D-fund NPR ??
Jim Thompson
should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally
anti-American?
Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an
independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an
independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse,
because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer
across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.
But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their
lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't
because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or
because he's black and didn't do what he was told?
Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.
Because if we don't, they go away.
And we can't have that. We need them around to remind ourselves what
subsidized failure looks like. As long as NPR drones listlessly on, we
can point to it and say, "yeah, we're letting them live."
It's like allowing the drunk at the pub to wipe down the tables for
pocket change. It's more out of pity, than anything.
Which leads me to that thing with Rachel Maddow. Remember, she accused
a man of having advanced knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing. When
exposed for her error, she blamed it on an "editing" mistake - and
then angrily mocked those who corrected her.
If you want to see the face of the angry and the entitled, that was
it. How else can you explain someone assuming her mistakes are above
reproach?
But hey - what do you expect from someone who had a heads-up on 9/11?
(I kid, Rachel - we'll fix that in edit)
And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, editphobe.
http://dailygut.com/
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
brent
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why
> should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally
> anti-American?
>
> Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an
> independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an
> independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse,
> because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer
> across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.
>
> But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their
> lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't
> because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or
> because he's black and didn't do what he was told?
>
> Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.
>
> Because if we don't, they go away.
>
I am of the opinion that the only way to beat the left is to defund
them everywhere we can. I look forward to the day when every lefty
has to make his living flipping hamburgers and sweeping floors in the
private sector. Most of them effectively produce negative value and
they get paid good money to do so. Let us all see how valuable those
fancy degrees are when they don't get a huge government paycheck.
Jim Thompson
My hope also. Let 'em work for a living and find out what it's like.
However, I doubt it will actually happen, at least not in my lifetime.
We'll mire deep into socialism. Finally have a revolution, and I'll
miss out on all the fun you young bucks will have killing leftists :-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I can see November from my house :-)
brent
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> We'll mire deep into socialism. Finally have a revolution, and I'll
> miss out on all the fun you young bucks will have killing leftists :-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I just want to see them roaming the streets mumbling about how
important they are and holding up signs that say :
Will show you my law degree for Food
Jim Thompson
Bwahahahahahaha! Good one!
brent
>
> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I found a great comic the other day :
Joel Koltner
news:ukosc6dts9lmce6ng...@4ax.com...
> Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there
> is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR.
NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government
sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they
figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I
expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations
would still survive. Indeed, this was tried during the '70s and '80s, weaning
them off of goverment funds... but it looked like they really were about to
die completely in 1983 -- having amassed a $7M debt -- and that was some
shuffling of people and policies (and restored government funding) to keep
them around -- presumably with at least a bit of tacit approval from the
reigning Reagan administration.
Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip
anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue.
All of this started back in 1967 -- LBJ's administration -- with the Public
Broadcasting Act. Quoting from Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_1967):
---
When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on November 7, 1967, he
described its purpose:
It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material
wealth; our Nation wants more than a "chicken in every pot"[1]. We in America
have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new
goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit.
That is the purpose of this act.[2]
More concretely:
It will give a wider and, I think, stronger voice to educational radio and
television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. It will launch a
major study of television's use in the Nation's classrooms and their potential
use throughout the world. Finally - and most important - it builds a new
institution: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
---
More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- it's
no accident that in many smaller venues the public radio stations are the only
ones broadcasting in so-called "HD radio:" They were given a grant to change
over their transmitters, to "demonstrate" HD radio's (really not that great)
technology and hence try to expedite its adoption by commercial radio
stations.
---Joel
Jim Thompson
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
>news:ukosc6dts9lmce6ng...@4ax.com...
>> Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there
>> is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR.
>
>NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government
>sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through
>the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they
>figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I
>expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations
>would still survive.
I think you're wrong. Most of NPR's funding is via operation by
universities... OUR tax funds via a different route.
I don't see any reason for publicly funded universities.
Fund education via [competitive] scholarships.
As for PBS, nothing fit to watch except during "gimme" campaigns.
[snip]
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I can see Election Results and Dismembered Democrats :-)
Rich Grise
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:07:59 -0700, Jim Thompson
>
>>So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why
>>should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally
>>anti-American?
>
>
Freedom of the press, sure, but NOT ON MY DIME!
In other words, don't confiscate my money (i.e., tax) to pay a bunch
of socialist propagandists to spew their redistributionist dogma. Let
them spew their dogma at their OWN expense, not mine.
Thanks,
Rich
Michael A. Terrell
On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to
listen to them. :)
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
whit3rd
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
> So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why
> should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally
> anti-American?
So, a partly-publicly funded institution is sensitive to popular
opinion,
in 'vox populi, vox dei' fashion. That's nothing new (thus the Latin
phrase).
The real problem here, is intolerance of viewpoints offered by a wide
range of individuals; it either makes sense to allow a newsreader to
editorialize (many do), or it is punishable by firing (again, that can
happen). The real onus here, though, is on the predictable public
outcry of folk who, rather than treat the incident as an anomaly, then
want to defund an institution on the basis of its having made a
decision that's controversial.
Get real, guys: all controversial decisions seem wrong to almost 50%
of the audience. That doesn't mean they don't get made.
Rich Grise
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:45:16 -0700, Rich Grise <rich...@example.net>
> for government to fund NPR so you are arguing to no purpose.
Yeah, OK, I reacted first thing; but if you're going to say something
inflammatory like that, it'd be polite to give the disclaimers first.
Thanks,
Rich
Joel Koltner
news:_vGdnavCU_evllLR...@earthlink.com...
> On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to
> listen to them. :)
Indeed. As with HDTV, it seems that HD radio was rolled out a bit too quickly
without enough field trials or good engineering behind it (i.e., HDTV doesn't
handle multi-path distortion very well, HD radio doesn't handle picket
fencing -- as commonly experienced in an automobile! -- very well). It's
actually rather fantastic when you consider that the FCC handed a monopoly on
the technology to one company (iBiquity) for all time -- every single HD radio
receiver and transmitter made requires royalty payments to iBiquity.
That being said, for city dwellers, at least in a stationary environment HD
radio is a nice little upgrade to traditional AM/FM.
---Joel
Joel Koltner
> Terrific but it doesn't alter the fact that the Constitution does not
> grant the power and there's no compelling reason for government
> funding.
Well, yes, but after some of the massive entitlement programs such as
Medicare, it shouldn't be much of a surprise there's tons of little programs
like the CPB around.
>>Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip
>>anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue.
> So what?
I was just agreeing with Jim that one might consider funding them on the basis
of pity :-) -- Rush sure doesn't need any government support.
[LBJ's quote]
> Read those excuses again. First the arrogance that government is going
> to "enrich man's spirit" but the "most important" is it builds a new
> institution. Are you kidding me? This is a 'goal': building
> institutions?
A lot of people relate to those beliefs, and while I agree some of the results
may be constitutionally questionable, I believe the supreme court ruled a few
times that that isn't the case. If anyone is going to try to re-open that
issue, then, it's going to have to be the Tea Party folks -- the Republicans
and Democrats have been going along with it for many decades now.
>>More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well --
> Since when did Congress ever have the slightest inkling about
> 'technology' and what should be made or not made?
Congress empowers the FCC to conduct technology trials. In theory the FCC is
supposed to create technological mandates that are in the best interest of the
people, although in actuality that often doesn't seem to happen.
>I'll tell you when:
> never. Someone comes in and 'sells' an 'idea' that Congress 'buys'
> with your money whether you want it or not. If it works then fine and
> if it doesn't work then fine because they have no money or risk in the
> damn thing anyway. It's YOUR friggin money that's hurled down the
> toilet and, casara, there's more where that came from.
