Re: Cold Anger - a link

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:34:36 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> One of the reasons I am concerned about "the cull" isn't that
>people will die, but that spectacles will be made. Not good. One
>does not make a circus out of the putting down of a rabid dog.
>
>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/25/cold-anger-entire-institutional-systems-will-be-dispatched-like-a-feather-in-a-hurricane/
>
>quote:
>Cold Anger is not hatred, it is far more purposeful.
>
>Cold Anger takes notice of the liars, even from a great distance –
>seemingly invisible to the mob. Cold Anger will still hold open the
>door for the riot goer. Mannerly. We’ve watched our borders being
>intentionally unsecured. We’ve watched Islamic Terrorists slaughter
>Americans as our politicians proclaim their uncertainty of motive.
>
>Cold Anger when evidenced is more severe because it is more strategic.
>Eric Cantor, the Brexit and Donald Trump might aide your
>understanding.
>
>Cold Anger does not gloat; it absorbs consistent vilification and
>ridicule as fuel. This sensibility does not want to exist, it is
>forced to exist in otherwise unwilling hosts – who also refuse to be
>destabilized by it.
>
>endquote.
>

Another Excellent posting....


Thoughts on the road. – William Lehman
Posted on September 16, 2015 | 521 Comments

Thoughts on the road. – William Lehman

I just completed a round trip run from western Washington to
Pennsylvania in an RV. Most of this drive was along I-90, and I-80,
through what the coasts derogatorily dismiss as “flyover country”.
This gave me some opportunity for observation and reflection, during
the drive, and this is the result.

I’m a Marine electrician lead (as well as an author) who comes from
blue collar roots, and my dad was a member of the Teamsters union for
most of my life, until his death. Some people have called me a traitor
to my people for being anti-union. This trip helped remind me why I
am.

It’s a not terribly well known fact that the Pacific North West, makes
a LOT of money off exporting hay. Yes, hay. First quality green hay
gets shipped by the bulk carrier loads from ports in WA, to Japan,
South Korea, and the Middle East for the Horsey folks in those areas,
and they pay TOP dollar. Farmers make a decent living off this trade.
So I was surprised to see literally thousands of bales of hay (and
we’re not talking the little 50lb bales that we used to buck growing
up, no… these where the 800 lb. round bales that you need a machine to
load, usually the size used for export, and large farm operations)
rotting in the fields, all looking about a year old. Then I put it
together.

I have good friends who are truckers. The Longshoreman strike and
slowdowns on the west coast last fall hurt them big time. All of the
truckers I know that work the docks own (with the bank) their own
rigs. By the way, those suckers ain’t cheap. They cost about as much
as a house. So my friends basically have two mortgages to maintain,
one for their house, and the other for their truck. If they’re not
hauling loads, they’re hemorrhaging money like it’s going out of
style. (or like they’re congressmen) guys lost their trucks over this.

There was a big thing in the local papers because a couple of the farm
co-ops dumped hundreds of thousands of pounds of apples that were
destined for overseas for the same reason. They couldn’t ship them
overseas, and if they put them on the US market the price would drop
so low that they wouldn’t even break even after shipping costs.

What’s that? You in the back with the occupy something T-shirt?

“How dare they throw away food, while people are going hungry” you
ask?

Well sparky, it’s like this. The farmers are going hungry too. They
get a pay day once or twice a year, and that’s from selling their
crop. They have to make the payments on all their REALY EXPENSIVE
equipment, pay their employees, including the guys that are demanding
$15 an hour as the new minimum wage, out of that one or two paychecks
a year, and pay their mortgage, and put enough back to feed the family
for the year. So they (like any prudent business man) insure their
crops. If they don’t sell, or are destroyed, the insurance pays off.
(not anything like full value, but enough that maybe they don’t lose
the farm this year) If they sell at a loss, the insurance doesn’t pay.
And if they give the food away, not only does the insurance not pay,
but who’s going to pay the truckers to take it from where the food is,
to where the mouths are? (Yes, I have a point, and I’m getting there,
I just need to give you the back ground)

