PBS (10-1)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
<http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2008/10/1&name=Pearls_Before_Swine>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/4pz3sb>
<http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20081001.html>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/3nkj3l>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Lothar Frings
> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
tackles that just because it's not popular.
cryptoguy
As Linus said to Lucy, on the same topic, probaby
more than 30 years ago:
"Well, why don't you leave?"
Peter Trei
Antonio E. Gonzalez
What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
get? China certainly got it . . .
Invid Fan
<977edda2-718f-442f...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
Well, the two solutions are either stop having as many kids or kill the
extra population. The richer countries already have lower birthrates,
so either option would probably have to be imposed on the poorer
ones...
(Piers Anthony did a book years ago where Earth and an alien planet
exchange governments: the people on each planet think they've been
conquered, and the alien overlords are detached enough emotionally to
cull the excess populations)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Mike Marshall
>vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>tackles that just because it's not popular.
If I was gone, all my problems would vanish, but there would still be
problems...
Ten or Twenty thousand years after we're all gone, an observer would
hardly be able to tell we were ever here, but there would still be
"problems"...
-Mike "earthquakes, meteors, fires, roaches..."
Brian Huntley
You're thinking about it wrong. Think terraforming, externally sourced
mineral augmentation, and forestry renewal. And I, for one, bow to
our insect overlords.
As to our detectability, I think that'll last longer than 20,000
years. The Yttrium stratum alone would indicate something strange
happened here in the 20th century (Earth Reckoning.)
Mike Marshall
>As to our detectability, I think that'll last longer than 20,000
>years. The Yttrium stratum alone would indicate something strange
>happened here in the 20th century (Earth Reckoning.)
"hardly be able to tell" != "Histological study of collodial 90
yttrium ibritumomab tiuxetan blah bloo blub..." <g>
-Mike
aemeijers
support the draconian methods the Chinese government uses to enforce
their policy?
--
aem sends...
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
played just as an important role in the slow down of China's
population growth.
Joseph Nebus
>(Piers Anthony did a book years ago where Earth and an alien planet
>exchange governments: the people on each planet think they've been
>conquered, and the alien overlords are detached enough emotionally to
>cull the excess populations)
Can't imagine why people would think they were conquered just
because an alien race was carrying out mass murders in the name of some
alleged Improvement for the Right People.
I suppose that's not as creepy and wrong as any randomly
selected twenty page section of a Xanth book, though.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jackson
> Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> writes:
>
>> (Piers Anthony did a book years ago where Earth and an alien planet
>> exchange governments: the people on each planet think they've been
>> conquered, and the alien overlords are detached enough emotionally to
>> cull the excess populations)
>
> Can't imagine why people would think they were conquered just
> because an alien race was carrying out mass murders in the name of some
> alleged Improvement for the Right People.
Right - why would conquest be involved at all? (Signature from
November, 1994.)
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Because if they didn't vote for a lizard the wrong lizard
might get in. Got any gin?
- Ford Prefect (Douglas Adams)
Invid Fan
<nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> writes:
>
> >(Piers Anthony did a book years ago where Earth and an alien planet
> >exchange governments: the people on each planet think they've been
> >conquered, and the alien overlords are detached enough emotionally to
> >cull the excess populations)
>
> Can't imagine why people would think they were conquered just
> because an alien race was carrying out mass murders in the name of some
> alleged Improvement for the Right People.
>
Because their fleet went out to meet the enemy and was never heard from
again, with the enemy fleet showing up in orbit saying the war was over
:)
George W Harris
Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
James Nicoll
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:02:09 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
><wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 2, 6:30�pm, aemeijers <aemeij...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>>> > <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> � � A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>> >>> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>> >> Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>> >> vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>> >> tackles that just because it's not popular.
>>>
>>> > � �What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
>>> > get? �China certainly got it . . .
>>>
>>> Do YOU trust the government to decide who can and who can't? And do you
>>> support the draconian methods the Chinese government uses to enforce
>>> their policy?
>>>
>>Although some would argue that the increased wealth in the cities has
>>played just as an important role in the slow down of China's
>>population growth.
>
> Which is the chicken and which is the egg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>> <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>>> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>> Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>> vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>> tackles that just because it's not popular.
>>
>> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
>> get? China certainly got it . . .
>>
>>
>>
>Do YOU trust the government to decide who can and who can't? And do you
>support the draconian methods the Chinese government uses to enforce
>their policy?
Ummm, the "draconian" methods involve fines, and paying for the
extra kid's government-provided services (school, health); with
obvious exceptions for rural families and their different situation.
This is also one of the reasons China's new rich are having extra
kids: not only can they afford them, they're a kind of status symbol!
("You got a new Jaguar? Well I got a new kid!")
Of course, China's policy is per-couple, which may not work well
with modern non-nuclear families (single parents, re-married divorced
couples, gay couples). Solution: one childbirth per woman,
parentage depending on her situation/decision, and unlimited adoption
to pick up the rest. Could be refined, gives a lot of empowerment to
the woman giving birth, not to metion options to gays and other
couples who would otherwise be unable to have children. Certainly not
set in stone . . .
aemeijers
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:30:10 GMT, aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>>> <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>>>> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>>> Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>>> vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>>> tackles that just because it's not popular.
>>> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
>>> get? China certainly got it . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Do YOU trust the government to decide who can and who can't? And do you
>> support the draconian methods the Chinese government uses to enforce
>> their policy?
>
> Ummm, the "draconian" methods involve fines, and paying for the
> extra kid's government-provided services (school, health); with
> obvious exceptions for rural families and their different situation.
>
So all those news reports about neighborhood snitches reporting
pregnancies, and the local power structure essentially forcing abortions
were untrue? Or even for the ones who find abortion acceptable, the
societal preference for sons leading to a shortage of females in the
upcoming generation?
Mind you, I agree that the cultural/genetic habit of reproducing as
often as possible needs to change. I just don't think that the approach
China is taking (at least as reported in the MSM) is the way to do it.
Educating the upcoming generation about carrying capacity and how to
keep infant mortality low (so you don't NEED spare kids), and of course
how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, would be preferable.
But I also understand Piaget's 'time horizon' concept, as well as
Sturgeon's Law, so I can understand why they chose the stick rather than
the carrot.
--
aem sends, depressedly...
Lothar Frings
Do you trust the government to decide who can eat
and who can't? And yet, given the current increase
in population, some day they'll do it.
Lothar Frings
I guess this bright kind of thinking 30 years
ago brought us the consequences we face today.
Lothar Frings
> In article
> <977edda2-718f-442f-ab63-faacf36fc...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
> > > A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
> > > well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>
> > Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
> > vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
> > tackles that just because it's not popular.
>
> Well, the two solutions are either stop having as many kids or kill the
> extra population. The richer countries already have lower birthrates,
> so either option would probably have to be imposed on the poorer
> ones...