Agreed, that does seem to have happened -- to a certain extent -- with HDTV
and HD radio.
There was a time when the FCC was filled largely with engineers, but these
days I'm told it's mostly all lawyers. That explains a few things...
> As if commercial stations can't figure out if it works or not so
> government has to turn on a 'public' transmitter to show, see, it
> works, eh?
They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are very
risk-adverse critters by nature. :-)
---Joel
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
No, at issue is whether it is a legitimate job of GOVERNMENT to fund political
speech.
Michael A. Terrell
Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :(
Michael A. Terrell
Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money
on proper maintainence.
Joel Koltner
> Joel Koltner wrote:
>> They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are
>> very
>> risk-adverse critters by nature. :-)
> Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money
> on proper maintainence.
Ha... good point!
When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the
nearest tech" is the way to go, too...
Joel Koltner
> Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :(
At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display?
:-)
Joel Koltner
news:g6Jzo.298310$Qg.1...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
> When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the
> nearest tech" is the way to go, too...
^^^ Should be YELLING at the nearest tech
Michael A. Terrell
No, they have to track down their 'contract engineer' and see when he
can get them back on the air. Thanks to 'Broadcast deregulation' most
radio stations under 50 KW don't have any engineers on staff. Allowing
stations to eliminate their engineering staff created the problems of
'Investor owned' radio stations that milked them of every cent they
could. When they get too run down, companies like Clear Channel buy
them and turn them into satellite fed clones.
I know of one transmitter site that shares one engineer for five FM
radio stations. He is on salary, and has to live in the transmitter
building because he is on call 24/7. That is, whenever they can keep
someone there.
Michael A. Terrell
Maybe. If you can keep your eyes open long enough. That's why I
bought a Sanyo Internet radio. Nothing left to listen to around here.
Michael A. Terrell
Sadly, there are no techs left in broadcasting, outside the OEM
sites.
Jim Thompson
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Joel Koltner wrote:
>>
>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:_pqdnQvUOqx_x1LR...@earthlink.com...
>> > Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :(
>>
>> At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display?
>> :-)
>
>
> Maybe. If you can keep your eyes open long enough. That's why I
>bought a Sanyo Internet radio. Nothing left to listen to around here.
I love my Roku Soundbridge. 50's rock-n-roll, commercial free ;-)
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:49:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Joel Koltner wrote:
> >>
> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:_pqdnQvUOqx_x1LR...@earthlink.com...
> >> > Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :(
> >>
> >> At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display?
> >> :-)
> >
> >
> > Maybe. If you can keep your eyes open long enough. That's why I
> >bought a Sanyo Internet radio. Nothing left to listen to around here.
>
> I love my Roku Soundbridge. 50's rock-n-roll, commercial free ;-)
The commercials on WSM don't bother me. Most are for businesses too
far away to care. :)
Joel Koltner
(busy day) I'll just address a couple:
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:f6nuc6h824q2nv4ke...@4ax.com...
> Now, I'm not suggesting that means another world war. We can simply go
> bankrupt and, at the Obama rate, 20 years should be plenty enough.
Voting results today might delay it a bit?
I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-)
> In all fairness to 'the people', socialists don't usually reveal their
> true intent, especially not in the U.S.
It's a mistaken assumption to think that people advocating socialist policies
have really spent that much time throroughly analyzing their own beliefs,
studied what has been written by others regarding those beliefs, and trying to
predict what the long-term outcome will be. IMO the vast majority of people
are just doing what they *feel* is best -- there often isn't any particularly
strong *logic* behind it.
> FDR took care of that problem by packing the court and it's never
> recovered because socialists make sure to nominate socialists.
Constitutionalists don't have a lot to show for 50+ years of effort, then?
Where was all the outrage back in the '40s and '50s?
> Your claim of "technology trials" for CPR HD radio is ridiculous. When
> is the supposed 'analysis' of whether it works to take place? Maybe
> all the commercial stations are waiting for the results of the
> 'trials', eh?
iBiquity already paid off the FCC for that? No, just kidding. :-)
I'm not familiar with the blow-by-blow actions on the FCC insofar as how the
trials were conducted and evaluated, but it is pretty much a done-deal at this
point. iBiquity's own web site provides this snippet of history:
---
In October, 2002, the FCC first authorized radio stations to transmit with HD
Radio Technology on the AM and FM bands on an experimental basis. Since then
the technology has been officially approved as the only terrestrial digital
radio system that is used in the United States:
a.. 2002 - The first radio stations went on the air broadcasting with HD
Radio Technology.
b.. 2004 - Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued for the
regulation of digital radio.
c.. October, 2004 - The first Multicasting station went on the air.
d.. September, 2005 - The NRSC 5 standard was adopted, which publicly
described the technology.
e.. March, 2007 - The FCC's Second Report and Order was issued, which
adopted the final rules for digital radio broadcasting, eliminating the
requirement for temporary authorizations and officially allowing Multicasting.
f.. January 28, 2010 - FCC authorized all FM stations transmitting HD Radio
Technology to optionally increase their digital power up to four times (to -14
dBc), and under certain conditions up to ten times (to -10 dBc).
As of January, 2010, there were 1,966 AM and FM stations on the air in 250
cities, including 197 of the 200 largest cities. There are signals on the air
in all states and in Puerto Rico. The population served is approximately 250
million, or 85% of the total U.S. population. There are 957 FM stations
transmitting 1,116 new Multicasting channels in 183 cities.
---
There were definitely folks who didn't agree with the FCC's actions; I
remember reading a few petitions from the early '00s where someone would
suggest HD Radio wasn't as wonderful as iBiquity claimed. (I think the guy
who runs this anti-HD Radio web site -- http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ --
was one of those filers.) Nevertheless, the FCC made its decision, and now
we're stuck with it.
> That's a mangling of the original purpose. It was to be a sort of
> public airwaves 'traffic cop', so to speak, so, as but one example,
> stations don't broadcast on top of each other and since that requires
> licensing there's to be some means to decide 'who gets' what was
> considered 'limited' air space, hence the 'serving a public interest'
> criteria.
>
> That is not a 'technological mandate'.
The 'technological mandate' part is a direct reflection of the FCC having to
deal with the limited resources that are the airwaves: HD radio promised to
pack more channels into a given bandwidth, hence this is (the argument goes) a
more efficient use of the airwaves and therefore in the public's interest.
> None of which matters because it has nothing whatsoever to do with
> funding NPR since you don't need a public radio station to 'test'
> technology.
It doesn't have to be a public radio station, but HDTV and HD Radio have both
shown that you really need a lot of real-world tests to ascertain how good a
new technology is; simulations and, e.g., very-low-power testing in isolated
areas don't cut it.
---Joel
Jim Thompson
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You have a lot of good points there, flipper, but for the sake of brevity
>(busy day) I'll just address a couple:
>
>"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
>news:f6nuc6h824q2nv4ke...@4ax.com...
>> Now, I'm not suggesting that means another world war. We can simply go
>> bankrupt and, at the Obama rate, 20 years should be plenty enough.
>
>Voting results today might delay it a bit?
>
>I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-)
Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to
even feed to the dogs :-)
[snip]
Make the world a better place, dismember a Democrat.
Joel Koltner
message news:tuk0d6ds4gblf9g1l...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
> <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-)
> Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to
> even feed to the dogs :-)
Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-)
Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that
today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an
enjoyable celebration.
And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is
today. We'll see...
---Joel
Jim Thompson
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>message news:tuk0d6ds4gblf9g1l...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>> <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-)
>> Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to
>> even feed to the dogs :-)
>
>Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-)
>
>Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that
>today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an
>enjoyable celebration.
>
>And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is
>today. We'll see...
>
>---Joel
We can only hope.
