better gig, soon.<br /><br />Remember guys, if there comes a point when you need to post a need, feel free to copy it here. Who knows, someone else may have good ideas.<br /><br />Oh! Drop by visualcv.com We used it for my son and the ability to make your CV audio-visual and vivid is way-cool!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91229285706963551112011-12-31T13:42:04.402-08:002011-12-31T13:42:04.402-08:00I am looking at the tea leaves here. Assuming it&...I am looking at the tea leaves here. Assuming it's Romney in the end, what will he do in order to balance his ticket? He's got a rough patching job to do.<br /><br />Now, traditionally, the GOP nominee picks a running mate from the extreme nutso wing in order to keep them calm and prevent a 3rd party insurrection. This has led to a litany of VP choices - since 1952 - who were absolute monsters. Indeed, only one GOP VP nominee in the last 60 years has been remotely qualified to be president.<br /><br />That was a man I deeply despise, but one who was very qualified, on paper. George Bush Senior. Yep, the exception was chosen by... Reagan. He actually cared about qualifications and chose someone qualified. I keep saying Ronnie was under-rated in some ways.<br /><br />In Romney's case the need for a red-meat social conservative is desperate. First there's the Mormon thing. But even more important... the very MOMENT he accepts the nomination he will go<b> charging for the Center</b> as fast as he can veer about and switch to warp drive!<br /><br />That makes Rick Perry pretty much the obvious choice for Veep. Perry is the classic ticket balancer who brings along a huge state, seems folksy vs Romney's patrician/easterner look, and he can "vouch" for Romney, crisscrossing Red America nailing down the base... while avoiding questions from reporters.<br /><br />That last part is important, given his history of deer-in-headlights gaffes. His one debate with Biden will be a writeoff and he'll be well prepped with sound bites.<br /><br />In Red America he'll assure: "Mitt's okay. He needs to say these moderate things in order to get rid of Obama. Just think of the Supreme Court, hold your nose and think about ME while you vote!"<br /><br />Funny thing? On paper, Perry actually is one of the most qualified folks. He has a quarter of Bush 41's IQ and will prove to be a monumental mistake... <br /><br />... indeed he is a model for Nehemia Scudder...<br /><br />...but his selection won't be the blatant insult that Palin's was. Or Nixon, Agnew, Quayle, Cheney and so many others. On paper, he seems the best choice from Romney's perspective. And of course, scary as heck.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57200606898935986112011-12-31T13:30:19.258-08:002011-12-31T13:30:19.258-08:00Well, this is likely my last post of 2011, so I wa...Well, this is likely my last post of 2011, so I want to thank Dr Brin and most everyone else here for a lively and interesting "place" on the internet. Civility is rare enough, and civility without boringness is almost unheard of, so this "place" is rare and special.<br /><br />As a citizen expressing an opinion, I'm inclined to advocate for giving Greg a second chance. He doesn't seem trollish to me, at least not since that first post, which may have been unfortunate. On the other hand, I don't pretend to be the voice of this blog, nor am I intimately familiar with the period y'all went through when a particular troll had to be outright banned. I'm also inclined to give Dr Brin the benefit of the doubt if he's picking up a vibe I'm not aware of. I know--typical squishy fence-sitting liberal. Caveat emptor.<br /><br />I have not forgotten that I'm due to be outsourced from my job soon. I haven't mentioned it lately because the fact is the company hasn't exactly decided what they're going to do with the position--keep the employees as "consultants" , outsource the positions overseas, or outright eliminate them. In the meantime, if I don't find another job first, I'm still actively employed for three more months, which seems to me an unheard-of time to keep several people on as techies knowing they're going to be let go. I'm not exactly sure what that bodes for the future, but I do still intend to report from the front as to how difficult it actually is for a middle-class techie over 50 to find work in the present economy. In one sense, I dread it because the economy seems to really suck about now. On the other hand, I recognize that I may be being forced to do something I should have done long ago on my own. I tend to exhibit too much inertia for my own good.<br /><br />2012 is set to be an interesting year, maybe TOO interesting. May it treat us all well. Happy New Year, one and all.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47503394190450646232011-12-31T13:24:35.238-08:002011-12-31T13:24:35.238-08:00Rob, please, let the troll spin his tizzy. It'...Rob, please, let the troll spin his tizzy. It's all classic cliches. "I'm the only free thinker and cowards are avoiding questions that might upset their assumptions!" Yawners without a scintilla of substance.<br /><br />If there had been a single moment of original thinking, I might've looked past the relentless discourtesy and self-referential prickliness. You all have seen me do that.<br /><br />In this case... just yawn. The bug will go away.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87296241356987774792011-12-31T12:48:20.689-08:002011-12-31T12:48:20.689-08:00If it's absurd, then it's an easy $500. Po...If it's absurd, then it's an easy $500. Pony up, say I.