The decline and eventual fall of the USA as world superpower?

[Brian]

There is a subtle but significant distinction, BTW, between "non-scientific" and "with little or no critical thinking skills."

 

Again, Alinsky would be proud.

[ralis]

Actually, most of the propaganda has been been put in the mainstream to squelch discussion and convince the non-scientific population that "the science is settled" when, in fact, that very phrase is as close to one can come to heresy among the objective scientific community. This same tactic is used by authoritarians as a stock in trade on a variety of topics. Alinsky would be pleased.

 

I have never claimed the science to be settled. Non linear dynamic systems such as our biosphere are complex.

 

The denier crowd which guises itself as rational participants offers nothing but cherry picked data.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

There is a subtle but significant distinction, BTW, between "non-scientific" and "with little or no critical thinking skills." Again, Alinsky would be proud.

 

I understand that, but most of the population in this country fails to ask well thought out questions, whether or not that person is in the non-scientific realm or posses few critical thinking skills. Will you drop the Alinsky reference. I think for myself!

[joeblast]

When I say that I know the facts around the science is because I have researched both sides of the debate.

wait, hang on a sec...

 

 

 

 

sorry, just had to get that out...

 

 

ralis, if you researched the facts about it, you'd have noticed it was pointed out that ALL of these climate models rely SO heavily on statistics, it is really quite a curiosity they have never once employed a professional statistician.

 

like you said, leave it to the experts

 

Hansen-Mann-Schmidt-Trenberth-Jones-Briffa ALL FAIL...

[Brian]

 

Class warfare? I said nothing about class but was defending the rights provided in the Constitution for persons or groups to engage in contracts which is what unions do.

 

Explain to me where I have made bigoted remarks. Post quotes of such remarks.

Are you honestly saying you can read this post without recognizing the classism and bigotry woven into your language?

You right wing types always attack the unions and fail to mention the good; such as elimination of sweat shops, improved working conditions, decent wages etc. I guess the working people that take care of the commons, build your shit that is consumed by you and everyone else are low lifes in your mind. If you know anything in regards to history, Hitler and Mussolini both got rid of the unions. Why? Unions were viewed as a threat to their power structure.

[ralis]

wait, hang on a sec...

 

 

 

 

sorry, just had to get that out...

 

 

ralis, if you researched the facts about it, you'd have noticed it was pointed out that ALL of these climate models rely SO heavily on statistics, it is really quite a curiosity they have never once employed a professional statistician.

 

like you said, leave it to the experts

 

Hansen-Mann-Schmidt-Trenberth-Jones-Briffa ALL FAIL...

 

Physicists are mathematicians . Physics is based on rigorous math. Your assumptions are based on what? BTW, most universities require statistics course work for any science major.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

Are you honestly saying you can read this post without recognizing the classism and bigotry woven into your language?

 

If I am not mistaken you seem to advocate a right wing agenda which advocates what I stated in regards to unions.

[Brian]

 

If I am not mistaken you seem to advocate a right wing agenda which advocates what I stated in regards to unions.

You didn't answer the question, obviously.

 

You are mistaken about me advocating "a right-wing agenda" unless by that phrase you mean valuing freedom & rule of law and recognizing the Constitution as the foundational legal document upon which this constitutional republic is established? Are you suggesting that it is "mainstream" to value oppression & rule of man and to deny that the Constitution is the foundational legal document for this republic, or to deny that the USA is supposed to be a constitutional republic? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

 

As to unions, I have absolutely no problem with a union which respects the rights of the individual, conducts itself in a legal & ethical fashion, doesn't feather its own nest, and is fiscally beyond reproach.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Brian

[ralis]

You didn't answer the question, obviously.