Well, the thirty or so shiploads of hay that I saw all date from about
the same time frame. So here’s another layer of people hurt I
theorize( if there’s any WA, ID, MT, or NB hay farmers that read this
and can tell me of a different reason that millions of dollars of hay
was allowed to mold, I’m all ears) all because of a strike that
didn’t, in the end, really get the rank and file union member much of
anything. (It got the union more power though, and that’s what’s
important… to the union)

My dad was a teamster during the great Teamster strike of the early
70s. His team got along great with management, where happy with their
pay and working conditions, and didn’t want to strike. But some big
guys came down from Detroit in a couple Caddies, looked around and
said “Dwayne, The union is all going on strike, youse gotta go on
strike too.”

“But we don’t have anything we want to strike FOR.”

“Do it for youse families.”

“What do you mean by that?”

“How would youse feed your families if this place was to burn to the
ground? If you was to be kicked out of da union, and your little boy
was to get hurt bad, how would you pay medical expenses? Oh and youse
guys gotta actually walk the picket line or youse don’t get your
strike pay”

Then the goons in the caddies drove back to Detroit, and dad and the
rest walked the picket lines. People who wildcatted that strike where
hurt or killed… I remember one guy was hauling dynamite for the coal
mines in KY. The sniper that shot his truck hit the load… It cratered
the road.

Dad died in harness about 20 years ago. Mom got the princely sum of 28
bucks a month as survivor benefits until she remarried. Tell me why I
should support the union?

Another observation is that pretty much all of my leftist friends (yes
I have friends from the far left, I view them as slightly retarded,
but love them anyway) have been freaking out over the eminent demise
of the European Honey Bee, and thus over the inevitable death of all
life on earth… Now that ignores that fact that it’s the “European
Honey Bee” and not native to the Americas. Somehow life in the
Americas managed to continue to exist before European immigrants
brought the Honey bee to the continents. Still, if you talk to the
left Honey bees are doomed, and with them, the entire biosphere, all
due to Monsanto, or Nicoloid gene splicing, or whatever the current
evil is, that is causing CCD (colony collapse disorder)… If you do a
casual search of the Web for bee population data you’ll find nothing
but doom. But on the drive, I counted about 100 hives an hour while
going though agricultural areas, most in groups of 6-10 hives, all
with multiple supers under the hive. Well, unless ALL the bees in
North America are on the I-80, US 28, and I-90 corridor, (which I
doubt) the gloom and doom just doesn’t seem to match reality.

SO I dug a little deeper… Yup, if you look at the propaganda on Bee
populations, it’s all bad, but if you look at the HONEY HARVEST, it’s
been increasing for several years (since 2004) and in those numbers
(but surprisingly enough NOT in the numbers on bee population, even
though they’re from the same office) there are more hives in
cultivation this year than last, and that holds true since 2004!
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1191
HUMM.

Finally, I’m viewed by those aforementioned liberals as a rabid
frothing at the mouth conservative. Well, I’m starting to feel like
Marten L. King jr. on that. Because I hate to break it to the folks
from both coasts, and the really big cities in between, (Denver,
Austin, I’m looking at you here) but you folks really want to talk to
me, because you DON’T want to talk to Malcom X.

I went hunting in MT a couple years ago. Talking with my Guide and
some of the other locals, I felt like I was the liberal in the room,
and practically in the barking Moonbat category. (These folks where
ready to start the revolution tomorrow) Now I filed that under the
category of “These guys live out in the back of beyond, they’re
outliers statistically”. On the drive to and from the East Coast, I
paid attention to the billboards and bumper-stickers. Folks, the
people in “Fly over” country are PISSED, from the guy that guides
hunters, to the mayors of towns and cities, to state senators
congressmen and Governors who are voting to arrest and imprison
federal law enforcement officials for enforcing federal gun laws that
don’t agree with state law.