I seriously fear a lame-duck Congress passing some vindictive shit.
Unless we carry the Senate as well as the House, Repub-Teas are pretty
much limited to trying to defund Obama's hare-brained schemes.
I pray for run-away office taking. Then we can impeach Obama and
Bite-me; then criminalize the czars, and any lame-duck actions :-)
Michael A. Terrell
Joel Koltner wrote:
>
> "Jim Thompson" ?To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com? wrote in
> message news:tuk0d6ds4gblf9g1l...@4ax.com...
> ? On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
> ? ?zapwireD...@yahoo.com? wrote:
> ??I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-)
> ? Celebration? Yes! Leftist weenie roast? No! They're too stringy to
> ? even feed to the dogs :-)
>
> Darn. Maybe a few pickings suitable for your owls? :-)
>
> Although I don't always agree with your politics, Jim, I can appreciate that
> today probably will be a pretty happy one for you and hope you have an
> enjoyable celebration.
>
> And just maybe going forward here the government will be better off than it is
> today. We'll see...
I was hoping for dancing in the street after the polls close, but it
just started raining. :(
Jim Thompson
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:08:31 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You have a lot of good points there, flipper, but for the sake of brevity
>>(busy day) I'll just address a couple:
>>
>>"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
>>news:f6nuc6h824q2nv4ke...@4ax.com...
>>> Now, I'm not suggesting that means another world war. We can simply go
>>> bankrupt and, at the Obama rate, 20 years should be plenty enough.
>>
>>Voting results today might delay it a bit?
>
>I did say "at the Obama rate."
>
>
>>I expect there's a leftist-liberral-weenie roast BBQ at Jim's tonight? :-)
>>
>>> In all fairness to 'the people', socialists don't usually reveal their
>>> true intent, especially not in the U.S.
>>
>>It's a mistaken assumption to think that people advocating socialist policies
>>have really spent that much time throroughly analyzing their own beliefs,
>>studied what has been written by others regarding those beliefs, and trying to
>>predict what the long-term outcome will be.
>
>Depends on what you mean by "people advocating" and "thoroughly
>analyzing."
>
>> IMO the vast majority of people
>>are just doing what they *feel* is best -- there often isn't any particularly
>>strong *logic* behind it.
>
>I wasn't talking about "the vast majority." I was speaking of how
>those claiming to speak for, and self appointed movers and shakers of,
>the 'liberal' position present themselves to 'the people' when trying
>to seduce them into voting for it. And I gave examples of such.
>
>
>>> FDR took care of that problem by packing the court and it's never
>>> recovered because socialists make sure to nominate socialists.
>>
>>Constitutionalists don't have a lot to show for 50+ years of effort, then?
>
>A 'lot to show relative to what? However, it's easier to lose freedom
>than it is to keep it.
>
>Progressives began dismantling the Constitution in the early 20'th
>century and with Roosevelt's unprecedented 4 terms, the last completed
>(with a second) by Harry Truman, he was able to pack the Court and
>effectively remove the remaining bulwark against unConstitutional
>government.
>
>
>>Where was all the outrage back in the '40s and '50s?
>
>There was some. Most notably Roosevelt's first attempt to pack the
>court by increasing the number of justices so he could appoint new
>ones favorable to his policies. The outrage was enough to prevent that
>but the court buckled under the threat and attrition over 4 terms
>eventually allowed what he had tried by fiat.
>
>But the 40's were occupied with WWII and the 50's were mostly
>Eisenhower.
>
>Do you know the lesson of how to cook a live frog? You don't plop him
>into boiling water because he'll jump out from the pain. You put him
>into a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat. At first the
>warmth feels good, then lethargy sets in, and by the time it gets
>uncomfortable he's debilitated enough to be unable to jump out.
>
>Progressives-liberal-socialists learned a number of 'slow heat'
>methods, not the least of which being to never reveal their true
>intent, and, well, once you have 'one' then you have 'precedent': a
>variation of the same "considering all the others what's one more?"
>argument you posed.
>
>Death by a thousand cuts on the road to hell paved with good
>intentions.
>
>>> Your claim of "technology trials" for CPR HD radio is ridiculous. When
>>> is the supposed 'analysis' of whether it works to take place? Maybe
>>> all the commercial stations are waiting for the results of the
>>> 'trials', eh?
>>
>>iBiquity already paid off the FCC for that? No, just kidding. :-)
>>
>>I'm not familiar with the blow-by-blow actions on the FCC insofar as how the
>>trials were conducted and evaluated, but it is pretty much a done-deal at this
>>point.
>
>You had argued funding CPR HD was for 'field trials' so commercial
>stations would adopt the technology. It's that I was saying was
>ridiculous.
>None of which says a thing about CPR.
>
>>There were definitely folks who didn't agree with the FCC's actions; I
>>remember reading a few petitions from the early '00s where someone would
>>suggest HD Radio wasn't as wonderful as iBiquity claimed. (I think the guy
>>who runs this anti-HD Radio web site -- http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ --
>>was one of those filers.) Nevertheless, the FCC made its decision, and now
>>we're stuck with it.
>
>That's wonderful I'm sure but the wisdom, of lack thereof, to FCC's HD
>radio choice has nothing to do with government funding of NPR.
>
>
>>> That's a mangling of the original purpose. It was to be a sort of
>>> public airwaves 'traffic cop', so to speak, so, as but one example,
>>> stations don't broadcast on top of each other and since that requires
>>> licensing there's to be some means to decide 'who gets' what was
>>> considered 'limited' air space, hence the 'serving a public interest'
>>> criteria.
>>>
>>> That is not a 'technological mandate'.
>>
>>The 'technological mandate' part is a direct reflection of the FCC having to
>>deal with the limited resources that are the airwaves: HD radio promised to
>>pack more channels into a given bandwidth, hence this is (the argument goes) a
>>more efficient use of the airwaves and therefore in the public's interest.
>
>The FCC doesn't invent the technology. The private sector does.
>
>>
>>> None of which matters because it has nothing whatsoever to do with
>>> funding NPR since you don't need a public radio station to 'test'
>>> technology.
>>
>>It doesn't have to be a public radio station,
>
>Case closed.
>
>> but HDTV and HD Radio have both
>>shown that you really need a lot of real-world tests to ascertain how good a
>>new technology is; simulations and, e.g., very-low-power testing in isolated
>>areas don't cut it.
>
>The "but" is irrelevant because, as you already said "It doesn't have
>to be a public radio station."
>
>Btw, it is no surprise that NPR is 'liberal' because the very concept
>of NPR is progressive-liberal-socialist so it inherently attracts
>people of that persuasion.
>
>
>>---Joel
>>
>>
It may very well be that the "9mm solution" is the only answer.
Joel Koltner
> Progressives-liberal-socialists learned a number of 'slow heat'
> methods, not the least of which being to never reveal their true
> intent, and, well, once you have 'one' then you have 'precedent': a
> variation of the same "considering all the others what's one more?"
> argument you posed.
Surely it can go the other way as well, though? Turn the heat down a
little... everyone's a bit more comfortable... makes it easier to turn it down
some more, and so on; I think this is realistically the only way to return to
the more "constitutionally-respecting" state you're advocating here.
Well, OK, maybe Jim's comment about a 9mm could work too, but most people
would sure like to avoid that route!
See here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/30/the-funniest-signs-at-the_n_776490.html
> You had argued funding CPR HD was for 'field trials' so commercial
> stations would adopt the technology. It's that I was saying was
> ridiculous.
You're right, my logic there was off -- by the time CPB was being funded, the
FCC had already ruled that iBiquity's HD Radio standard was "the one." The
funding of the CPB was to demonstrate the results of HD Radio to both the
public and commercial stations, in an attempt to drive both demand and supply.