 

You are mistaken about me advocating "a right-wing agenda" unless by that phrase you mean valuing freedom & rule of law and recognizing the Constitution as the foundational legal document upon which this constitutional republic is established? Are you suggesting that it is "mainstream" to value oppression & rule of man and to deny that the Constitution is the foundational legal document for this republic, or to deny that the USA is supposed to be a constitutional republic? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

 

As to unions, I have absolutely no problem with a union which respects the rights of the individual, conducts itself in a legal & ethical fashion, doesn't feather its own nest, and is fiscally beyond reproach.

 

Do you advocate neoliberalism? What about the 'general welfare' clause in the Constitution which is part of the 'tax and spending' clause as well as the preamble?

 

Freedom is defined differently by many. However, if freedom means gutting social safeguards, gutting the EPA, allowing Oligarchies, letting persons starve and so forth, then I am not in agreement.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

By "neoliberalism," I guess you mean the late 20th century redefinition of the term as espoused by Frances Piven? No, I am not an advocate.

 

As to the "general welfare" clause, I would refer you to the words of James Madison:

"...It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction . . . what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon. If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it; shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent and the clear and precise expressions, be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? . . . the idea of an enumeration of particulars, which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity . . . . "

In fact, read Federalist Papers #14, 27, 39, 41, 45 & 83. They clearly demonstrate the meaning of that phrase and demonstrate that the Constitution would not have been ratified had the phrase carried the modern neo-feudalist redefinition. The transcripts of the debates during the individual state ratifying conventions are illustrative, too.

 

I reject your definition of "freedom." I do find it curious, though, that you mention the EPA here but totally ignored the report from the IG for the EPA posted earlier in the thread about the highly inappropriate human trials the EPA has been caught conducting.

 

As to your earlier objection to my reference to Saul Alinsky, I'll point you to the words of James Whitcomb Riley. In fact, if I feel so inclined, I may start responding to your polemics by pointing to the rule(s) you are employing. Those who are only superficially aware (or unaware of him entirely) of Alinsky for his Rules for Radicals (which his publisher would not print as Rules for Revolutionaries) would be well advised to also investigate his earlier Reveille for Radicals in which he explains that only communist/socialist/Marxist revolutionaries are physically capable of logical thought and that everyone else is either an enemy to be destroyed or is cannon fodder. He also introduced the phrase "community organizer" as a below-the-radar substitute for "party leader," BTW.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Brian

[ralis]

By "neoliberalism," I guess you mean the late 20th century redefinition of the term as espoused by Frances Piven? No, I am not an advocate.

 

 

I reject your definition of "freedom." I do find it curious, though, that you mention the EPA here but totally ignored the report from the IG for the EPA posted earlier in the thread about the highly inappropriate human trials the EPA has been caught conducting.

 

 

What I meant was that persons that are advocates of neoliberal policies i.e, deregulation, gutting of government social programs, eliminating the EPA, Dept. of Education etc. will give one more freedom from interference of government. The problem I have is that persons disenfranchised i.e, poor with little education, outsourced job opportunities, no medical insurance and so forth are left out.

 

I didn't ignore the EPA research. I am not an advocate of that and any persons committing such crimes should face the consequences. Everyone has a basic right to breath clean air, drink clean water, have health care, not be victimized by polluters and stop the destruction of the biosphere. If there were no EPA, then very little recourse is possible.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ralis

[zerostao]

who are 'radicals'

 

http://www.amazon.com/Common-Prayer-Liturgy-Ordinary-Radicals/dp/0310326192

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical)

[Brian]

 

What I meant was that persons that are advocates of neoliberal policies i.e, deregulation, gutting of government social programs, eliminating the EPA, Dept. of Education etc. will give one more freedom from interference of government. The problem I have is that persons disenfranchised i.e, poor with little education, outsourced job opportunities, no medical insurance and so forth are left out.

 

I didn't ignore the EPA research. I am not an advocate of that and any persons committing such crimes should face the consequences. Everyone has as basic right to breath clean air, drink clean water and not be victimized by polluters! If there were no EPA, then very little recourse is possible.