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541997928359883625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70006316707899955992011-12-31T10:42:13.784-08:002011-12-31T10:42:13.784-08:00The superficiality of this place grates, so you wo...The superficiality of this place grates, so you won't have to bother avoiding answering any further challenges to your baseless assertions. I didn't come here to troll, but to engage in interesting discussion. You, Brin, in fact, invited me here yourself.The fact that simply asking for supporting data that you refuse to provide is considered 'trolling' is enough for me to realize that this place isn't what I thought it'd be, and I'm not really interested in what I've seen so far.<br />I do find it amusing, though, that you seem to believe (or act as though you believe) that a wager on some future event is equivalent to data already gathered. If you look at it in terms of Venn diagrams, Fox's 'anti-science' content in the past and its 'anti - science' content in the future are not the same sets. They may or may not share the same domain - only determinable after the 'future' events have passed - but they are different sets. <br />Think about it - you're a PhD - you had to defend your thesis. Would it be a valid defense of your thesis if you replied, when asked about your data, 'I'll bet you $500 that I can find data to support my hypothesis?' Of course not - it's absurd, and obviously so. Your questioners would - rightly - ask to see the data supporting your conclusion.<br />Your continued reliance on this 'wager' stunt, and your complaints that I'm 'making you do all the work' imply that you have no data, that your assertion was bluster, and you're embarrassed at being called on it. There's nothing wrong with venturing an opinion on a topic, even if unsupported... but it is important to at least be honest enough to represent opinion as such and not fact.<br />Finally - some words from a wise guru that I've seen somewhere online - <br />"Nevertheless, look, when you boil it down, this [...]is just an assertion, bereft of even correlative evidence, let alone proof."<br />Wise words, and justly dismissive of assertions unsupported by actual data. It'd be even more impressive if those who say such things live up to their own standards.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16742577032198764622011-12-31T08:02:36.999-08:002011-12-31T08:02:36.999-08:00Dr Brin:
If...if...if...
...then the libertarian...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />If...if...if... <br />...then the libertarians have a point. There is a level at which it is "their money." and they deserve to have some say in how it is disposed.<br /></i><br />In the original "Dune" novel, when a Fremen died, the rule was that the body belonged to the individual (family?), but the water belonged to the tribe. <br /><br />The rule makes sense in their particular circumstance, where water is so necessary to life and also so rare. Private propterty gives way to necessity.<br /><br />Now, money is neither AS necessary to life nor AS as rare as water on Arrakis, so such a draconian appeal against private property is not yet warranted. BUT...in our present society, money is getting pretty darned CLOSE to necessity and (for the 99%) starting to get CLOSE to rare as well.<br /><br />No real conclusion here--just throwing it out that both the "private property" position and the "societal claim" position have a point in the debate about disposition of wealth. It's not a matter of one side being evil--rather it is a matter of adjudicating between competing rights. At least part of the decsion rests on what alternatives are available.<br /><br />The Ayn Rand position that no one has a claim on another's effort or property rests on the fact that the mere fact of needing something doesn't cause the need to be fulfilled--we have to do work to make it happen, and the results "belong" to those who devise and perform the methods. For example, we don't live in the Garden of Eden, so we have to work fields or raise chickens or whatever in order to eat. The ones who actually perform the work should not be carrying everyone else on their backs without remuneration. So far, I don't object.<br /><br />BUT...so much of life is dependent upon happy accidents that are not the result of ANY individual's work or thought. We live by the grace of a planet with an oxygen atmosphere and liquid water. If those things were not the case, no amount of pleading would cause our life-support system to maintain us, but since those things ARE the case, they are everyone's birthright.<br /><br />What the very-recent corporatist political view seems to advocate is that someone can claim OWNERSHIP of the oxygen, the water, the fact that the earth inhabits the Goldilocks Zone of the solar system, and then everyone else who wants to make use of those happy accidents has to PAY THAT INDIVIDUAL for the use of "his" property. I paint an exaggeration here, but only a slight one--I trust my meaning is clear.<br /><br />What I object to is not the NOTION of private property, but the lack of a clear and rational description of what does (and what does not) CONSTITUTE private property.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48982522480457490022011-12-31T07:44:05.616-08:002011-12-31T07:44:05.616-08:00Please ignore the troll.