Such "technology stimulus" packages aren't anything new, of course -- look at
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. Another FDR boondoggle, in your
opinion?
---Joel
Joel Koltner
> The problem is the people don't 'jump' unless the left turn up the
> high enough so you only get chances to roll back when they unleash
> their natural arrogance and attempt 'progressing' too fast, like
> Obama. Except the 'roll back' is seldom more than a percentage of the
> increase so there's still a net loss.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept that this often happens. The
interesting question, then, is... can it continue? Or are we doomed to fall
as did Rome, and it's just a question of whether it's 20 years or 40 or
whatever? As I recall, you're predicting the later, right?
> Life tenure makes the SCOTUS even worse so the odds of it becoming
> Constitutional during our lifetime is remote.
Agreed, although I have to imagine the framers of the constitution were very
much aware of just how much power they were granting the judges when they set
up the life tenure system.
> Nonsense. You have a partial answer in the FDR question below, except
> there's no 'vital utility' to HD radio. But that's how the left
> 'progresses'. You start with the argument it's a 'vital utility', so
> 'charitable' government should fund it (you're a 'good person', aren't
> you?). Next time you leave out 'vital utility' and just government
> fund since that's (sorta but we don't mention sorta) 'like the
> precedent'. Eventually you disavow 'charity' and claim it's a
> 'entitlement'.
I agree, that is largely how it's progressed; I believe this reflects the fact
that our country has been so spectacularly successful in addressing the truly
vital needs of food, shelter, clothing, and so on. Constitutional questions
aside for a moment, I'm not bothered if the government has done such a good
job of providing "basic infrastructure" that these days some tax dollars go
towards coming up with (ostensibly) better TV systems, better Internet
connections, etc. (Of course the sticky point is always how much money to
throw at those things -- it's clear that as of late we've been spending far
more money than we should be on many government programs.)
> I'm old enough to remember how "The Great Society" was 'sold'. It was
> argued as charitable 'help the poor' and "there but for the grace of
> God go I," which was an argument it was not a 'transfer of wealth' but
> akin to 'insurance' since you too might find yourself in need some
> day.
>
> Nowadays they don't bother with the pretense.
Any reason you can't view it as both a transfer of wealth as well as
insurance? I do.
> Good technology doesn't need a 'stimulus'.
Oh, I dunno... look at places such as Mumbai: The (very good and these days
very, very mature) technology of proper sanitation insfrastructure is
completely inadequate largely because, even though people know that living in
such a horrible situation is not healthy (Indians are quite well-educated!),
they'd rather spend their money on cell phones (very sexy technology -- no
stimulus needed there) than basic infrastructure. See
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101103/GJLIFESTYLES/101109957/-1/SANNEWS :
"The Mumbai slum of Rafiq Nagar has no clean water for its shacks made of
ripped tarp and bamboo. No garbage pickup along the rocky, pocked earth that
serves as a road. No power except from haphazard cables strung overhead
illegally.
And not a single toilet or latrine for its 10,000 people.
Yet nearly every destitute family in the slum has a cell phone. Some have
three."
Sounds like a government stimulus could sure help there!
---Joel
Spehro Pefhany
I wouldn't call 66% adult literacy "well-educated". The US claims
99%.
Joel Koltner
news:hv63d6tutb8pf7nkv...@4ax.com...
[Mumbai]
> I wouldn't call 66% adult literacy "well-educated". The US claims
> 99%.
Ah, I didn't realize it was that low; my mistake. That's really too bad.
---Joel
Joel Koltner
slums in Mumbai are the most literate in India." Wow...
Jim Thompson
They man the call centers ;-)
Joel Koltner
>> The
>>interesting question, then, is... can it continue?
> No. Wealthy? No. Free? No. Will there still be humans? Yes. So it can
> 'continue'.
>
> You may notice that the first two are considered 'evil' anyway by the
> left and the third, managing the dumb human herd, is the means they
> feel is necessary to rectify the evil.
The left considers power and wealth evil? If they do, they sure don't
practice what they preach -- they're just as power- and money-hungry as any
right-wingers are.
> It reflects a deliberate 'progressive' strategy which, among other
> things, involves feigning a false argument because the real intent
> would never fly.
I don't think they're necessarily false arguments (although they might be
misguided) -- and even if they are, it doesn't really do any good to consider
them as such rather than trying to deal with the argument itself. I mean,
once you go from arguing about some principle someone is advocating (on the
left or the right) to arguing about whether or not they themselves really
believe the arguments they're putting forth or if they're just trying to
mainpulate you, how can you make any progress towards getting (at least some
of) what you want?
In general everyone tends to assume those on the opposite end of the political
spectrum from themselves are just evil liars. :-)
> The government itself, that you claim has done a spectacular job, says
> the poverty rate is no better than before it began the spectacular
> job.
This is largely because the definitinon of poverty is updated occasionally to
keep up with the average standard of living: I guarantee you someone living
right at the poverty line today would volunteer that they're still far better
off than someone living at the povery line in 1940.
> Well, sure. Why worry about the Constitution just because it's a
> blooming contract specifically defining what the government is, and is
> not, empowered to do? No reason to consider THAT.
It's inevitable, IMO -- regardless of how "solid" a foundation for a
government or religion is, over time people will always start re-interpreting
or just outright ignoring bits of it that no longer jive that well with
"popular culture." It's not worth the energy to be upset about this because
there's simply no way we could have one big vote and return the government to
the state it was in in, say, 1900 (or pick your date) -- the best we can hope
for is those incremental changes to get the government back on track to
something sustainable and closer to your own interpretation of the
constitution's and founding fathers' intents.
This is why none of Ayn Rand or Ralph Nader could ever be elected president.
(Apparently Ron Paul as well, although I had high hopes for him.) -- Even
though all of these people have done many great things.
> Government does not 'come up with' better anything.
They fund research projects that historically have come up with plenty of good
things -- more productive/disease resistant crops, lots of far-more-effective
weapons for waging war/maintaining peace (take your pick), vaccines for
various childhood diseases, much of the technology that led to the Internet,
etc.
(But I'm not arguing that the private sector doesn't come up with better
mousetraps. They certainly do too...)
> They're ALL 'good ideas'... to someone. And the money is free, free,
> free, free... yeehaw. Or, if you're sober, it's just a matter of
> extorting money from the evil rich, who deserve to be screwed anyway,
> especially for a 'good idea'. And they're ALL 'good ideas'... to
> someone.
This is a very cynical way to view it, IMO: There are elements of truth there,
but the "average man" recognizes that forcibly taking money from his fellow
man to fund some pet project is never to be taken lightly and should only be
done after a lot of deliberation as to the true potential/worth of that
project.
Even the "let's soak the rich!" crowd doesn't really get ahead much because,
well, there just aren't that many rich to soak. Soaking the middle class is
far more effective... :-)
> Al Capone saw nothing wrong with theft either.
The difference is that he wasn't put into power via popular vote.
> That's the most ridiculous, AND unrelated, argument you've come up
> with yet (as if CPR HD radio has any connection with sanitation or
> other vital services). There is no 'lack of interest' in, or
> 'unappreciation' of, sanitation technology by the poor, or anyone
> else. It's a failure of government to deliver services and you're
> about ready to pee in your pants cheering the government. (Notice the
> terribly clever, in context, allusion.)
My point was that it often takes the government to "do good" rather than just
figuring that individuals or corporations will voluntarily band together and
"do the right thing." That's one part of what government is: An argeement
among people that it makes sense to empower an elected group of officials to
engage in acts that are sometimes going to be inviable or unpopular but that
we can trust are still often reasonably good ideas overall.