You guys (the left) really want to stop pushing quite so hard. The
political pendulum has never, in the history of humanity, stayed on
one side of a swing. The back lash from over reach has always been
proportionate to how far off center it went before coming back. (Hint,
that’s what started the whole prohibition thing, and it’s also what
started the 60s, was backlashes) Well right now we’re staring at a
whole hell of a lot of the country (about 80-90% of the land mass, as
well as about 50% of the population) that is FED UP. You really don’t
want those guys to decide that the only way to fix it is to burn it
down and start over… REALLY! Most of these folks are vets, and the
children of vets, they’ve had guns in their hands since middle school
or before, or they’re still serving either in the regulars, the
reserves, or the NG. If it goes to armed insurrection, even if the
left wins, (highly damn unlikely) it will be a mess worse than
reconstruction, worse than the Balkans. For the love of the country
that I’ve served for over three decades, start seeking peace now.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:07:23 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Lehman, a lot like you, Gunner, apparently can't do arithmetic. Either
that, or, like you, he's just full of shit.

Honey production, according to the quoted USDA source, has declined
from 183.6 million pounds in 2004, to 154.5 million in 2015:

[U.S. honey production, imports, exports, stocks, and average price,
by calendar year. Sources: Honey, National Agricultural Statistics
Service, USDA, and Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Last
updated: 4/14/2016]

Of course, you just copied pasted this shit without checking it for
veracity, which is why you live on bullshit and bullshit guides your
life.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 06/25/2016 08:07 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> It’s a not terribly well known fact that the Pacific North West, makes
> a LOT of money off exporting hay. Yes, hay. First quality green hay
> gets shipped by the bulk carrier loads from ports in WA, to Japan,
> South Korea, and the Middle East for the Horsey folks in those areas,
> and they pay TOP dollar.

It wasn't one of the companies usual loads but I once hauled hay from
Ellensburg, WA to Long Beach. The hay was stuffed into containers by
something resembling a trash compactor, and was going to Japan. I had a
set of doubles and it was a real pain in the ass juggling them
particularly down at the docks.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:45:02 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Gack!! Id hate to pull a set of doubles down at the docks. Its bad
enough in a pickup.

[RdJEq⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄LXWfR]

Everybody knows Gummer is a pathological liar.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lin-a2lTelg>

[Ed Huntress]

Well, that's a given, but what disturbs me even more is that so many
people believe this crap. You could tell, one paragraph in, that this
guy is full of crap; that he bases his conclusions on his anecdotes
from driving across two Interstates; and didn't know anything about
the subjects he talked about. He didn't even sound like a smart
amateur.

Maybe it's 40 years of editing and fact-checking, but after a couple
of paragraphs, I would have put money down that this writer is full of
shit. Isn't it obvious? Or don't they care, as long as he appears to
be a member of their tribe?

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:qdsvmb568jo66rmbg...@4ax.com...

>
> Well, that's a given, but what disturbs me even more is that so many
> people believe this crap. You could tell, one paragraph in, that
> this
> guy is full of crap; that he bases his conclusions on his anecdotes
> from driving across two Interstates; and didn't know anything about
> the subjects he talked about. He didn't even sound like a smart
> amateur.
>
> Maybe it's 40 years of editing and fact-checking, but after a couple
> of paragraphs, I would have put money down that this writer is full
> of
> shit. Isn't it obvious? Or don't they care, as long as he appears to
> be a member of their tribe?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Did you ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "The
Complete Walker" or "Blue Highways"?

[CpRTS⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄XwoQi]

The article from Gummer was definitely a piece of anti-union propaganda.

I remember when Ronald Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers (they
were Federal Government employees) who went on strike, many of them had
to come up to Canada to find employment in the same capacity.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/reagan-fires-11-000-striking-air-traffic-controllers-aug-5-1981-012292>

Ronald Reagan was Big Money's union-busting henchman. He broke the union
movement and brought on his "Reaganomics" which devastated the US middle
class.