Let me put this straight...<i>Please ignore the troll.<br /><br />Let me put this straight for the record... this "Greg fellow" is owed nothing by any of us.<br /><br />I made clear that I will happily take his money in a wager. I offered terms that utterly fair but also subject to negotiation. Instead... in a series of deeply offensive sneers and neeeners... he has demanded that I do all the work, for no conceivable reward... since the "reward of winning a piss-off with a troll is negligible.<br /><br />"Greg" come back with $500 to lay on the table, with your full real name and a third party we can deposit our funds with. No less than $500 would make me willing to deal with that nasty little troll even one more time.</i><br /><br />Now THAT'S funny... you berate me for not being an 'adult' who backs up his assertions - assertions you made on my behalf, with no input from me - and yet you descend into hyperbole and ad-hominem when the same is asked of you. <br />It's obvious at this point why you're so defensive and weird about this - you've got no data to back you up and never have. You made an unsupported, sweeping assertion and someone called you on it... and it irritates you. <br />That happens, but it's ugly when someone's vanity can't allow them to admit it. It's dishonest, frankly. <br />I don't think you have to worry about me 'trolling' this place (which is what I assume you call those who challenge your unsupported assumptions). This is pretty lame - and it's not even vaguely scientific if all you're doing is tossing out unsupported musings, based on no hard data, with no acceptance of critical review. <br />Grow up, guy. This is just silly, and it doesn't reflect well on you. I came here because you invited me, frankly, and I thought that it'd be interesting to get into some debates with smart folks on interesting topics. <br />Instead, I receive poo-flinging from a guy who's all defensive because I asked him to back up an unsupported assertion. It's so junior high, it's embarrassing. <br />I'm disappointed, to say the least. I mean - what's the point of even discussing issues with someone, even a smart someone, if they throw a tantrum if you question something they don't want questioned? It's just lame.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91061623384918123792011-12-31T00:48:50.936-08:002011-12-31T00:48:50.936-08:00If all the rich were self-made and became wealthy ...If all the rich were self-made and became wealthy through the efficient and competitively creative delivery of better goods and services...<br /><br />...and if they did not cheat, they faced repeatedly-renewed and fair competition, they did not saddle the public with liabilities while privatizing all profits... and if they paid their fair share of taxes and upkeep for a civilization that's been very very good to them (especially when at war)...<br /><br />... then the libertarians have a point. There is a level at which it is "their money." and they deserve to have some say in how it is disposed. After all, if they were clever at acquiring and using it, maybe that cleverness can go into disposition, as well.<br /><br />Hence, although I feel the Inheritance Tax is the fairest and best of all taxes... the one that directly prevents the return of the olde enemy of markets and freedom, inherited aristocracy...<br /><br />...and even though the US Founders agreed with me, breaking up huge estates with a radicalism that would make FDR seem tame...<br /><br />...I still think there should be a gaping loophole. The Inheritance Tax needn't ever be paid! So long as the money goes to something cool that will make a better world. <br /><br />And I don't mind the whole "name it after me" thing. Yes, Maimonedes said that such charity is "lower" than anonymous giving. So? It still is terrific. Heck, even Leona Helmsley giving he money "to dogs" could have mattered, had the trustees used it to start dog uplift! Well, funding shelters, while lining their own pockets, it is still a net plus. I guess.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23128402922779572332011-12-30T23:20:46.826-08:002011-12-30T23:20:46.826-08:00Concerning Dr. Brin's tweeted link today that ...Concerning Dr. Brin's tweeted link today that stated atheists as individuals and groups are more charitable Believers, Do these numbers take into account tithe? <br /><br />http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20111125r<br /><br />Not to take away anything from these famous atheists and their charitable giving, after all they could just as well have used their ill-gotten booty by creating private armies and making the world a much worse place, but it does seem they publicize their "generosity" a little too much. I wonder about the statement that atheists don't receive a reward by giving. Aren't they also attempting to immortalize a piece of themselves through creating whatever fund, university or hospital they choose, all named after the donors? Again, I think charitable giving by anyone is terrific, but do have the questions about the math in the article. Also in the current economic climate, the idea that the 1%, religious or not, are so praiseworthy through these grandiose donations are a bit irksome. It's like they spent their life bleeding the majority of us to amass their wealth, then want us immortalize their name due to their "enlightening and healing" the masses. I have a gut feeling most these guys would like to build a pyramid Egyptian style after their death if they thought they could get away with it. Is it not enough they seem to be rigging the system to steal our money during the majority of their lifetimes, but they want us to worship them when they sprinkle a little of it back on us after their deaths? Wouldn't it be better if they did it chuck e cheese style and before death take all their winnings and get a nice little knickknack ranging from getting a street named after you to renaming a mountain or even a state in your honor while taking 95% of your amassed wealth and giving it back to the people who are still in the game? (The kids can get the 5%.). This could also keep the super wealthy more grounded since there would be a temptation to kill off any obnoxious über rich types and get a double payoff.burthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13110355275745944647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54333817051829034172011-12-30T21:20:53.344-08:002011-12-30T21:20:53.344-08:00Lighter side (...or maybe not...) Penn Jillette: A...Lighter side (...or maybe not...) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE&feature=player_embedded#!" rel="nofollow">Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election</a>.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23982156254994864822011-12-30T20:33:19.655-08:002011-12-30T20:33:19.655-08:00@Sociotard wrote:
"...So there were some WMD ...@Sociotard wrote:<br /><i>"...So there were some WMD in Iraq..."</i><br /><br />Uhm, it was publicly known at the time that Iraq had tag-ends of chemical weapons in odd locations, left over from its campaigns against Iran and domestic foes. In a reality in which Europe still finds unexploded bombs here and there, it was expected at the time of Bush's lies about WMDs that Iraq would have lost munitions here and there.<br /><br />I remember the Bush Administration trumpeting the finding of a case of old mustard gas shells, until its utter insignificance made the pettiness of their claim patent even to our own press. IIRC there were also false positives when insecticide residue set off tests for finding nerve gas. <br /><br />The term "WMD" itself is classic propaganda, mixing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons into a single category of things that are so awful that they justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in their suppression. Mustard gas can be made with technology from WW1 so it hard to name a nation on earth that cannot produce some form of WMD and is therefore a threat to us. Heck, I'm not sure I could name a *city* that couldn't produce a WMD ... can you?rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29656673393506007972011-12-30T20:15:36.831-08:002011-12-30T20:15:36.831-08:00@Ian wrote:
"...if you subscribe to a cospira...@Ian wrote:<br /><i>"...if you subscribe to a cospiratorial view of the world where the US is being uniquely mistreated and abused..."</i><br /><br />I don't subscribe to that view. However, is it not patently obvious that our USA used to be the great manufacturing center of the world, as a result of which we had an outsized share of jobs which were high-value-added and therefore paid well. And the natural ... NOT conspiratorial ... result of that simple fact is that some parties want to pick themselves up by knocking us down.<br /><br />And ... the point that your analysis seems to have missed ... our domestic Aristocracy Of Wealth profits from this knocking down.<br /><br />It is simply false that our USA would suffer if, for example, China decided to stop shipping us cut-rate textiles and computers. We are perfectly capable of making underwear and PCs. Please keep in mind that the American economy today is roughly as large as the entire world economy not so long ago; it is irrational to think that we "need" to be hooked up to the rest of the world's economy; there are without a doubt some benefits to it which we should take but only if they are not offset by the problems.<br /><br /><i>"Also, what is your evidence that the WTO treaty hasn't "worked as promised"?"</i><br /><br />We were promised that WTO and NAFTA would result in MORE JOBS. That didn't happen.<br /><br /><i>"Who promised you that the WTO would end recessions..."</i><br /><br />Classic straw man!<br /><br /><i>"... and prevent financial markets from behaving irrationally? "</i><br /><br />Uhm, what financial markets have behaved "irrationally"?<br /><br />Look around, man. The financiers are making bank! This is extremely rational behavior on their part. Do you think they accidentally or irrationally stumbled into greater wealth than any pirate or emperor?<br /><br />Even using the specialized notion of "rational" that economists prefer (...and often use to confuse non-economists....) where is YOUR evidence that the markets are "irrational"? They're doing their thing, matching supply and demand in a death spiral of reduced demand leading to reduced supply. Markets are perfectly capable of stabilizing rationally at near zero economic activity, and it's only we poor humans who think that's a bad thing.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75448854950667909412011-12-30T18:44:19.847-08:002011-12-30T18:44:19.847-08:00A fascinating interview with a modern Luddite. He...A fascinating interview with a modern Luddite. He claims that technology has a destructive influence, and has set 2020-2035 as the date of our collapse (with a $10,000 bet)sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24155338711292892482011-12-30T14:57:48.214-08:002011-12-30T14:57:48.214-08:00Bill Nye vs. Fox...
Then there's this little n...<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/absurd-fox-news-climate-change-claim-gets-smacked" rel="nofollow">Bill Nye vs. Fox...</a><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email" rel="nofollow">Then there's this little nugget...</a><br />Admittedly, the second site is iffy sometime, but... but... ya gotta love that first item up there,<br /><br />-The VagabondAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50188621874306309042011-12-30T14:53:23.684-08:002011-12-30T14:53:23.684-08:00http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-...<a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/</a><br /><br />Interesting. So there were some WMD in Iraq. It looks like they were fairly small, not nuclear at all, and nowhere near what we were told we were going to war for, but WMD nonetheless.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.com