In practice how well this happens varies quite a bit, of course. Comparing
India vs. the U.S., it's rather worse in India because their government is
rather more corrupt than the U.S.'s.
---Joel
Rich Grise
>>> The
>>>interesting question, then, is... can it continue?
>> Depends on what you mean by 'continue'. As the premier world power?
>> No. Wealthy? No. Free? No. Will there still be humans? Yes. So it can
>> 'continue'.
>>
>> You may notice that the first two are considered 'evil' anyway by the
>> left and the third, managing the dumb human herd, is the means they
>> feel is necessary to rectify the evil.
>
> The left considers power and wealth evil? If they do, they sure don't
> practice what they preach -- they're just as power- and money-hungry as
> any right-wingers are.
>
Yeah, and they get it by stealing it, unlike the right-wingers, who get it
by buying low and selling high.
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
>
> In general everyone tends to assume those on the opposite end of the
> political spectrum from themselves are just evil liars. :-)
That's because, no matter which wing you're from, for the most part, it's
true! ;-)
(for the irony-impaired - this means that your guys are evil liars too.)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> "flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
> news:32s3d6lloflnhci87...@4ax.com...
>>> The
>>>interesting question, then, is... can it continue?
>> Depends on what you mean by 'continue'. As the premier world power?
>> No. Wealthy? No. Free? No. Will there still be humans? Yes. So it can
>> 'continue'.
>>
>> You may notice that the first two are considered 'evil' anyway by the
>> left and the third, managing the dumb human herd, is the means they
>> feel is necessary to rectify the evil.
>
> The left considers power and wealth evil?
Yes, except for their own - that's "for the good of the people."
Cheers!
Rich
Joel Koltner
> Although, there is the point that one cannot say with certainty what
> they 'believe' by what they say. But, then, you argue below that one
> should so, for the moment, we shall.
I believe that enough people "believe what they say" that it's usually best to
try to debate with/influence them based on those stated beliefs rather than
trying to figure out what their true agenda is -- the later is just too hard
to do well, at least for me... although other people will surely be better at
it.
> Publicly broadcasting ads touting "Clean coal. Yes we can! Yes we
> can!" is demonstrably a deception when, in private, the same speaker
> assures left wing enviro fanatics his cap and trade program will put
> anyone dumb enough to believe the ad out of business.
Just as I can view social security as both "insurance" and "taxes" (or
"transfer of wealth" if you like), I can view both parts of the coal situation
as reasonable as well: Sure, Obama and friends would like to get rid of it
completely, but recognizing that that isn't viable any time soon, he's at
least going to push for making it cleaner in the interim.
I admit that I find it difficult to know whether programs such as
cap-and-trade are more about "let's try to motivate researchers to find even
better alternatives to what we already have (but if nothing pans out -- which
is actually kinda likely -- we'll just modify the program later)" vs. "energy
consumption is really kinda evil and we'll run out of it any day now and hence
it needs very heavy regulation and pricing far in excess of the actual
production costs" -- I expect that of supporters of cap-and-trade, there's
plenty of people at both of those extremes and everywhere inbetween.
> Don't be ridiculous. Assessing whether someone is truthful is not only
> valid but crucial in deciding whether one wants to hand them the
> reigns of power.
That I agree with -- just that, once they're in power, even if you are
convinced they're pathological liars, it's still best to try to deal with the
actual issues rather than directly accussing them of lying, as the later is
likely to remove any avenue you might have had of influencing policy change.
Of course, meanwhile you should be doing whatever you can to get them out of
power too. :-)
> ------
> I'm against going to war.
> Great, you get my vote.
> Now, off to war we go.
> -------
>
> And you think this is not only perfectly fine but it would have been
> of no value to asses whether there was any honesty in the claims made?
I think anybody that two-faced would be tossed out of office pretty quickly.
Heck, Clinton was impeached for lying about his affair with Lewinsky...
> How the hell do you make any 'progress' by agreeing to, or
> 'compromising' with, a deceptive argument the person never intends to
> adhere to?
Very few people are completely two-faced. Managing to get yourself elected to
public office requires at least some semblance of keeping your promises to
others, after all. I just don't view republicans vs. democrats or liberals
vs. conservatives as so far apart from one another as you seem to, I guess; a
lot of what you view as people lying I suspect I would view as someone
changing their opinion based on new information or a new context.
>>It's inevitable, IMO -- regardless of how "solid" a foundation for a
>>government or religion is, over time people will always start
>>re-interpreting
>>or just outright ignoring bits of it that no longer jive that well with
>>"popular culture."
> That's the rapist's argument: might as well lay back and enjoy it.
Might be, but unfortunately for the rapist the vast majority of people will
never buy it. It can go both directions anyway: If anything, at the moment
the country seems to be more in the mood for longer mandatory sentences for
criminals rather than letting judges or juries decide.
> The fact of the matter is, there's no point to a Constitution if
> you're going to simply 'reinterpret' whenever it feels convenient and
> "living document" is just another progressive-liberal-socialist canard
> for "dead contract."
The Constitution's relevancy to this country is just as much as, e.g., the
Bible's relevancy to a Christian: There's a fundamental belief that "somewhere
in there" some absolute truths can be found, but since the original framers
died long ago and you're dealing with a finite amount of text, people are
constantly shifting a bit on the exact interpretation.
And the Constitution doesn't even have to resort to parables for its
teachings. :-)
> ---
> I agree to buy your car at $200/month for 12 months, nothing down.
>
> We write a contract, both sign, you give me the keys, and I proudly
> drive off.
>
> Later I decide to 'interpret' the contract as 'meaning' to pay you
> $200 only on the months I have $200 to spare. That's still 12 payments
> of $200 but it doesn't look like there's going to be a spare $200 for,
> oh, maybe a few years. I'll decide later if another 'interpretation'
> is needed. After all, it might be I'm descendent from a previously
> persecuted class and you 'owe' me.
> ---
> Don't be upset. It's a "living document."
If you can get a court to agree with you, more power to you. :-)
I think it's unlikely, though. The savvy businessman also gives some
consideration to how likely the contractee is to flake and only enters into
the contract if they figure -- on average -- it'll be beneficial to them.
> And where did I say anything about 'one big vote" or 'returning' to a
> particular date?
You didn't, but I was thinking it might make you a happy camper. :-)
> And just how do you muster 'hope' that will ever happen when you argue
> no one should be 'upset' about the usurpations?
There's no reason I can't hope for a better situation while simultaneously not
being too upset with the present one. I mean, I have a standard of living
that spectacularly exceeds anything a very large percentage of people in the
world could ever expect to obtain and hence -- while I have hope the U.S.
government has some pretty significant changes implemented in the near
future -- I can't be at all unhappy about my lot in life in the interim.
> Government spends billions on 'research' but you only hear about it
> when a lucky cherry pops up.
Not surprising: A lot of what government funds is "basic research" that is too
much of a long shot for corporations to be interested in; it's expected that a
lot of it is going to fizzle, even though of all the "good ideas" the funded
one are presumably the best.
The main issue for me is the amount of funding; in general I'm confident that
the funds are being distributed to reasonably worthy causes -- even though it
is worrisome that politics now seems to affect those distributions far more
than in decades past (see, e.g., global warming scandals). "Billions" may
very well be too much, but "thousands" would be too little.
>>Even the "let's soak the rich!" crowd doesn't really get ahead much because,
>>well, there just aren't that many rich to soak.
> Of course not, but that doesn't stop it from being a perennial left
> wing class warfare ploy.
Agreed, but is the right any better with immediately trumpeting the "Obama's
visit to Indian will cost $200M/day!" fiction? Both sides need to take a deep
breath and calm down... a lot. This is what Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore
Sanity and/or Fear" was all about...