One easy formula to bust the union is to infiltrate the union with
agitators to rise up in rank and start making ridiculous demands in
wages and benefits. So when the Air Traffic Controllers went on strike
they had very little sympathy from the general public and Ronald Reagan
appeared to be doing the angry public's bidding when he fired those
strikers.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF5tEaqcVQ>


Ronald Reagan dismantled the Democrat's "New Deal"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal>

and destroyed America's middle class:

How Reaganomics killed America’s middle class
<http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/>

How Reaganomics killed America’s middle class (Thom Hartman Show)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdCNGkZoIZw>

How Reaganomics Destroyed The Middle Class...And Maybe America (Rachel
Maddow Show)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5CCRI1vdwE>

[Ed Huntress]

I read Zen.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 09:50:52 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:07:23 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>>Thoughts on the road. – William Lehman
>

>>I’m a Marine electrician lead (as well as an author) who comes from
>>blue collar roots, and my dad was a member of the Teamsters union for
>>most of my life, until his death.
>

>Author? My high school English teacher would beat him about the head
>and shoulders for that awkward run-on sentence. The comma spice is
>alive and well.
>
>A sort of soldier - an electrician in uniform. And a son of, shall we
>assume, a truck driver. OK, two honest trades.
>
>But pretty thin credentials to try passing as an expert in
>agriculture; the actual practice or the economics there of.
>
>Yet he goes on to make grand conclusions about producing both hay and
>honey.
>
>And does it from a mile or two away, while driving down an interstate
>in an RV, probably passing by at 60 mph.
>
>Gunner does find his "experts" in some amazing places.

Larry is just as bad. When you get all of your information from
sources you agree with before you start reading, all you need is a
headline -- the source of most of Gunner's information. <g>

BTW, as one who almost got into a fistfight over a comma splice (and
she outweighed me by 50 pounds!), there ain't no comma splice there,
nohow. d8-)

But it is an awkward sentence.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

I've read all three but I don't see your point. There was little Zen in
Zen. Or little motorcycle maintenance either. Fletcher stayed on topic
at least and didn't go off on long philosophical dissertations about
quality. I'd done enough backpacking by the time I read it that I either
agreed or disagreed depending on my experience.

I suppose Heat-Moon's book could be seen as inspirational when I jumped
in my pickup in '88 and headed west. On the other hand I'd been
wandering around the eastern US for forty years so I skipped that part
and didn't do much exploration until I got to west Texas. Also, i was
camping on BLM or FS land and doing a lot of hiking so I don't have many
anecdotes about people I encountered. I could as well say 'Travels With
Charlie' was my inspiration although I didn't have Charlie or
Steinbeck's relatively sophisticated camper.

In the years I spent trucking for a living I definitely could form ideas
about the economy. The bread and butter for the company I drove for was
carpet and furniture. The volume of goods being transported is used an
economic indicator, the Baltic Dry Index being one example. Carpet and
furniture are the canaries in the mine; their volume drops off earlier
than beans, bacon, and other necessary commodities.

[Jim Wilkins]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:dtal9k...@mid.individual.net...

My point was not to judge the content by the presentation.

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 11:00 AM, CpRTS⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄XwoQi wrote:
> One easy formula to bust the union is to infiltrate the union with
> agitators to rise up in rank and start making ridiculous demands in
> wages and benefits.

Reagan didn't have to bother with infiltrators. The path was chosen
early in US labor history with the unions organizing in specific trades
or industries rather than a general union. For many years they
collaborated with the employers; non-organized workers paid for their
increased salaries and benefits. By the Reagan years many people
realized that what was good for the UAW wasn't good for them.

At one time i was vice-president of a small house union. Some hotheads
didn't think the union officers were aggressive enough in demanding wage
increases though the money just wasn't there. They listened to the
golden promises of the IBEW and brought them in. The first thing to go
was the company sponsored Christmas party, the Christmas hams, and the
clam steam. The wage increase wasn't what the IBEW had promised although
the dues certainly were. The company, which had occupied a small niche
in the plastics industry, went bankrupt. Admittedly the oil embargo
didn't help but the union didn't care much about economic realities.

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 11:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> BTW, as one who almost got into a fistfight over a comma splice (and
> she outweighed me by 50 pounds!), there ain't no comma splice there,
> nohow. d8-)

I've read enough German literature to consider the comma splice an art form.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Comma splice? Hmm, never heard of it.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:45:58 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

You would agree with many contemporary writers, and the 14th edition
of the Chicago Manual of Style, you may have noticed, dropped its
admonition against them.