Thank you, ralis.

 

I am very much a proponent of a social safety net and I recognize the importance of oversight over clean air, water, etc.

 

Years ago, I would have been (make that "was") an unquestioning supporter of government as protector of the little people. Since then, however, things have changed. Over the last 20+ years, I have had a front-row seat to the workings of the FDA and the Dept. of Education, and a second-row seat to the mental-health community (through my wife's profession) and the DoD (through several close relatives) and the DoE (through friends, including some physicist buddies I kept in touch with over the years). I have also had, in recent years, a front-row seat to the local, state and federal political process as an inside observer (interacting directly with policy makers rather than watching or reading about it in the media) and, frankly, what I see in all these areas is very disturbing to me.

 

I have realized that the Founders put much more thought into this whole thing than most give them credit for and have also realized that there are people who have been consciously working towards an untenable "socialist utopia" for more than a hundred years in this country -- and many, many more who are what Stalin referred to as "useful idiots."

 

When I see a cognitive dissonance between stated objectives and reasonably anticipated outcomes, I question motive. So, when a politician push for an increase in minimum wage, for instance, despite a history of data showing that doing so pushes more people into poverty than it positively impacts, I wonder whether that politician is well-intentioned but uninformed or is intent on increasing government dependence. Honestly, I think it is probably something like 99-to-1 in favor of the well-intentioned but the deleterious impact on a large number of individuals and on society as a whole renders the question moot in my opinion. This doesn't mean I want poor people to starve or want to oppress the "working class" or whatever divisive language might be used -- in fact, precisely the OPPOSITE is true!

 

You'll notice, I hope, that I am not making any references to political party or affiliation here. That is because I recognize that this is NOT a red vs. blue thing, or an "R" vs. "D" thing. Instead, you might think of it as an extension of the "Think Global, Act Local" or the "Shop Local" philosophy. I am philosophically opposed, for example, to the government using tariffs or subsidies in an attempt to manipulate trade practices but I am totally in favor of individuals conscientiously choosing to prefer local goods/services. I tend towards food from local farms rather than from corporate mega-farms. I'd rather support craftspeople who are my neighbors than craftspeople who live half a world away and I truly hope that people half a world away are supporting their own local artisans, too. I believe in charity and encourage others to be charitable with their energy and the fruits thereof but I recognize that compelled charity is theft. At the same time, though, I understand that there arise situations and conditions in which local charity can be inadequate. The key, in my mind, is to value & continually strive for a condition of least-compulsion without accepting failure to reach & maintain that condition as a repudiation of the concept. (Sort of like the Quaker philosophy of seeking to remove the causes of war without pretending like war doesn't exist.) I want the federal government to be minimally intrusive and I expect government to become increasingly engaged as it becomes more localized.

 

My personal observations and studies continue to shape my personal philosophies, and those same personal studies strongly suggest this philosophy of governance happens to have been the general consensus of the Founders -- so my alignment with them is something I've backed into, if you follow me.

[ralis]

Thank you, ralis.

 

I am very much a proponent of a social safety net and I recognize the importance of oversight over clean air, water, etc.

 

Years ago, I would have been (make that "was") an unquestioning supporter of government as protector of the little people. Since then, however, things have changed. Over the last 20+ years, I have had a front-row seat to the workings of the FDA and the Dept. of Education, and a second-row seat to the mental-health community (through my wife's profession) and the DoD (through several close relatives) and the DoE (through friends, including some physicist buddies I kept in touch with over the years). I have also had, in recent years, a front-row seat to the local, state and federal political process as an inside observer (interacting directly with policy makers rather than watching or reading about it in the media) and, frankly, what I see in all these areas is very disturbing to me.

 

I have realized that the Founders put much more thought into this whole thing than most give them credit for and have also realized that there are people who have been consciously working towards an untenable "socialist utopia" for more than a hundred years in this country -- and many, many more who are what Stalin referred to as "useful idiots."