No, it won't. You could for example implement efficient (!)
development aid so children aren't the only security
for their parent's old age. There are a few attempts to this
amount "already".
Jym Dyer
>> vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody tackles
>> that just because it's not popular.
> As Linus said to Lucy, on the same topic, probaby more
> than 30 years ago:
> "Well, why don't you leave?"
=v= Those concerned about overpopulation hear this over and
over and over. Some humor suffers in the retelling.
=v= A friend of mine came up with a brilliant rejoinder to
this: If that's the way you want it to go, then the logical
thing to do is take out as many other people in the process
as he can. He says this pretty much shuts 'em up.
<_Jym_>
Mike Beede
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
It's clear less people would be good. That doesn't really
say anything about the road from here to there. I'd guess
what your friend really found out was that if people think
you're a psychopath, they don't feel like discussing things
with you anymore.
Mike Beede
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
And what makes you think that, should this come to pass, the
government would be making this decision?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Couple of holes in your logic:
1) Could there ever realistically be such a thing as "efficient"
development aid?
2) Who determines what is sufficient security for the elderly? The
same future government you envision deciding who gets food and who
doesn't.
Invid Fan
<be...@visi.com> wrote:
Except online, where people keep replying to them :)
Invid Fan
<826772fe-c822-468c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
Which seems to amount to the richer countries getting the poorer ones
to stop having as many kids...
Joseph Nebus
>Invid Fan wrote:
>> Well, the two solutions are either stop having as many kids or kill the
>> extra population. The richer countries already have lower birthrates,
>> so either option would probably have to be imposed on the poorer
>> ones...
>No, it won't. You could for example implement efficient (!)
>development aid so children aren't the only security
>for their parent's old age. There are a few attempts to this
>amount "already".
Careful. You follow that line of thought and you might start
concluding that the Third World would be better off if it were more
prosperous.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lothar Frings
Because the government has the guns, so nobody
else would be in a position to decide.
Lothar Frings
> Couple of holes in your logic:
>
> 1) Could there ever realistically be such a thing as "efficient"
> development aid?
Yes.
> 2) Who determines what is sufficient security for the elderly? The
> same future government you envision deciding who gets food and who
> doesn't.
I don't know how much you're into the matter of
development aid, but there are better approaches
than most of those used today, and some of them
do already work.
Lothar Frings
> In article
> <826772fe-c822-468c-b900-db490d461...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > No, it won't. You could for example implement efficient (!)
> > development aid so children aren't the only security
> > for their parent's old age. There are a few attempts to this
> > amount "already".
>
> Which seems to amount to the richer countries getting the poorer ones
> to stop having as many kids...
Sure. The richer countries stopped having many kids
quite some time ago which is one of the reasons for
their richness.
Dann
4099-916b-c...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
Not on this side of the Atlantic.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Dann
43f2-b267-8...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
Not quite. The increase in wealth made having large families non-
essential to old-age survival.
Which really is the point behind economic development funding for the
third world. To promote enough economic development so that people won't
starve, start caring about pollution, will have fewer kids, etc.
James Nicoll
Except that the pattern was usually increased wealth first, followed
by a decline in the birth rate (And the US, one of the wealthiest nations
on Earth, has an unusually high birth rate for an industrialised nation).
I can think of cases where local populations declined (Ireland
after the Famine and before the 1960s or my mother's home town of Mulgrave,
both in the 19th century after a trade deal with the US collapsed and
more recently since the closing of the Mulgrave-Port Tupper ferry) but
that was because people were leaving for better opportunities elsewhere.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Please educate me, then, including the measurements used to define
success.
I think you missed my irony in my second statement: if the government
was going to ration the food supply, it would not be too hard to
imagine the elderly being left out of the allotments.
Lothar Frings
> On 07 Oct 2008, Lothar Frings said the following in news:29b42881-edf6-
> 4099-916b-c0a6cca83...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
>
> > Blinky the Wonder Wombat wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 6, 3:29 am, Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >> > Do you trust the government to decide who can eat
> >> > and who can't? And yet, given the current increase
> >> > in population, some day they'll do it.
>
> >> And what makes you think that, should this come to pass, the
> >> government would be making this decision?
>
> > Because the government has the guns, so nobody
> > else would be in a position to decide.
>
> Not on this side of the Atlantic.
Ok, on your side it'll have to be "...the biggest guns..."
Lothar Frings
> On 07 Oct 2008, Lothar Frings said the following in news:5201b8d3-15bb-
> 43f2-b267-890c3df82...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> > Sure. The richer countries stopped having many kids
> > quite some time ago which is one of the reasons for
> > their richness.
>
> Not quite. The increase in wealth made having large families non-
> essential to old-age survival.
>
> Which really is the point behind economic development funding for the
> third world. To promote enough economic development so that people won't
> starve, start caring about pollution, will have fewer kids, etc.
That's why I emphasized on implementing efficient development
aid first. The key is that the help "arrives" with the
people and is not burned by governments in idiotic wars
and the like.
Lothar Frings
Of course. Every government will do everything - and
I mean literally everything - to guarantee its own
survival. If it takes sacrifying a virgin every
day, government will do it.
Mike Marshall
>quite some time ago which is one of the reasons for
>their richness.
The Death of the West by Pat Buchanan explores why it will also
be one of the reasons for their goneness...
-Mike
James Nicoll
Personally, I am alarmed at how the fecund Irish have been
allowed to infiltrate the US and convert its culture to their dastardly
fenian ways. I have in my hand an unbiased document by Oliver Cromwell
(apparently some sort of Parliamentarian) and I have to say he is not
*at all* keen on the Irish. Indeed, Ridgeway, Pigeon Hill and Pembina
all show what sort of caddish behavior the Irish get up to when not
closely monitored.
Has Buchanan ever addressed the Irish issue? I don't think it's
too late for mass-deportations.
Jym Dyer
> people think you're a psychopath, they don't feel like
> discussing things with you anymore.
=v= I think telling people concerned about overpopulation
to kill themselves is itself psychopathic. My friend's
response puts the kibosh on 'em.
<_Jym_>
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Um. And wet streets cause rain.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Mike Marshall
> Has Buchanan ever addressed the Irish issue? I don't think it's
>too late for mass-deportations.
It is certain he would have supported the Bataan Death March
and The Trail of Tears. Me too. It's all so clear.
-Mike
Ericth...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>
> <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
> >> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
> >> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>
> >Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
> >vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
> >tackles that just because it's not popular.
>
> get? China certainly got it . . .
It's worth noting that if you want to have a major effect on the
planet, you'd be better off telling the developed world to have a
massive population reduction, rather than the 3rd. world.
Consider that a person in Europe and America consumes on the average
32 times as many resources as a person in the 3rd. world. Therefore
it makes sense that the countries that are most in need of having
their population trimmed are the 1st. world ones where the complaints
about 3rd. world overpopulation are stemming from. The complainers
are literally far more of a problem than the people they are
complaining about.