I like the comment made about them by a respected linguist, Arnold
Zwicky: "This is not even a tempest in a teapot, it's a fuss in a
thimbleful of spit."

Comma splices have been used by great writers throughout the history
of the English language. Just be careful when you use them. And, if
you don't know what "being careful" means in this context, listen to
Miss Tightbottom, your 8th-grade English teacher. Just don't use them.

--
Ed Huntress (who uses them frequently)

[Ed Huntress]

Then look it up.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

<mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ae5f1f0-fec0-4bb4...@googlegroups.com...

Must we eschew erudition to palliate you?

[dIEpK⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄iJOeX]

Obama's $15 minimum-wage legislation may well be the solution to
slave-wages. This virtual "union wage" covers everybody at the bottom of
the food chain.

[Terry Coombs]

dIEpK??Mighty ? Wannabe??iJOeX wrote:
> rbowman wrote on 6/26/2016 2:42 PM:

And will increase costs , so that prices have to go up , and the low wage
workers will see absolutely no gain in their buying power . I believe that's
called "inflation" ... and IMO unions are one of the things that helped
cause the "recession" we're STILL in .
Don't you EVER get tired of showing just how stupid you are ?
--
Snag

[olAst⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄YhQaD]

You'll love to pay slave wages so you can increase your profit and let
the government help feed your workers. Or they should work two jobs if
there is no government help.

You are the reason for communist revolutions in Russia, China, and Cuba.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

olAst⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄YhQaD wrote:
>
>You'll love to pay slave wages so you can increase your profit and let
>the government help feed your workers. Or they should work two jobs >if there is no government help.

Elsewhere, the world is so interconnected (outside of the internet) that I doubt any serious repercussions will occur at all.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:36:31 -0500, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
wrote:

Except it doesn't work out that way in practice:

"Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their
jobs.

"Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders
urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7
Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important
developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in
the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now
showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no
negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during
times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a
minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the
economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising
demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."'

https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

The Fed has a recent summary of research on the elasticity of wages
and the effect of minimum wage increases on employment, which
generally confirms what those 600 economists said:

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/

Summary: The data is slightly mixed, but there are more analyses that
show slight positive increases in employment, than those that show a
negative one.

This is another reason I have little regard for old reductionist
theories of economics. The reality often doesn't care about the
theory, because the premises of the theory are always incomplete.

--
Ed Huntress

[Terry Coombs]

Look , you stupid little cocksucker , my wife is one of those working for
"slave wages" , and it's because Corporate Management thinks it's more
important to vote themselves gigantic bonuses rather than pay a living wage
. I retired because my monthly SS payment WHICH I WORKED ALL MY LIFE FOR was
more than I could make working for "slave wages" . So when you talk about
low wages , lay the blame where it belongs - on those at the top that aren't
willing to share the profits with those who actually earn them . And on the
government that enables this kind of idiocy .
And your stupidity is still showing . How much are the libs paying you to
spew this sewage ? Because it's obvious that you couldn't possibly think
this up all on you own .
--
Snag

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:27:06 -0500, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
wrote:

I don't like using you as an example, Terry, but you sound exactly
like the current crop of "populist conservatives" who rail from both
sides of the argument.

Them ebil "corporate executives" are the problem, eh? I guess you
realize that you sound exactly like a Sanders-style liberal on that
point. And you blame the government for "enabling" it. So, what do you
propose? Have the government limit the incomes of those "ebil
corporate executives"? Or should the government just set rules on how
much profit has to be returned to the workers?

I understand your sentiments and I even agree with them to some
extent, but then you blow your arguments out of the water by asking

"How much are the libs paying you to spew this sewage?"

You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
blaming liberals for those conservative policies.

That's why populism is held in such low regard by so many people.
Populism is a mash-up, with the only consistent idea of it being you
aren't getting enough, and everyone else is getting too much. And it's
the government's fault for not arranging things so that you get more,
except that it's also the government's fault for letting everyone else
get too much.