> No, it was your 'argument' that technology needed 'government
> stimulus', apparently under the typically left wing notion that the
> 'poor' there were to damn stupid to grasp the utility of toilets.
They're not too stupid to grasp the utility of toilets, but if it comes down
to toilets vs. a cell phone, in many cases they'll chose the later... hence
the argument that sometimes it's best to have government step in build a bit
of the initial infrastructure.
> Just 'unfortunate', I suppose, that your hand picked example is of
> government *not* 'doing good' and failing to provide services.
It's often easier to show the utility of government by pointing out an
"obvious" failing of one (India's) than just pointing to, e.g., the roads in
the U.S. where one could argue that perhaps they could have all been toll
roads and it would have been quicker or cheaper or something to have gone that
route anyway; it's harder to argue a hypothetical.
> Well, you can forget the 'agreement' because, according to the
> progressive-liberal-socialist left, that 'constitution' is a "living
> document" to be 'reinterpreted' by the government for the convenience
> of the government.
"The government" is largely just a reflection of the will of the people.
Well, assuming you vote, at least. It's not perfect, but until corruption
comes into play, I believe that in democracies (and constitutional republics
:-) ) people really do get the government they want... and deserve.
I get the impression you think our government is currently rather more corrupt
already than I do...
---Joel
Joel Koltner
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:7n19d6d8o6q08qhfg...@4ax.com...
> I often refer to some as being "delusional" or "self propagandized"
> but seldom use the L word. However, if you believe none of them are
> intentionally deceptive then you are either naive or being
> deliberately obtuse.
I think a lot fewer people are deliberatly deceptive than is generally
believed.
> Insurance: monies (voluntarily) paid to hedge against a 'bad' event
> one hopes never happens and, so, one hopes to never see the money
> again. You put in and only get back some degree of 'restoration'
> should the covered bad event occur.
Mmm... see whole life insurance? Plenty of insurers have offer various "cash
value" policies for many decades now.
Although when it comes to life insurance, whole life is generally considered
less of a value than term (traditional) life insurance. :-)
> Taxes (general), as they are supposed to be: monies levied to fund
> government services to the benefit of all members of society. You put
> in and receive the benefit of services just like everyone else.
No country has ever had a tax system that benefits all citizens equally.
> Taxes, for 'transferring wealth': monies levied under the notion that
> some people have too much so it should be extorted and given to others
> (voluntary giving by the owner is called "charity."). You put in,
> someone else gets it, and you get nothing for your efforts.
Some people derive some psychic income from it...
> Retirement: monies socked away (invested) during productive years for
> future income after one is unable to work. You put in and (if you live
> long enough) you get back.
After one is unable to work? At least today in the U.S., relatively few
people are incapable of not working after they retire; I sure view retirement
more as "future income such that one can *choose* to work ...or not."
> Don't you think it matters which of these someone is trying to foist
> on you and whether they're actually as represented?
I think the problem is that one word (insurance/taxes/retirement) isn't enough
to describe the motivations behind social programs today; most of the time the
motivations are numerous and varied.
> I am quite aware of how one can justify things to themselves but,
> again, that isn't the issue. The issue is presentation and argument to
> the public.
>
> A 'justification' hidden, because it wouldn't sit well, comes pretty
> darn close to the L word, don't you think? How about deliberately
> knowing the listener will misconstrue the meaning?
I agree with you there. It's a fine line being being very direct with people
and trying to sugarcoat or "spin" a policy you're pushing, but clearly at some
point the later degrades into outright mispresentation and becomes morally
questionable. As a group most politicians seem to place their "morality line"
far further out than you or I would...
Heck, I feel a little uneasy when, e.g., my boss tells me to change the
setting on a graph to, say, 10dB/division so that some +/-1dB perturbations
don't "jump out" at the customer on a 1dB/division graph and "scare" them. :-)
> "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." You know what
> "sexual relations" are, don't you? Clinton knew what people would
> 'hear' and what he could claim he 'meant' if questioned under oath.
Clinton was clearly being dishonest there and deserved his impeachment for it.
(Yeah, it was a waste of time, but what else are you going to do when the guy
misbehaving is the president?)
> Btw, care to make a guess as to what "clean coal" means? Does it mean
> sulfur free?
No, I figure it means "less sulfur than what we've traditionally been
burning."
> The reason you find it "difficult to know" is because it's
> deliberately obfuscated.
Yeah, I expect you're correct there too. You make some good arguments there
for being wary of cap-and-trade and I'll have to go do some more reading on
the matter...
> Pelosi does you one better. She just won't let you read the damn bill
> at all and "you have to pass it to find out what's in it." <smirk,
> wave hand, grin, wave hand, giggle>
I believe the new house is going to put an end to that nonsense, at least.
> You mean like Roosevelt's primary 1940 campaign promise to stay out of
> the war in Europe despite his firm conviction it was necessary and
> inevitable?
Hmm, I'll have to read up on that -- I'm not familiar enough with it to
comment.
> Progressive-liberal-socialists and Jeffersonian Constitutionalists are
> opposite ends of the spectrum.
Yeah, but the distribution is more Gaussian than bi-modal, right? -- So in
practice most people aren't as far apart as you might think.
>>Might be, but unfortunately for the rapist the vast majority of people will
>>never buy it.
> Then why did you propose it as rational?
I suggested the rapist might consider it rational, not that most everyone is
slowly going to come to decide that that's the case.
> It ain't ever gone significantly the 'other way' yet, short a
> revolution.
Relative to 1776, perhaps so, but it certainly ebbs and flows every two years,
even if the overall trend is monotonic.
>> If anything, at the moment
>>the country seems to be more in the mood for longer mandatory sentences for
>>criminals rather than letting judges or juries decide.
> That hardly qualifies as an increase in 'freedom', now does it?
Crime *victims* might think so.
> 'Text' surrounding the Constitution is not nearly so 'rare' and
> 'mysterious' as you try to imply.
Actually I'm not trying to imply that it's rare -- just (sometimes)
mysterious, as with the Bible. (...and I imagine several orders of magnitude
more texts regarding the Bible have been produced than those regarding the
U.S. constitution!)
>> people are
>>constantly shifting a bit on the exact interpretation.
> It isn't "a bit."
A bit here and a bit there and soon we're talking major migrations...
> The left has so successfully mangled the Constitution that many, if
> not most, people have no idea what it really says and means.
Ouch. Well... what should we do about that? Revolt or still try to fix
things?
> You either don't hear, haven't heard, or don't believe what liberals
> tell you. You consume way too many resources. You not only steal it
> from the rest of the world but it's unsustainable and you're either
> going to learn how to live with a lot less or they'll make you.
You can only push people so far and so fast before they do revolt, though...
so perhaps our country will suffer the death of 1,000 cuts rather than having
revolts in the street, but at least it gives some folks (those with marketable
skills and/or wealth) time to get out. Heck, that was Jim's strategy for
awhile, as I recall...
>> even though of all the "good ideas" the funded
>>one are presumably the best.
> Presumed by who? A government bureaucrat that's doesn't know a quark
> from a quack?
Well-known and respected people working in the field. Granted, sometimes it
becomes a bit circular -- as with climate research -- but that's the best
approach I can think of.
> Like snail tunnels under overpasses, airport terminals where there are
> no passengers, and HD radio because, otherwise, no one would know it
> worked?
I don't expect all research projects to be successful -- just most of them.
:-) The examples you've cited are, indeed, largely failures insofar as the
public getting a got bang for its buck goes.
> Repeating something that was 'reported' may be unwise but it's nothing
> at all like the deliberate tactic of class demonization.