 

When I see a cognitive dissonance between stated objectives and reasonably anticipated outcomes, I question motive. So, when a politician push for an increase in minimum wage, for instance, despite a history of data showing that doing so pushes more people into poverty than it positively impacts, I wonder whether that politician is well-intentioned but uninformed or is intent on increasing government dependence. Honestly, I think it is probably something like 99-to-1 in favor of the well-intentioned but the deleterious impact on a large number of individuals and on society as a whole renders the question moot in my opinion. This doesn't mean I want poor people to starve or want to oppress the "working class" or whatever divisive language might be used -- in fact, precisely the OPPOSITE is true!

 

You'll notice, I hope, that I am not making any references to political party or affiliation here. That is because I recognize that this is NOT a red vs. blue thing, or an "R" vs. "D" thing. Instead, you might think of it as an extension of the "Think Global, Act Local" or the "Shop Local" philosophy. I am philosophically opposed, for example, to the government using tariffs or subsidies in an attempt to manipulate trade practices but I am totally in favor of individuals conscientiously choosing to prefer local goods/services. I tend towards food from local farms rather than from corporate mega-farms. I'd rather support craftspeople who are my neighbors than craftspeople who live half a world away and I truly hope that people half a world away are supporting their own local artisans, too. I believe in charity and encourage others to be charitable with their energy and the fruits thereof but I recognize that compelled charity is theft. At the same time, though, I understand that there arise situations and conditions in which local charity can be inadequate. The key, in my mind, is to value & continually strive for a condition of least-compulsion without accepting failure to reach & maintain that condition as a repudiation of the concept. (Sort of like the Quaker philosophy of seeking to remove the causes of war without pretending like war doesn't exist.) I want the federal government to be minimally intrusive and I expect government to become increasingly engaged as it becomes more localized.

 

My personal observations and studies continue to shape my personal philosophies, and those same personal studies strongly suggest this philosophy of governance happens to have been the general consensus of the Founders -- so my alignment with them is something I've backed into, if you follow me.

 

Thanks for adding some clarity!

[joeblast]

Physicists are mathematicians . Physics is based on rigorous math. Your assumptions are based on what? BTW, most universities require statistics course work for any science major.

oh, its funny how the equivalence disappears ever so quickly when useful. so obvious, its pathetic. of course, only Climate Scientsists™ have the ability to analyze and predict (guffaw) the Climate...but Statistics? Man, we all take that, cmon, anyone who's been to college has taken a stats class,

 

and of course there's not enough depth to the field that one can actually be Pro at it...I mean, what does Pro mean in other fields?

 

you tired of getting schooled on this one yet?

[Brian]

I spent several hours today with a delegation of physicians and educators from a college in Nigeria who are seeking more partnering institutions to help provide international experience to their students.

 

One of the topics presented by the American representatives to the Nigerian representatives was a minority mentoring program in which government funding is used to enable government employees to provide assistance and guidance to underprivileged minority students in the local service area, which overwhelmingly means black students living in government-provided housing and receiving additional government financial assistance for things like food, transportation and education-related expenses. The American presenters were rightfully quite proud of the good work they have done and spent about twenty minutes describing their efforts and highlighting some of their success stories (stories which truly tug at one's heart-strings).

 

After the presentation, the Nigerians were encouraged to ask questions and to tell us how this might be similar to what they do in their own country, and how they might use this new information to their advantage at home. There was a minute or so of total silence followed by some whispering between them, and then another minute or so of silence.

 

One of the physicians then very diplomatically pointed out that despite greater levels of poverty within their country, they had no such programs because they didn't have a need for them. Rather than a system in which people either have to rely on the government for assistance or go it alone, he told us, Nigerian society has deep engagement by families, extended families and communities such that the needs of struggling students or people struck with major medical issues or being blessed with the birth of twins or triplets (and the financial burden that entails) will be assisted by family and community without anyone asking or being asked.