The nice thing is to ease the impact of humanity on the planet we
don't even need to kill anybody. Just ship people from the 1st. to
the 3rd. world, and give them a 3rd. world lifestyle. Every American
moved to say, sub-Saharan Africa would be the equivalent of removing
32 babies from the population.
So what do you think people- are you ready to give up your cars,
computers and decaf lattes to go live in a shanty town in Mozambique?
If not, how can you say your _serious_ about making the world a better
place?
Eric Tolle
Peter B. Steiger
> So what do you think people- are you ready to give up your cars,
> computers and decaf lattes to go live in a shanty town in Mozambique? If
> not, how can you say your _serious_ about making the world a better
> place?
Nicely played, sir. And that's said as someone who is NOT ready to give
up my decadent lifestyle.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing
zeroes where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
racs...@gmail.com
> I'd guess
> what your friend really found out was that if people think
> you're a psychopath, they don't feel like discussing things
> with you anymore.
Works for me.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
aemeijers
At some point, Mother Nature will be making the decisions. And it won't
be pretty. She can be a real bitch when she gets pissed off.
--
aem sends...
Mike Beede
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
Actually, I misunderstood the quote your friend was
responding to. I agree that both the quote *and* his
reply are psychopathic, so my observation is obviously
incorrect.
In fact, the Lucy thing you were talking about sounds
a lot like that old favorite "why don't you leave the
country then, you commie?" one. Only a little more
permanent, and equally a nonsequitur.
Mike Beede
Mike Beede
Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
I thought it was kind of clever. But, those who
forget history and all that.
Mike Beede
Eric S. Harris
> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>
>
>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/4pz3sb>
>
> <http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20081001.html>
>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3nkj3l>
Well, no, not really.
I'd explain why, but it would take too long.
I'd explain briefly why you should take this "obvious" conclusion with a
grain of salt, and where to go to get a more information, including
debunking of what "everybody knows", but it's late, and I'd probably do
it in a thoroughly unconvincing way.
Aw, hell. I'm one of the guys the xkcd comic is about: http://xkcd.com/386
You could read "The Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon and you'd know
why we're not suffering from a shortage of "dwindling whale oil" or
women to be telephone operators or men to be horse manure collectors,
and so on.
Turns out, the various "dwindling X supplies" mentioned and not
mentioned in PBS either aren't really dwindling, or the dwindling is
produced artificially (such as by ADM's subsidies), or the dwindling is
not quite the problem it's made out to be.
There's a book by Russell Roberts, too. Fiction, but with a point, too.
Sorry, I don't recall the name. If you get the wrong Russell Roberts
book and it doesn't address it, you'll still learn something useful, and
possibly related. It's not "The Choice", that's all I can recall at the
moment.
Just as you shouldn't take the political opinions of actors very
seriously (does someone who pretends for a living seem like a good
source of sound opinions regarding public policy?), so should you
exercise some caution when taking advice from a cartoon rat.
Especially this Rat. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to a rebuttal, it may not be the most deserving of correction:
http://xkcd.com/386 If it ever fails, you can reach me at my new addr
using http://ecoa.returnpath.net/finder or
http://www.freshaddress.com/stayintouch.cfm.
May 2008: The yahoo.com address is having technical difficulties.
Eric S. Harris
> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>
>
> <http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2008/10/1&name=Pearls_Before_Swine>
>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/4pz3sb>
>
> <http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20081001.html>
>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3nkj3l>
Other book recommendations: "The Mind of the Market" by Michael Shermer
and "Non-Zero" by James/Robert/Thomas/Douglas/I-fergit Wright.
Both of them -- especially the first -- address the issues that come
from us not being nomadic hunter-gatherers any more. It seems that our
natural response to certain questions and situations -- our hunches,
intuitions and gut reactions -- sometimes don't work so well.
Sometimes they do. It's good that we're disgusted by the very idea of
food in the vicinity of dung; that still tends to be strongly
pro-survival. It prevents a lot of dung-borne disease, and rarely
causes problems.
But divvying-up the result of a large-mammal hunt after butchering it
with stone knives doesn't come up so often these days. And the hunches
and intuitions and gut reactions that lead to survival and even
(relative) prosperity for hunter-gatherers can be counterproductive when
considering public policy in a post-industrial society.
A more sophisticated analysis than "that doesn't seem fair" can become
necessary, because sometimes the right answer isn't the obvious answer.
In the physical sciences there are counter-intuitive truths -- e.g. to
speed up a satellite you've got to slow it down first -- and there are
some in economics, too.
OOTC. Of course, sometimes "that doesn't seem fair" will get you the
right answer, same as detailed analysis, but faster. A recent "Evil,
Inc." strip, for instance gets you quickly where a Ph.D. in economics
would get you slowly. (If at all; some economists still don't get it.)
Intuition is the winner this time, in both speed and correctness.
<http://www.evil-comic.com/archive/20081004.html> -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If it fails, you
can reach me at my new addr using http://ecoa.returnpath.net/finder or
http://www.freshaddress.com/stayintouch.cfm. May 2008: The yahoo.com
address is having technical difficulties. If I haven't replied to a
rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving of correction; it's a
big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386
Eric S. Harris
It's an appropriate answer to the classic question: What can we, as
individuals, do?
The problem isn't too many people. The problem is that people aren't
willing to state what they think the problem is, in clear terms that
permit rational discussion. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>
>
> Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
> vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
> tackles that just because it's not popular.
Are you being sarcastic? I sincerely hope so. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
> <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>>well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>
>>Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>tackles that just because it's not popular.
>
>
> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
> get? China certainly got it . . .
I'm a bit leery of going to a totalitarian state for policy ideas.
Seems like an unpromising source for decent ideas for decent people.
The Dalai Lama might be a better one than the heirs of Mao. YMMV.
I would say more, but, you know, "Godwin's Law". -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If it fails, you
can reach me at my new addr using http://ecoa.returnpath.net/finder or
http://www.freshaddress.com/stayintouch.cfm. May 2008: The yahoo.com
address is having technical difficulties. If I haven't replied to an
alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving of correction;
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Egg, meet chicken . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
James Nicoll
Eric S. Harris <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>> <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>>>well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>>
>>>Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>>vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>>tackles that just because it's not popular.
>>
>>
>> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
>> get? China certainly got it . . .
>
>I'm a bit leery of going to a totalitarian state for policy ideas.
>Seems like an unpromising source for decent ideas for decent people.
>The Dalai Lama might be a better one than the heirs of Mao. YMMV.
He has the advantage of not actually being in power, which
I find is an enormous aid in appearing better than people who are
in power (Although the Chinese set a pretty low bar for people who
want to appear better). Descriptions of Tibet prior to 1950 don't
sound to me like the pre-Communist Tibetans were entirely on the
right path.
>I would say more, but, you know, "Godwin's Law". -Eric
What, we're not allowed to mention Heinrich Harrer's
background before he became the Dalai Lama's pal any more?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>> <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>>>well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>>
>>>Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>>vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>>tackles that just because it's not popular.