And that applies no matter who you are, or which ox you think is being
gored. It's always the populist's ox and it's the other guy who's
goring it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Donald J. Trump]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 18:10:10 -0400, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:27:06 -0500, "Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com>
>wrote:

Leave him alone, you loser. He's allowed to think what he wants and vote against his interest every
time if it pleases him. He has proven his loyalty by living off SS while his wife works cheap. He is
loyal to anger and he'll vote for me and that's the way it should be! Now go back to worshipping
your thinking cap and stop trying to poison the mind of my supporters.

D.T.

"Sometimes your best investments are the ones you don’t make."

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:14:12 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:23:50 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:36:31 -0500, "Terry Coombs" wrote:
>>>dIEpK??Mighty ? Wannabe??iJOeX wrote:
>
>>>And will increase costs , so that prices have to go up , and the low wage
>>>workers will see absolutely no gain in their buying power . I believe that's
>>>called "inflation" ... and IMO unions are one of the things that helped
>>>cause the "recession" we're STILL in
>

>>Except it doesn't work out that way in practice:
>

>At least one exception. Most jobs still have to be done. But at some
>point increasing wages will make the people that do certain jobs cost
>more than automation. Those jobs are lost. Some will be lost on every
>cycle. Automated is forever. A threshold you can't cross going the
>other way.

The current _Economist_ special report on artificial intelligence and
automation, published yesterday (it's free -- "The Return of the
Machinery Question"):

http://www.economist.com/printedition/specialreports

...says that manufacturing is the one area of the economy in which
automation actually results in a net loss of jobs. And manufacturing
is 12% of GDP. So it's not that simple in terms of the total economy.

Jon Ball could elaborate on this, but you're thinking in terms of the
"lump of labor" fallacy. The actual history of it is that the economy
keeps growing and more people keep being employed as technology,
including automation, improves. Meanwhile, some people stand still
while the economy rushes past them. Like Gunner, for example, and many
other workers in manufacturing industries.

>
>>http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
>>Summary: The data is slightly mixed, but there are more analyses that
>>show slight positive increases in employment, than those that show a
>>negative one.
>

>Slight. Why don't we mandate a huge wage for everyone and get a huge
>positive increase in employment?

Because they you'd pass one of those thresholds that you mention, in
which you pass the peak of a curve and start going down.

>
>Obviously there are thresholds where rules change.

Yup.

--
Ed Huntress

[pyotr filipivich]

"Terry Coombs" <snag...@msn.com> on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:27:06 -0500
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
[snippage]

>> You are the reason for communist revolutions in Russia, China, and
>> Cuba.
>
> Look , you stupid little cocksucker , my wife is one of those working for
>"slave wages" , and it's because Corporate Management thinks it's more
>important to vote themselves gigantic bonuses rather than pay a living wage
>. I retired because my monthly SS payment WHICH I WORKED ALL MY LIFE FOR was
>more than I could make working for "slave wages" . So when you talk about
>low wages , lay the blame where it belongs - on those at the top that aren't
>willing to share the profits with those who actually earn them . And on the
>government that enables this kind of idiocy .
> And your stupidity is still showing . How much are the libs paying you to
>spew this sewage ? Because it's obvious that you couldn't possibly think
>this up all on you own .

Big Union needs to look at what happened in the UK. The "working
class" voters, the one's "represented" by the Labour Party - voted
Exit. The Party voted "Remain" but the rank and file voted "Exit".
How did that happen? The Labor Party Leadership had long joined with
the progressive transnationalists in the Tory party, to go full EU.
Screw the workers, they saw the future and could imagine a world
without borders.

Likewise, Big Union here in the States have told the workers, the
ones forced to pay the dues, f*ck off: transnational globalism is the
wave of the future and if you don't understand that, youse an ignorant
racist. Big Union has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat
National Party for decades, and as such, is no friend to the working
man, or woman.

As was written in 1892:
«For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!»