Agreed, but it's hard to believe that at least *some* of the folk repeating
"$200M/day!" either were purposely out to misled or at least "didn't want to
know" if it was correct or not.
> By the same token, liberals are all for quiet respect when they're
> speaking. It's only when conservatives are speaking that you're to
> disrupt and shout them off the stage.
Yeah, that does happen a distressing amount of time and it's sad when
liberal-types don't realize just how hypocritical it is.
> A false argument based on a false premise. They do not 'chose' a cell
> phone OVER toilets. They do not HAVE the choice.
Why not? Shouldn't the government just stay out of the way and figure that
sooner or later they'll voluntarily choose to pool their own meager savings
together and buy some toilets?
> Uh huh. And I suppose you show the safety of air travel by pointing to
> crash sites.
If, e.g., one country had a lot more crashes than another you certainly could
(...and people do...).
> The price of freedom is vigilance.
Good point...
> Let me ask you a question. What do you imagine the scope of 'special
> interest groups' would be if government were not funding and
> controlling their interests?
It'd be greatly reduced, I expect.
---Joel
Joel Koltner
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:34:10 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
> <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I think a lot fewer people are deliberatly deceptive than is generally
>>believed.
> that "people generally believe'? How many is "a lot fewer"?
I'd wager that if you took a poll at least half the people would agree with
the statement "politicans from politcal parties other than my own routinely
act in a deceitful manner." In actuality I would wager it's really less than
10% of the time.
> I made no claims as to gross quantity and the point was simply that
> there are people who try to deceive.
Agreed, I'm just trying to quantify things a little since at the end of the
day I don't think things are nearly as bad as my impression of your take on it
is. :-)
But perhaps I'm not understanding just how bad of shape you think the country
is in...
>>No country has ever had a tax system that benefits all citizens equally.
> So, your theory is if one cannot achieve perfection then might as well
> go to hell, eh?
No, just that there's little point in being unhappy that we haven't achieved
perfection.
> By virtue of happenstance one may or may not perceive 'precisely equal
> benefit' from each and every service but one can observe whether
> they're specifically 'targeted' or deliberately excluded and whether
> someone else is.
Well, in the U.S. various services certainly are specifically targeted or
excluded from various groups or individuals, but this is done on some (often
highly subjective) basis of being "fair."
> The more your argument applies the more it means government should
> simply not be 'in that business' to begin with.
Logically I agree with you, but pragmatically I just don't see such a
government as viable in today's society.
I suppose that's kinda what it boils down to... I consider myself a
pragmatist, and while I do have great respect for the founding fathers and the
constitution, I'm OK with considering their words and the document "living."
I'm probably a bit of a moral relativist too. :-)
>>> Taxes, for 'transferring wealth': monies levied under the notion that
>>> some people have too much so it should be extorted and given to others
>>> (voluntary giving by the owner is called "charity."). You put in,
>>> someone else gets it, and you get nothing for your efforts.
>>Some people derive some psychic income from it...
> That won't buy a pack of bubble gum.
True, although if I really stretch the argument perhaps it'll save them from
the cost of treating an ulcer? :-)
OK, that's not really a serious argument -- I doubt very many people get as
much psychic income from being taxed a dollar (and assuming it goes to good
cause) than do people who are able to donate a dollar to the charity of their
choice.
>>> Retirement: monies socked away (invested) during productive years for
>>> future income after one is unable to work. You put in and (if you live
>>> long enough) you get back.
>>After one is unable to work?
> That was the reason for the concept.
Interesting, I didn't know that...
> In both cases,. however, you're 'disabled': one by nature and the
> other by 'social planner' policy.
Those Frenchies are really up in arms that their official retirement age has
been raised from 60 to 62, you know.
> You're just rich enough to
> chose to work or not and that could be said at any time in life,
> including if you simply inherited enough to be a member of "the idle
> rich."
Hmm, good point.
> You also seem to ignore what you *are* told. As to the 'poor' the
> clearly stated reason, by some, is "society owes" them and the rest
> (only the rich if you're shooting for votes) "have an obligation." But
> if you object we'll call it charity. Oh, wait, that would be voluntary
> so it isn't. Ok, we'll call it 'insurance'.
> See, the point is to call it something you'll like because you might
> not like what it is.
Yes, this is "spin control." It's really just an "entitlement," but of course
politicians avoid that word because it has a lot of baggage -- as does "taxes"
(especially "tax cut" or "tax hike"), but not so much "insurance."
>>I agree with you there. It's a fine line being being very direct with
>>people
>>and trying to sugarcoat or "spin" a policy you're pushing, but clearly at
>>some
>>point the later degrades into outright mispresentation and becomes morally
>>questionable. As a group most politicians seem to place their "morality
>>line"
>>far further out than you or I would...
> What happened to "I think a lot fewer people are deliberately
> deceptive than is generally believed?"
What I'm saying is that many a politician seems to be able to engage in what
might appear to be deceptive when, in actuality, their morals are really just
looser than mine. I realize that's a slippery-slope argument (lots of
criminals will claim they didn't think they were doing anything wrong), but I
try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
>>Clinton was clearly being dishonest there
> I agree but using your own gray blobs in a gray fog logic he can
> theoretically 'justify' to himself the 'technical accuracy' of what he
> said.
I expect you're correct. What I'm saying up there is that Clinton was clearly
being dishonest in my (gray fog logic -- I like that phrase!) opinion; I can
accept that (at least at the time) he might not have felt he was behaving
badly. ...but clearly the house of representatives didn't believe him either!
> Why did you clip and ignore where I told you the new definition?
The one about carbon footprints?
I think a lot of the carbon footprint stuff is just mumbo-jumbo.
> It begins, of course, with the premise of 'man made climate change' so
> I suggest you look for the "scientific" validation of the conjecture.
Indeed, AGW is clearly a very hot potato item right now -- look at its
popularity here on SED! I tend to lean towards the side that the man-made
"input" is likely nowhere near as large as most AGW supporters believe, but I
also readily admit that (1) I'm not at all an authority on the matter nor do I
really care to want to take the time to become one and (2) my stance is
definitely the "easier" one in that it doesn't imply drastic changes in the
economy and my lifestyle (as "cap and trade" might), so I tend to have a
natural bias to not want to believe it.
I also like John Larkin's point that the implicit supposition that "climate
change is always bad" needs to be questioned; some parts of the economy
clearly benefit if we, e.g., warm up the planet a bit.
> AGW proponents do a terrific job of explaining, in excruciating
> detail, what the conjecture is but the argument boils down to "we
> believe therefore it is" and that's not "science" regardless of how
> much data you collect and how many numbers you crunch.
It could qualify as a "soft science" in the same vein that, e.g., astronomy or
archaeology do: The time scales involved are so huge that you can't really do
any direct experiments, but perhaps you can do experiments or make predictions
on a smaller scale and demonstrate something useful. E.g., feed the climate
data up to (only) the year 2000 into your computer models and then see how
well it models 2000-2010...
> In 2008 the people voted for, as we have been told over and over,
> "change." Well, hell, that can be anything. Going bankrupt will be a
> 'change' but I am not convinced that's what they voted for nor am I
> convinced they intended to make Pelosi 'Queen'.
"Change" is a popular wildcard at times -- 2008 was essentially the devil you
knew vs. the devil you didn't know, and the later won out.
> There isn't any with regard to Jefferson. Madison, Franklin, et al
> and, as I already mentioned, their scope of government is considerably
> simpler than explaining 'all things'.
Didn't the freemasons or some other secret society slip a few changes into the
constitution while Jefferson and friends weren't looking?
Oops, no, sorry -- I've been taking those National Treasure movies too
seriously... :-)
> You're on the brink of discovering why they call for "world
> governance."