>>
>>
>> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
>> get? China certainly got it . . .
>
>I'm a bit leery of going to a totalitarian state for policy ideas.
>Seems like an unpromising source for decent ideas for decent people.
>The Dalai Lama might be a better one than the heirs of Mao. YMMV.
>
Try taking the "even a broken clock is right twice day" saying for
guidance if you have such a problem with their policies . . .
"Heirs of Mao"? Even Reagan admitted he couldn't call modern China
communist; their capitalist economy backed by a totalitarian
government would harken to classic fascism, but hardly that old-style
communism . . .
>I would say more, but, you know, "Godwin's Law". -Eric
--
Eric S. Harris
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:20:28 -0500, "Eric S. Harris"
> <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>>><Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>>>>well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>>>vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>>>tackles that just because it's not popular.
>>>
>>>
>>> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
>>>get? China certainly got it . . .
>>
>>I'm a bit leery of going to a totalitarian state for policy ideas.
>>Seems like an unpromising source for decent ideas for decent people.
>>The Dalai Lama might be a better one than the heirs of Mao. YMMV.
>>
>
>
> Try taking the "even a broken clock is right twice day" saying for
> guidance if you have such a problem with their policies . . .
It's difficult for even the most mistaken to be incorrect about
everything all of the time, true. Still, they're not the best place to
look for good ideas, seems to me. YMMV, and apparently does.
> "Heirs of Mao"? Even Reagan admitted he couldn't call modern China
> communist; their capitalist economy backed by a totalitarian
> government would harken to classic fascism, but hardly that old-style
> communism . . .
I'm unclear about your apparent confusion and its source.
They are nominally Communists, though I didn't mention that.
They are totalitarian, which I did say. These are the totalitarian
successors to the totalitarian Mao. The (nominally Communist)
totalitarian successors to the (sincerely Communist) totalitarian Mao.
In addition to being totalitarians, they're also insincere about their
political beliefs. Now they've really gone and disappointed me.
Yep, they're following more the Hi**er/FDR/Mussolini approach than the
Stalin/Khrushchev/Castro approach, but that's perhaps merely quibbling
over details.
I hope this clarifies what I meant for you and anyone else who may have
been confused. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> In article <fP6dnQRb88KEqHHV...@earthlink.com>,
> Eric S. Harris <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
>>><Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
>>>>>well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
>>>>vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
>>>>tackles that just because it's not popular.
>>>
>>>
>>> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
>>>get? China certainly got it . . .
>>
>>I'm a bit leery of going to a totalitarian state for policy ideas.
>>Seems like an unpromising source for decent ideas for decent people.
>>The Dalai Lama might be a better one than the heirs of Mao. YMMV.
>
>
> He has the advantage of not actually being in power, which
> I find is an enormous aid in appearing better than people who are
> in power (Although the Chinese set a pretty low bar for people who
> want to appear better). Descriptions of Tibet prior to 1950 don't
> sound to me like the pre-Communist Tibetans were entirely on the
> right path.
I'd respond to the chain of reasoning, but I'm having difficulty finding
it. If it showed more of the steps, we would have a chance of finding
the division by zero. (Or divisions; I think there are at least two.)
Anyone care to help us out? -Eric
Jym Dyer
>> to kill themselves is itself psychopathic.
> we, as individuals, do?
=v= It's a stupid answer. There's no way it's going to be
popular enough to solve the problem.
=v= The two well-documented root causes of overpopulation are
(1) a high mortality rate, generally due to poverty, and (2)
women not having control over their lives, particularly their
reproductive lives. We as individuals can work on those.
<_Jym_>
--
Green Bay Steelers for Truth
Lothar Frings
I'll wait for that quite relaxed.
BTW - Buchanan also explores how mass immigration
will kill the population of Western coutries.
Obviously, he knows American history.
Lothar Frings
> In article <5201b8d3-15bb-43f2-b267-890c3df82...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >Sure. The richer countries stopped having many kids
> >quite some time ago which is one of the reasons for
> >their richness.
>
> Um. And wet streets cause rain.
In this case, it's both. Increasing wealth makes
havin many kids obsolete, having few kids (aka
avoiding overpopulation) preserves the wealth.
Like I wrote already several times in this thread.
Lothar Frings
> Are you being sarcastic? I sincerely hope so. -Eric
Please read the thread first, will you? Thanks!
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I don't think so. In an advanced Western economy,
kids are an economic liability. In a subsistence
agriculture economy, kids are a wealth generating
asset.
Dann
af47b0...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com.
> So what do you think people- are you ready to give up your cars,
> computers and decaf lattes to go live in a shanty town in Mozambique?
> If not, how can you say your _serious_ about making the world a better
> place?
The cars, computers, and decaf lattes are side effects of largely desirable
objectives of individual liberty, representative government, general
suffrage, etc.
In any case, you can have my computer when you pry it out of my cold dead
hands. <grin>
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
James Nicoll
Currently the Dalai Lama is well regarded but because he has
no actual power, it's hard for him to do things that would immediately
cost him the prestige he has built up as an exile. Well, less likely,
anyway: there's always the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn biting the hand that
offers you refuge route.
Pre-communist Tibet was a theocracy and not an especially
nice one. Of course, it was also pretty poor and so life probably
would have been unpleasant no matter what system was used but the
actual results of following a Dalai Lama have not been such that
I'd advocate doing it.
ObThe Chinese are Asshats: Their policies in Tibet are also
ones I would not advocate, although their legal basis for moving in
1950 was firmer than a lot of invasions because the Great Powers
never formally recognized Tibet as legally independent of China.
ObThat Said: Americans who are upset over Tibet will get
more attention from me when they are equally upset over Hawaii.
James Nicoll
Complaining about recent immigrants is always a vote-winner
in settler nations. Having it come from someone from a previously
despised group makes it more hilarious, of course.
We're having a spot of trouble with some would-be political
terrorists who have been targeting people with Liberal Party signs
on their lawns for graffiti, threatening phone calls and in at least
17 cases, slashed brake lines:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/07/elexn-vandalism.html
It didn't take long for some conservative nit-wit to propose
that the culprit was probably an immigrant because, you know, they
don't understand civilized values. Note that the Liberals liberalized
immigration laws 30+ years ago and traditionally get a large fraction
of the immigrant vote.
Lothar Frings
> Complaining about recent immigrants is always a vote-winner
> in settler nations. Having it come from someone from a previously
> despised group makes it more hilarious, of course.
Probably his point is "If we'll have to many immigrants
eventually they'll do to us what we did to the
native Americans." It worked once, why shouldn't
it work twice?