 

One of the older American educators in the group mentioned that it used to be that way here, too, and then -- literally -- the subject was abruptly changed.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Brian

[zerostao]

[Brian]

Very true!!! There's another common way -- rather than corporate bribery, often small special-interest groups use blackmail or extortion to accomplish the same thing.

 

Both approaches are used quite effectively with politicians of every stripe on all levels of government. Seems to have become the American way...

 

[CloudHands]

Thanks for this sample of your politic vision Brian. Because of our similar interests and being for most here I forget sometimes we have very very different background reality. It's really obvious about politic. I consider your opinion as logical, valid but I can't agree. In a compartmented world I'd have no interest in your politic but US politic is not about itself but more precisely maintaining itself on top of others.

 

I agree with Ralis on the fact that human should be on the core of the debate. When I said so I think everyone should have food and roof for free. In a world GB throws 1/3 of the food, I think it's no stupidity. Basic needs should not be a market. Instead we are speculating on cereal price...

 

About US politic I have to agree with the fact your gov is not liberal, not socially aimed either but protectionist. It's my opinion that a world ruled by market will ever be violent.

 

Did you heard about the TTIP, that will allow you to sell us food we are not even allowed to grow here. Hmmmmmm Why does no media talk about it ?

 

Anyway, that's neverending bs, what's really important is that my daughter is the cutest thing in the world, thought you should know.

[Brian]

I appreciate your response, CloudHands, and I recognize your sincerity. I am sure, as well, that your daughter is nearly as cute as my son was at that age.

 

Regional thought, however, is not confined by national boundaries or by political affiliations.

 

When people speak of "free food" or "free housing" (or "free" anything else), they either mean that someone else should pay for it, or they simply haven't thought things through, or they secretly favor a totalitarian regime. I suspect, in your case, that you simply haven't thought this through. Before you or anyone else gets upset by this paragraph, though, please read a little further...

 

Imagine that your country passed a law on Monday saying that free chicken eggs are a human right. Imagine, also, that near your home lives a husband and wife with three children who raise chickens and sell the eggs in the local market as their only source of income.

 

Suddenly, they are required by law to give all their eggs away for free. In order for that to work, it must also cost nothing for them to produce and deliver those eggs and it is also necessary for almost their other expenses to be eliminated since they no longer have income.

 

So their clothes must be free and their shoes and the gas for the truck they used to take eggs to market and the electricity to light their home and the TV they watch in the evening and the cable or satellite service which provides the channels they watch and the content on those channels and the wine they drink on Saturday evening when they go to a restaurant (not to mention the food at the restaurant) and so on and so on. The restaurant must provide them with free goods and services as they have no money (even though the law only covered "free eggs") so the cooks and wait-staff and bussers and dishwashers must work for free and the utilities companies must provide the restaurant with free electricity and natural gas and the furniture manufacturers must provide free furniture to both the egg farmer AND the restaurateur, etc., etc.

 

Immediately, you see, making ANY good or service "free" requires every single good and service to be free as well

 

This seems fine until the farmer realises that, since everything is free and all the family's wants and needs will be met regardless of how hard they work -- and they stop working quite so hard. Soon, instead of delivering 1000 eggs to market each day, they are delivering 700 eggs a day, and then making deliveries every other day, and soon only 500 eggs once a week -- until they simply stop raising chickens. I mean, why bother? All their needs are met and they would prefer to go to the cinema every day and watch free movies instead.

 

One of two paths remain at that point. Either the entire society grinds to a halt as people stop working, or the government steps in.

 

When the government steps in, it must require some people to raise chickens and some people to wait tables and some people to run movie theaters and some people to work as plumbers. Additionally, the government must develop some method of ensuring people are working hard and are producing the volume of work demanded of them in exchange for having their wants and needs satisfied. It doesn't take long before only "needs" are satisfied -- and then it becomes "met" rather than "satisfied" -- with the government determining what people need and what "met" means...