Hmm, yes, I see what you mean.
> But our system is founded on the principle that political power, when
> granted by the people, should be exercised as close to the people as
> possible. As such, local, city, county, State, and Federal governments
> have different powers and responsibilities with the Federal government
> having the *least*, which will come as a surprise to many.
...especially when they look at the size of their state tax return vs. their
federal tax return...
> To wit, the 'they' called States do have the power to require
> insurance as a prerequisite for use of the public roads but the 'they'
> called the Federal government was never granted the power to mandate
> EITHER auto insurance OR health insurance.
Did the federal government have the power to impose the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Active Labor Act which is what compels hospitals to provide
emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, legal status, or
citizenship?
---Joel
Joel Koltner
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:0ubpd6dpcnvfcinik...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:10:25 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
> <zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[percentage of deceptive people]
> And how would you prove it? Especially since you've argued it's not
> worth figuring out anyway. In fact, how do you even arrive at the
> opinion other than simply 'wishing' it were so?
I can't prove it. I arrive at my opinion based on how people I've observed in
"the real world" behave when they're just giong about doing their regular
jobs, shopping for groceries, taking the kids to soccer practice, etc. vs. how
they behave on the Internet or while at political rallies.
> I gather you're trying to make the argument that since 'everyone' (you
> moderated with half) makes the same claim about 'the other guy' then
> the claim is universally nothing more than partisan perception.
I won't go so far as to say "universally," but "typically" would apply.
> Face it, the mark of a good liar is he sounds at least 'plausible' so
> that 'two sides' may appear on the surface to be 'similar' means
> nothing.
Agreed, although I don't think there are very many good liars out there
either. :-)
> Worst economic situation since the great depression with virtually
> universal agreement the country is accelerating toward bankruptcy at
> an unprecedented rate and you think things are peachy keen?
I probably am wearing rose-colored glasses...
On this graph things don't look so bad:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/26/business/economy/20090126-recessions-graphic.html -
- but I've seen other illustrations where things look much more dire.
> There's more than one issue. Obviously the one above but you also
> don't seem to give a whit whether anyone bothers with the Constitution
> so, and I repeat, what's the point of having one?
I actually do give a few whits, just not nearly as many as you. :-)
Look, I'd have to admit here that you're in a much better position to debate
all this than I am -- you appear to be more knowledgable on the topic than I
am and I think you're more passionate about it. I do admire that, and like to
think your input to this has taught me a lot. But at the end of the day, when
it comes to the Constitution and how it holds this country together, I am in a
bit of a "gray fog logic" about it all.
> We aren't quibbling about gnawing on the edge of perfection. We're
> talking about economic collapse, a dead Constitution, and whether
> we're going to have a country based on individual freedom, as the
> founding fathers created it, or one ruled by a self anointed elite
> class who claim omnipotent power over the ignorant, dumb, incompetent
> chattel.
I think the "dead (well, dying, at least) constitution" and "country based on
individual freedom" is a ship that sailed some ~60-70 years ago now. I don't
think we're at a precipice that we're to fall over -- it's more like the
founding fathers scaled up a nearly-vertical cliff side back in 1787, and
while there were the occasional steep hills since then (e.g., 1791, 1861,
possibly the 1930s, etc.), in general since then we've been on relatively
level ground with a few rolling hills here and there... although the overall
trend since 1787 has been back towards the ground.
>> and while I do have great respect for the founding fathers and the
>>constitution, I'm OK with considering their words and the document "living."
> I must have done a poor job for you to have the Gaul to even
> contemplate uttering those words again.
:-) -- I'm attempting to wrap up the discussion in that I don't think I'm
really adding much value to it any longer and we're largely just re-hashing
things already said.
> "Spin control" is another of those phrases that's been mangled to mean
> nothing, or anything depending on how you view it.
>
> "Spin" means emphasizing a thing in your favor that the listener
> doesn't think is the 'important' thing. Like, say, loosing a historic
> number of House seats and claiming it's better than things could have
> been. You're trying to 'spin' the perception.
>
> Of course, you could also just flat out lie for the same purpose but
> to lump that strategy in with 'spin' makes the word meaningless
> because there's already a word for the other: lie.
Hmm, OK -- I agree "spin" isn't really the right word there, but there has to
be a phrase for when you try to convince someone of your "interpretation" of
events without resorting to lying. Not really "puffery" either...
> You won't buy this horse manure if I call it horse manure so I'll call
> it a perfumed beauty facial pack.
>
> Any business doing that would be hanged, drawn and quartered but you
> apparently think it's perfectly fine for government.
It's a matter of degree -- no one advertises hot dogs based on how they're
made, nor does anyone trying to sell you that perfumed beauty facial pack
prominently mention that it contains cow dung, for instance.
> As an interesting side note to the euphemism, women were burned at the
> stake out of a concern for 'public decency'. Look up "hanged, drawn
> and quartered" and you'll see why.
Even Ronald Reagan promoted a "kinder, gentler nation?" :-)
>> opinion; I can
>>accept that (at least at the time) he might not have felt he was behaving
>>badly. ...but clearly the house of representatives didn't believe him
>>either!
> As I said, that statement is not why he was impeached.
Wikipedia seeems to think it was? Quote
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Impeachment_and_trial_in_the_Senate):
"The two charges passed in the House (largely on the basis of Republican
support, but with a handful of Democratic votes as well) were for perjury and
obstruction of justice. The perjury charge arose from Clinton's testimony
about his relationship to Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit
(later dismissed, appealed and settled for $850,000 brought by former Arkansas
state employee Paula Jones."
> Sounds funny doesn't it? On the other hand I once though "next they'll
> be telling you what to eat" sounded funny but that's the popular rage
> now.
San Francisco banning Happy Meals seems pretty silly, IMO...
> Now you're into a different area with "models" and they've been trying
> to validate the climate models with the historical temperature record,
> a task not made any easier by the gurus cooking the books. By that I
> mean, even a good model isn't going to match bad data, now is it?
True, although I would like to believe that a good chunk of atmospheric data
collected over, say, the past 100 years at least had assigned error
tolerances, and if you know what the input error tolerances are, you can then
figure out the output error tolerances... although I suppose they could easily
be so large as to make the actual prediction meaningless. (I.e., you don't
need a fancy computer model to tell you that next year's average temperature
will be within +/-10 degrees of this year's...)
Perhaps we just don't have enough high-quality data yet to try to build good
models from yet.
> But, back to models, to begin with they can't make the models work and
> it's worse than that because a model 'working' is not proof the
> underlying conjecture is correct.
The later doesn't really bother me -- if you have a model that makes useful
(accurate) predictions, I'm not too worried about how the model is built.
(Indeed, the folks building pyramids and cathedrals had various tables and
formula that let them perform very good architectual engineering, even though
their "models" weren't derived from physics directly.) The important thing to
try to understand is the limitations of the model -- where it will lead you
astray. (E.g., everyone here knows that it's really electrons that flow in
wires, yet we still use the model of positive current flow.)
> When people perceive a 'problem' they want 'change', namely the
> problem to go away.
>
> That doesn't mean 'anything' is fine.
>
> Ow, I've got a leg cramp. Okay, we'll cut it off. Whoa!!!!! That's not
> what I had in mind.
>
> Well, it won't 'hurt' any more.
>
> And it's certainly a 'change', now isn't it?
Yes, but it's a safe bet that no Republican nor Democrat who wins the
primaries is such a radical candidate that they're going to be able to do the
equivalent of cutting the leg off the country. Politicians, I suspect, *wish*
they had that much power!
On EMTALA... I agree with your analysis (...and I personally think EMTALA was
generally a good idea, but given the analysis, I can understand why some
people would disagree).
---Joel