James Nicoll
It really should be up to a Canadian to explain the US's strengths
but there are at least four crucial differences between the US and the pre-
Columbian New World,
1: Disease
The New Worlders had no resistance to Old World diseases. Exposure
meant a rapid dramatic drop in population, to the point where entire
cultures - civilizations - disappeared. Direct contact with the Europeans
was not necessary:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080828-amazon-cities.html
The US is not out of touch with the Old World disease pool and
so will not suffer disproportionately when the next big killer comes
along (The US is also armed with better tools for dealing will disease,
which ties into a later point).
2: Population
The number of natives left after the plagues got through with
them wasn't enough (at least in North America) to prevent them from
being outnumbered by the Europeans and their descendents.
The US in contrast is the third most populous nation on
Earth and Americans have an unusually high birth rate for an
industrialized nation. Its neighbors are not particularly well
populated.
3: Technology
The New Worlders suffered from technological lag so profound
even Celts could beat them and the Celts' most developed war skill
was composing rousing songs about how everyone who beat them over
the last two thousand years cheated,
The US is one of the most advanced nations on the planet. Unless
the US is stupid enough to elect somone who will deliberately go out of
their way to undermine this, perhaps by shutting down the sort of educational
facilities (like planetariums) that attract kids to science, the US is
likely to remain one of the most advanced nations on the planet.
4: Unity
The natives didn't seem themselves as _the_ Natives. They
saw themselves as whatever culture they belonged to. This meant
native would ally with Europeans against natives (Why the French
and Indian war is called that), wage war on each other on their own
(Iroquis annihilation of the Attawandaron) or sit by while other
native groups were crushed (too many to list). A unified defense
was out of the question in most cases.
The US on the other hand is pretty united, even though
many Americans focus on internal cultural difference. See for
example the reaction to 9/11. A lot of Americans when questioned
in their traditional ways would freely admit to loathing New York
and New Yorkers but that didn't prevent a Pearl Harbor or Maine-
style reaction to the attacks on 9/11.
I would guess the only way that could be undermined is if
the US was dumb enough to elect someone with close ties to a group
like the Alaskan Independence Party, some collection of anti-American
agitators bent on bringing the US down.
Frankly, if I got bounced a thousand years through time,
I'd expect there to be a polity clearly and directly derived from
the USA of today.
James Nicoll
pre-Columbians. Despite the best efforts of objectively anti-American
agitors, the US has a lot of experience assimilating incomers.
Mike Marshall
Mike Marshall
It will work over and over again. You're free to get in line before me
to queue up for it working on your family.
-Mike
Antonio E. Gonzalez
No, in an advanced Western economy kids are an investment in the
future; sure, they were originally put in schools so they'd stay out
of trouble in the streets, since child labor laws meant they could no
longer work in factories, but soon it became obvious giving them a
good education greatly increases the possibility they'll become
advanced skilled laborers when they become adults.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <gcfrvd$rfl$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
>Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>>Sure. The richer countries stopped having many kids
>>>quite some time ago which is one of the reasons for
>>>their richness.
>>
>>The Death of the West by Pat Buchanan explores why it will also
>>be one of the reasons for their goneness...
>
> Personally, I am alarmed at how the fecund Irish have been
>allowed to infiltrate the US and convert its culture to their dastardly
>fenian ways. I have in my hand an unbiased document by Oliver Cromwell
>(apparently some sort of Parliamentarian) and I have to say he is not
>*at all* keen on the Irish. Indeed, Ridgeway, Pigeon Hill and Pembina
>all show what sort of caddish behavior the Irish get up to when not
>closely monitored.
>
> Has Buchanan ever addressed the Irish issue? I don't think it's
>too late for mass-deportations.
I have a Modest Proposal he might be open to . . .
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
That doesn't contradict what I said. The "payoff" for
sending a kid to college does not (generally) acrue to
the parent, while the payoff of having another kid who
can work the field does.
cryptoguy
>
> Frankly, if I got bounced a thousand years through time,
> I'd expect there to be a polity clearly and directly derived from
> the USA of today.
Really? I'd be suprised if the nation-states, as we recognize them
today, exist at all 200 years from now. Perhaps not even 100.
Even barring that, how long a life would you have predicted for
the Soviet Union in, say, 1975? Don't fall for the myth of
American Exceptionalism.
Peter Trei
cryptoguy
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:56:55 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>
>
>
>
>
> <tednolan>) wrote:
> >Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >>Ted Nolan wrote:
>
> >>> In article
> >><5201b8d3-15bb-43f2-b267-890c3df82...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >>> >Sure. The richer countries stopped having many kids
> >>> >quite some time ago which is one of the reasons for
> >>> >their richness.
>
> >>> Um. And wet streets cause rain.
>
> >>In this case, it's both. Increasing wealth makes
> >>havin many kids obsolete, having few kids (aka
> >>avoiding overpopulation) preserves the wealth.
> >>Like I wrote already several times in this thread.
>
> >I don't think so. In an advanced Western economy,
> >kids are an economic liability. In a subsistence
> >agriculture economy, kids are a wealth generating
> >asset.
>
> No, in an advanced Western economy kids are an investment in the
> future; sure, they were originally put in schools so they'd stay out
> of trouble in the streets, since child labor laws meant they could no
> longer work in factories, but soon it became obvious giving them a
> good education greatly increases the possibility they'll become
'...so they'd stay out of trouble...'
Cite?
Consider the first modern compulsory school act, the Scottish
Education
Act of 1496:
- start quote -
(wikipedia)
The intent was to improve the administration of justice nationwide and
to make the legal system more responsive at the local level. The act
states:
* all barons and substantial freeholders shall put their eldest
sons and heirs into school from the age of 8 or 9.
* these shall remain in grammar schools under competent
instruction until they have perfect Latin.
* They shall next spend 3 years at the schools of art and law.
* the purpose of this education is:
o that they have knowledge and understanding of the laws,
for the benefit of justice throughout the realm.
o that those who become sheriffs or judges will have the
knowledge to do justice.
o to eliminate the need of the poor to seek redress from the
king's principal auditors for each small injury.
* anyone who fails to do so without a lawful excuse shall pay the
king the sum of £20 Scots.
- end quote -
Peter Trei
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
Just needed a little clarification, I guess; of course, this can't
help but go unignored . . .:
>Yep, they're following more the Hi**er/FDR/Mussolini approach than the
>Stalin/Khrushchev/Castro approach, but that's perhaps merely quibbling
>over details.
>
Really, I know the right-wing envy of his success remains, but it's
rare to still see the occassional lumping with He-of-Goodwin and
Mussolini (sadly, not the first time), so to get out of the way . . .:
- Yes, he led us out of the Great Depression.
- Yes, he led us through WWII.
- Yes, he opened the way to racial integration.
- Yes, his policies made the US an economic Rock of Gibraltar for the
next five decades; their dismantling the ultimate cause of our current
troubles.
- Yes, he's almost unanimously considered the greatest US President of
the 20th Century.
Simply, deal with it.
James Nicoll
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 1:15=A0pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Frankly, if I got bounced a thousand years through time,
>> I'd expect there to be a polity clearly and directly derived from
>> the USA of today.