 

Is this what you have in mind or did you mean instead that the government should make "other people" pay for food and housing? (And entertainment and transportation and...) If this is what you had in mind, who decides who gets the "free stuff" and who are the "other people" who pay for it all? (I would have several additional questions as well...)

Edited April 5, 2014 by Brian

[thelerner]

 

When people speak of "free food" or "free housing" (or "free" anything else), they either mean that someone else should pay for it, or they simply haven't thought things through, or they secretly favor a totalitarian regime. I suspect, in your case, that you simply haven't thought this through. Before you or anyone else gets upset by this paragraph, though, please read a little further...

 

Imagine that your country passed a law on Monday saying that free chicken eggs are a human right. Imagine, also, that near your home lives a husband and wife with three children who raise chickens and sell the eggs in the local market as their only source of income.

 

Suddenly, they are required by law to give all their eggs away for free. In order for that to work, it must also cost nothing for them to produce and deliver those eggs and it is also necessary for almost their other expenses to be eliminated since they no longer have income.

 

 

 

This seems fine until the farmer realises that, since everything is free and all the family's wants and needs will be met regardless of how hard they work -- and they stop working quite so hard. Soon, instead of delivering 1000 eggs to market each day, they are delivering 700 eggs a day, and then making deliveries every other day, and soon only 500 eggs once a week -- until they simply stop raising chickens.

 

Is this what you have in mind or did you mean instead that the government should make "other people" pay for food and housing? (And entertainment and transportation and...) If this is what you had in mind, who decides who gets the "free stuff" and who are the "other people" who pay for it all? (I would have several additional questions as well...)

True to a point. You certainly see this dynamic happening in Venezuela. Where the solution to shortages has been to strangle the producers and distributors.

 

Still there are lesser evils. Food and housing should be affordable. I don't mind a tilt towards subsidies to make that happen. In some ways we've been doing the opposite as far as food. By making laws and requirements for ethanol, we've ended up skewing corn prices upward, creating hardships for poor.

[Brian]

Agreed, but now you are not speaking of "free" but instead of some being required to shoulder the burden for others without that situation being acknowledged, challenged or examined. Once "free something" is declared a "right," the true providers of that "something" are quickly labeled as "haters" for raising questions about the process itself, let alone questioning the underlying philosophy.

 

This is not coincidental.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Brian

[zerostao]

Edited April 5, 2014 by zerostao

[CloudHands]

Don't worry about my anger we're miles away

 

With all due respect and before you get angry : I'm not saying we do better, even if I'm much more comfortable with our system.

 

That's what I talk about when I speak about different background, you are so much about the self made man in a free country's cult that it's like you have no cultural knowledge of the common interest, what we call "public service" is seen as communist (communism is not that) which as been shown as the Russian devil for decades. -> I suppose I caricature.

 

When the gov provides a public service, it is not intended to make profit but to do the best for the majority. Of course everyone pays for that but everyone need or may need it one day or another. So maybe you'll win 1000 euros instead of 2000 euros but health care, is provided, if you lost your job you'll be helped for a moment. We call that solidarity.

Where we truly have a problem is that an enterprise of 1 or 2 people will pay taxes on the same rules than a 20 000 enterprise size so this lonely hard worker guy will work for cheap and that's quiet not encouraging. I admit it, he pays to much his freedom. And on the opposite, mega corporations have financial advantages, they get bigger, richer and more powerful. It's been a long time since money men are more powerful than citizens. Will you tell me, this is the way things are and have to be ?

 

I maintain I'm not very interested in that subject but I'll read you with attention.

 

Wish you all a nice good day !

Edited April 5, 2014 by CloudHands

[ralis]

Agreed, but now you are not speaking of "free" but instead of some being required to shoulder the burden for others without that situation being acknowledged, challenged or examined.

 

Who is appointed to challenge and by whom?