>
>Really? I'd be suprised if the nation-states, as we recognize them
>today, exist at all 200 years from now. Perhaps not even 100.
>
>Even barring that, how long a life would you have predicted for
>the Soviet Union in, say, 1975? Don't fall for the myth of
>American Exceptionalism.
The Soviet Union or Russia? The SU fell but Russia is toddling
along just fine (Well, except for all the ways it isn't).
The past is an unreliable guide to the future but when I look
at sub-world states of the past (empires with more than 25% of the
human population in them), they don't seem to be able to hold things
together for all that long. Even if the US got absorbed into a planetary
government, I'd expect that World State to fall apart for one reason
or another in a few centuries.
The US has an enviable position: moats on three sides, an
arctic desert to the north, and a desert to the south. It's very
defensible. At least in the short run, the only nation that can
reliably get large numbers of troops to the USA is the USA
and it is currently on fair terms with itself. It's very defensible.
The Chinese managed to maintain a sense of identity over
thousands of years and they had the problem of being right next to
the Central Asian Nomadic Barbarian Factory. Aside from a war of
mutual extermination with another nation, I expect the US and what
it becomes to maintain the same level of continuity.
cryptoguy
> In article <99ea8b12-66c0-416e-a246-71d0fc3b9...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
I'm not worried about a physical invasion.
Even short of a Technological Singularity, a gene-engineered plague,
massive global warming/sea rise, or the arrival of the Galactic
Federation, I don't see the US surviving as an independent state.
Nations are becoming ever more intertwined with each other, and
if nothing else, I can see the developed Western nations merging
into a superstate, using the EU as a core, with the US as
'independent' as Wales is now.
I don't particularly like this view, but have difficulty seeing it
*not*
happening. Even today's coordinated interest rate cut is a step
in this direction.
Peter Trei
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>Even short of a Technological Singularity, a gene-engineered plague,
>massive global warming/sea rise, or the arrival of the Galactic
>Federation, I don't see the US surviving as an independent state.
>
>Nations are becoming ever more intertwined with each other, and
>if nothing else, I can see the developed Western nations merging
>into a superstate, using the EU as a core, with the US as
>'independent' as Wales is now.
>
>I don't particularly like this view, but have difficulty seeing it
>*not*
>happening. Even today's coordinated interest rate cut is a step
>in this direction.
>
>Peter Trei
>
>
Let's see if the Euro lasts out the year before getting worried
about being swallowed up by the EU..
aemeijers
> I thought of another strength the US may have compared to the
> pre-Columbians. Despite the best efforts of objectively anti-American
> agitors, the US has a lot of experience assimilating incomers.
Resistance Is Futile!
(well, somebody had to say it....)
--
aem sends...
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Blinky the Wonder Wombat wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 3:29 am, Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> aemeijers <aemeij...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings
> >>>> <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> >>>>>> A rare moment of common sense from the normally abrassive Rat;
> >>>>>> well, not "common," otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess . . .:
> >>>>> Yes, it's scary: Virtually every problem on earth would
> >>>>> vanish if the planet had less people. And nobody
> >>>>> tackles that just because it's not popular.
> >>>> What part of "stop having so many f***ing kids!" is too hard to
> >>>> get? China certainly got it . . .
> >>> support the draconian methods the Chinese government uses to enforce
> >>> their policy?
> >> Do you trust the government to decide who can eat
> >> and who can't? And yet, given the current increase
> >> in population, some day they'll do it.
>
> > And what makes you think that, should this come to pass, the
> > government would be making this decision?
>
> At some point, Mother Nature will be making the decisions. And it won't
> be pretty. She can be a real bitch when she gets pissed off.
>
> --
> aem sends...
I guess I have more confidence than you do that humanity will come to
its senses and work out a solution. (Ironically, I am presently
helping #1 daughter organize her thoughts on a essay of the exact same
premise.)
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:02 pm, Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd guess
> > what your friend really found out was that if people think
> > you're a psychopath, they don't feel like discussing things
> > with you anymore.
>
> Works for me.
>
> Mike Petersonhttp://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
..except in cyberspace, in which case people feel its their duty to
point out the errors in your ways (over, and over, and over, and...)
Dann
news:sp1qe417832kurjpg...@4ax.com.
> Really, I know the right-wing envy of his success remains, but it's
> rare to still see the occassional lumping with He-of-Goodwin and
> Mussolini (sadly, not the first time), so to get out of the way . . .:
>
> - Yes, he led us out of the Great Depression.
Um no. Some of his policies actually made the depression last longer.
> - Yes, he led us through WWII.
Credit where it is due.
> - Yes, he opened the way to racial integration.
Again, credit where it is due.
> - Yes, his policies made the US an economic Rock of Gibraltar for the
> next five decades; their dismantling the ultimate cause of our current
> troubles.
Your utter lack of understanding of the fundamental problems associated
with our current financial difficulties is showing.
> - Yes, he's almost unanimously considered the greatest US President of
> the 20th Century.
Not quite. I voted for Calvin Coolidge!!
Dann
@reader1.panix.com.
> ObThat Said: Americans who are upset over Tibet will get
> more attention from me when they are equally upset over Hawaii.
Let's not forget that the US has trains just like Mussolini, too.
Attila the Hun had horses, we have horses.
The Ottomans had a desert. We have a desert.
There were all sorts of monarchies that marched armies across Europe. We
used to have a monarchy.
The Romans had columns. We have columns.
The Soviets had Stalin. We had FDR.
I bet that America is the moral equivalent to just about every
totalitarian regime in history!
Eric S. Harris
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:05:44 -0500, "Eric S. Harris"
> <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:20:28 -0500, "Eric S. Harris"
>>><eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
[snipped]
>>> Try taking the "even a broken clock is right twice day" saying for
>>>guidance if you have such a problem with their policies . . .
>>
>>It's difficult for even the most mistaken to be incorrect about
>>everything all of the time, true. Still, they're not the best place to
>>look for good ideas, seems to me. YMMV, and apparently does.
>>
>>
>>> "Heirs of Mao"? Even Reagan admitted he couldn't call modern China
>>>communist; their capitalist economy backed by a totalitarian
>>>government would harken to classic fascism, but hardly that old-style
>>>communism . . .
>>
>>I'm unclear about your apparent confusion and its source.
>>
>>They are nominally Communists, though I didn't mention that.
>>
>>They are totalitarian, which I did say. These are the totalitarian
>>successors to the totalitarian Mao. The (nominally Communist)
>>totalitarian successors to the (sincerely Communist) totalitarian Mao.
>>
>>In addition to being totalitarians, they're also insincere about their
>>political beliefs. Now they've really gone and disappointed me.
>>
>>Yep, they're following more the Hi**er/FDR/Mussolini approach than the
>>Stalin/Khrushchev/Castro approach, but that's perhaps merely quibbling
>>over details.
>>
>>I hope this clarifies what I meant for you and anyone else who may have
>>been confused. -Eric
>
>
> Just needed a little clarification, I guess; of course, this can't
> help but go unignored . . .:
First, and apology and clarification.
One thing I did not make clear and most definitely should have: I was
referring to economic policy, which is where the (insincere) Communists
running China now differ most dramatically from the (apparently sincere)
Communists who ran it before and during the Mao years.
My mstake has caused at least one person unnecessary stress, and for
that I apologize.
Fret not; it was not ignored. Sadly, I have not learned to always see
the wisdom of the sage: http://xkcd.com/386 Today is not one of my
better ones (either).
>>Yep, they're following more the Hi**er/FDR/Mussolini approach than the
>>Stalin/Khrushchev/Castro approach, but that's perhaps merely quibbling
>>over details.
>>
>
>
> Really, I know the right-wing envy of his success remains, but it's
> rare to still see the occassional lumping with He-of-Goodwin and
> Mussolini (sadly, not the first time), so to get out of the way . . .:
>
> - Yes, he led us out of the Great Depression.
Well, he was president at the end of it. He also was president during
almost all of it. Some draw from the first fact the conclusion that he
got us out of it. Others also consider the second fact and draw a
different conclusion.
> - Yes, he led us through WWII.
Sure enough, he was president for almost all of it. His bad economic
policies didn't end on December 7, 1941. In fact, he added new ones,
some of which are still causing busily at work -- and have triggered
other problems (and problem-generating "solutions").
> - Yes, he opened the way to racial integration.
Though there was that little matter of the Japanese interment camps.
> - Yes, his policies made the US an economic Rock of Gibraltar for the
> next five decades; their dismantling the ultimate cause of our current
> troubles.
That's an interesting couple of conclusions.
> - Yes, he's almost unanimously considered the greatest US President of
> the 20th Century.
"almost unanimously" is an exaggeration.
I will grant that he is -- more than most presidents -- responsible for
makig the United States the country it is today. (That is not a
compliment.)
> Simply, deal with it.
Thank you for the advice. It would have been nicer with "please" attached.
Trying to. Would be easier if people would quit voting for people who
admire and emulate him. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If it fails, you
can reach me at my new addr using http://ecoa.returnpath.net/finder or
http://www.freshaddress.com/stayintouch.cfm. May 2008: The yahoo.com
address is having technical difficulties. If I haven't replied to an
alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving of correction;
it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386
Eric S. Harris
No, seriously. That's how it struck me when I first read it. Here's why.
I know a guy who thinks that the U.S. would become a utopia overnight if
only the Federal Reserve and the IRS were to go away and the U.S. would
go back to the gold standard.
OK, it might take months, maybe even a year or two. And not utopia, but
[v]irtually every problem [in the U.S.] would vanish if [that happened].
He doesn't say it quite like that -- a statement made in such hyperbolic
terms would sound too foolish to possibly be true -- but that seems to
be the gist of his response to every political question.
I haven't heard him make this particular statement (I think), but it's
the sort of thing he has said in the past and I expect will continue to
say for the rest of his life.
An example: The U.S. couldn't be in Iraq if the Fed couldn't print money
or if paper dollars were redeemable in gold. You see, when [tedious
explanation omitted].
Repeat for public school failures, HMO policies, eminent domain abuse,
corporate welfare, the heartbreak of psoriasis, whatever.
Don't get me wrong, I do like Roy and greatly admire the vast amount of
knowledge about monetary history he carries in that head, but it does
get repetitive.
So when someone says that virtually every problem on earth would vanish
if the planet had fewer people, I had to at least consider the
possibility it was sarcasm or at least exaggeration ... and also to
think of my favorite one-issue hard-money obsessive. -Eric
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 08 Oct 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:sp1qe417832kurjpg...@4ax.com.
>
>> Really, I know the right-wing envy of his success remains, but it's
>> rare to still see the occassional lumping with He-of-Goodwin and
>> Mussolini (sadly, not the first time), so to get out of the way . . .:
>>
>> - Yes, he led us out of the Great Depression.
>
>Um no. Some of his policies actually made the depression last longer.
>
It seems "some" is the only remotely accurate word there; with the
exception of 1938, unemployment went steadily down after 1933. With
WWII's military superspending as an indicator, New Deal-type policy
implemented even stronger would have ended the Depression much faster
. . .
>> - Yes, he led us through WWII.
>
>Credit where it is due.
>
>> - Yes, he opened the way to racial integration.
>
>Again, credit where it is due.
>
>> - Yes, his policies made the US an economic Rock of Gibraltar for the
>> next five decades; their dismantling the ultimate cause of our current
>> troubles.
>
>Your utter lack of understanding of the fundamental problems associated
>with our current financial difficulties is showing.
>
There is obvious lack of understanding, so I'll try to clear things
up . . .:
While a fully unfettered free market is capable of great gains, it
is also capable of catastrophic collapse (see 1929), collapse capable
of brigning civilizations to the brink. In the case of Germany, it
led to the public accepting unthinkable change. Responsible
restraints proved necessary, and eventually incredibly beneficial: a
booming middle class, recessions instead of depressions, and overall
stability.
Some forgot the lessons of the past, and we saw the restraints
slowly released starting in the 1980s. Sure, there was the expected
extra growth, but also signs of potential calamity: the S&L collapse,
the internet/tech crash of 2000. The current crisis is the next part
of the reaping of the putrid seed we have sown. Acknowledging the
disaster of deregulation is the first step in returning to managible
market.
>> - Yes, he's almost unanimously considered the greatest US President of
>> the 20th Century.
>
>Not quite. I voted for Calvin Coolidge!!
Here I was expecting Warren G. Harding . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
Something I've been *way* too guilty of *too* many times . . .
>>>Yep, they're following more the Hi**er/FDR/Mussolini approach than the
>>>Stalin/Khrushchev/Castro approach, but that's perhaps merely quibbling
>>>over details.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Really, I know the right-wing envy of his success remains, but it's
>> rare to still see the occassional lumping with He-of-Goodwin and
>> Mussolini (sadly, not the first time), so to get out of the way . . .:
>>
>> - Yes, he led us out of the Great Depression.
>
>Well, he was president at the end of it. He also was president during
>almost all of it. Some draw from the first fact the conclusion that he
>got us out of it. Others also consider the second fact and draw a
>different conclusion.
>
His name was Herbert Clark Hoover, and he had four years to deal
with something he effectively chose to ignore; they weren't called
"Rooseveltvilles" . . .
>> - Yes, he led us through WWII.
>
>Sure enough, he was president for almost all of it. His bad economic
>policies didn't end on December 7, 1941. In fact, he added new ones,
>some of which are still causing busily at work -- and have triggered
>other problems (and problem-generating "solutions").
>
"Problems" like steady economic growth, a booming middle class,
credible representation for labor, actual accountability for
corprorations . . .
>> - Yes, he opened the way to racial integration.
>
>Though there was that little matter of the Japanese interment camps.
>
Which was eventually corrected; while full military integration (a
critical starting point with a huge event like WWII going) was
eventually left to Harry Truman, Roosevelt was critical in the
creation of the 332ng Fighter Group (i.e. The Tuskegee Airmen), which
- while still part of segregation - was itself another important step.
>> - Yes, his policies made the US an economic Rock of Gibraltar for the
>> next five decades; their dismantling the ultimate cause of our current
>> troubles.
>
>That's an interesting couple of conclusions.
>
>> - Yes, he's almost unanimously considered the greatest US President of
>> the 20th Century.
>
>"almost unanimously" is an exaggeration.
>
Sure, there'll always be those who deny men landed on the moon,
those who deny Elvis died, and those who deny FDR was the greatest US
President of the 20th Century. For a real argument, put him vs.
Abraham Lincoln and George Washington for greatest US President of all
time; it should still be pretty close.
>I will grant that he is -- more than most presidents -- responsible for
>makig the United States the country it is today. (That is not a
>compliment.)
>
It's ironic that fanatic promoters of free market ideas are the
ones that most deride the man who saved capitalism at its darkest hour
. . .
>> Simply, deal with it.
>
>Thank you for the advice. It would have been nicer with "please" attached.
>
"Deal wiht it" is not meant to be polite, hence a "please" is
irrelevant. Take a hint . . .
>Trying to. Would be easier if people would quit voting for people who
>admire and emulate him. -Eric
If only we *had* more people who would actually did actually
emulate beyond the admiration. Bill Clinton started out that way, but
strayed towads the Dark Side as his administration continued. We need
someone to de-Reaganize the government, make regulations acceptable
again, and put the responsible restraints the free market desperately
needs back on. It's time for the party that started in the 80s to
end, and bring a return to true economic responsibility; a little
house cleaning of those responsible for the mess (prison time strongly
encouraged) would help as well.
Eric S. Harris
>>>=v= I think telling people concerned about overpopulation
>>>to kill themselves is itself psychopathic.
>>
>>It's an appropriate answer to the classic question: What can
>>we, as individuals, do?
>
>
> =v= It's a stupid answer. There's no way it's going to be
> popular enough to solve the problem.
>
> =v= The two well-documented root causes of overpopulation are
> (1) a high mortality rate, generally due to poverty, and (2)
> women not having control over their lives, particularly their
> reproductive lives. We as individuals can work on those.
> <_Jym_>
>
That's true. Seeing "overpopulation" as a problem is an appealing
notion, so it will continue to be far too popular, no matter how
successful we are at persuading the current crop of adherents to
departing the planet in the least resource-intensive way. -Eric
Antonio E. Gonzalez
They were called Truant Officers; I would hope I don't need to
cite *that*! (though I think they're still around to some degree)
>Consider the first modern compulsory school act, the Scottish
>Education
>Act of 1496:
>
>- start quote -
>(wikipedia)
>The intent was to improve the administration of justice nationwide and
>to make the legal system more responsive at the local level. The act
>states:
>
> * all barons and substantial freeholders shall put their eldest
>sons and heirs into school from the age of 8 or 9.
> * these shall remain in grammar schools under competent
>instruction until they have perfect Latin.
> * They shall next spend 3 years at the schools of art and law.
> * the purpose of this education is:
> o that they have knowledge and understanding of the laws,
>for the benefit of justice throughout the realm.
> o that those who become sheriffs or judges will have the
>knowledge to do justice.
> o to eliminate the need of the poor to seek redress from the
>king's principal auditors for each small injury.
> * anyone who fails to do so without a lawful excuse shall pay the
>king the sum of £20 Scots.
>
Nice to see the Scots were ahead of the game!
Paul L. Madarasz
perhaps among other things:
>In article <Jym.07Oct20...@econet.org>,
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
>> > I'd guess what your friend really found out was that if
>> > people think you're a psychopath, they don't feel like
>> > discussing things with you anymore.
>>
>> =v= I think telling people concerned about overpopulation
>> to kill themselves is itself psychopathic. My friend's
>> response puts the kibosh on 'em.
>
>Actually, I misunderstood the quote your friend was
>responding to. I agree that both the quote *and* his
>reply are psychopathic, so my observation is obviously
>incorrect.
>
>In fact, the Lucy thing you were talking about sounds
>a lot like that old favorite "why don't you leave the
>country then, you commie?" one. Only a little more
>permanent, and equally a nonsequitur.
>
> Mike Beede
Whenever I got that "Love it or leave it" thrown at me, I always
replied on the order of "You pay, I'll leave." No one was interested
in beautifying America that much.
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey
LNER...@juno.com
> On 08 Oct 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following innews:sp1qe417832kurjpg...@4ax.com.
>
> > Really, I know the right-wing envy of his success remains, but it's
> > rare to still see the occassional lumping with He-of-Goodwin and
> > Mussolini (sadly, not the first time), so to get out of the way . . .:
>
> > - Yes, he led us out of the Great Depression.
>
> Um no. Some of his policies actually made the depression last longer.
See:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression
dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously
thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole
and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies
signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long
years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great
mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always
worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,"
said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found
that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with
ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy,
Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor
measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was
responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by
extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said
Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a
recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses
in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust
prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above
where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was
poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by
these misguided policies."
More at the link.
I have heard other economists say that also to be noted is that most
of the successes of the FDR era hinged not on his "recovery" programs,
but on the massive pre-war and war buildup/spending, as well as the
human costs of the war itself.
nickelshrink
> On 08 Oct 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
> news:sp1qe417832kurjpg...@4ax.com.
>
>> Really, I know the right-wing envy of his success remains, but it's
>> rare to still see the occassional lumping with He-of-Goodwin and
>> Mussolini (sadly, not the first time), so to get out of the way . . .:
>>
>> - Yes, he led us out of the Great Depression.
>
> Um no. Some of his policies actually made the depression last longer.
>
>> - Yes, he led us through WWII.
>
> Credit where it is due.
>
Here, for no particular reason except that i like it
and it's a comic strip, is an ad from 1934 indicating
that prices went up as result of FDR's policies.
> http://nostalgicforthepleistocene.blogspot.com/2008/10/making-do-in-1934.html
Offered as an item of related interest and not to support
or refute anyone's points made in this discussion.
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Jym Dyer
| Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and
| pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into
| law June 16, 1933.
=v= As post-Keynesian economists, their dogmatic starting point
is that any public-sector involvement is bad. It's really easy
to reach a conclusion that you've already put into the premise.
<_Jym_>
LNER...@juno.com
> =v= As post-Keynesian economists, their dogmatic starting point
> is that any public-sector involvement is bad. It's really easy
> to reach a conclusion that you've already put into the premise.
>
they're apparently "post-Keynesian economists", they automatically
have to be wrong?
Pot............ kettle..............