The left had better hope that there is no Patrick Hennesy who will
make The Army his "non-arbitrary grouping", and then turn to the
business of "setting things aright." (So should the Right, for that
matter.)


tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious
is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:07:23 -0700

typed in misc.survivalism the following:

>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:34:36 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons I am concerned about "the cull" isn't that
>>people will die, but that spectacles will be made. Not good. One
>>does not make a circus out of the putting down of a rabid dog.
>>
>>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/25/cold-anger-entire-institutional-systems-will-be-dispatched-like-a-feather-in-a-hurricane/
>>
>>quote:
>>Cold Anger is not hatred, it is far more purposeful.
>>
>>Cold Anger takes notice of the liars, even from a great distance –
>>seemingly invisible to the mob. Cold Anger will still hold open the
>>door for the riot goer. Mannerly. We’ve watched our borders being
>>intentionally unsecured. We’ve watched Islamic Terrorists slaughter
>>Americans as our politicians proclaim their uncertainty of motive.
>>
>>Cold Anger when evidenced is more severe because it is more strategic.
>>Eric Cantor, the Brexit and Donald Trump might aide your
>>understanding.
>>
>>Cold Anger does not gloat; it absorbs consistent vilification and
>>ridicule as fuel. This sensibility does not want to exist, it is
>>forced to exist in otherwise unwilling hosts – who also refuse to be
>>destabilized by it.
>>
>>endquote.
>>
>
>Another Excellent posting....
>
>

>Thoughts on the road. – William Lehman

>Posted on September 16, 2015 | 521 Comments
>

>Thoughts on the road. – William Lehman
>

>I just completed a round trip run from western Washington to
>Pennsylvania in an RV. Most of this drive was along I-90, and I-80,
>through what the coasts derogatorily dismiss as “flyover country”.
>This gave me some opportunity for observation and reflection, during
>the drive, and this is the result.
>

>I’m a Marine electrician lead (as well as an author) who comes from
>blue collar roots, and my dad was a member of the Teamsters union for

>most of my life, until his death. Some people have called me a traitor
>to my people for being anti-union. This trip helped remind me why I
>am.

You reckon I should brush off my essay on "When the Conservatives
come off the Reservation, and why that would be a bad thing"?

--
pyotr filipivich
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law
has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the
disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _The Greening of America_, (c) 1971

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:29:53 -0400, dIEpK???????? ? ?????????iJOeX
<vM...@FaYtv.com> wrote:

>rbowman wrote on 6/26/2016 2:42 PM:

Indeed it does. Its been doing wonderful work in the field of
automated food selling as well, all across the US. Removing the
employees from restaurants sure covers everyone's asses, doesn't it?

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/minimum-wage-blowback-wendys-to-put-kiosks-in-all-6000-restaurants

http://newsexaminer.net/food/mcdonalds-to-open-restaurant-run-by-robots/

http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=68441

"Fast food workers, say goodbye to that grimy job with surly guests
and overbearing managers. Your fight for $15 is over. No, you didn't
win, someone has invented a machine that makes hamburgers better and
faster than you do."


>
>
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gunner Asch]

[Gunner Asch]

Very well stated! Bravo!!

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:40:43 -0700, pyotr filipivich

i Certainly would love to read it.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Miss Tightottom also snapped yardsticks over knuckles for starting a
sentance with an "and".

[Ed Huntress]

She probably squashed many budding literary careers. And she was
wrong. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 02:29 PM, dIEpK⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄iJOeX wrote:
>
> Obama's $15 minimum-wage legislation may well be the solution to
> slave-wages. This virtual "union wage" covers everybody at the bottom of
> the food chain.

Won't work.

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 04:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
> Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
> they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
> blaming liberals for those conservative policies.

It's time to get over all that 'liberal' and 'conservative' bullshit.
The oligarchs love it when the great unwashed lose themselves in
political labels like the fans of some football club.

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 03:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders
> urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7
> Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important
> developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in
> the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now
> showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no
> negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during
> times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a
> minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the
> economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising
> demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."'

I love the headlines on the Bloomberg.com articles: 'Our 57 expert
economists blindsided by the unexpected...' Do a MadLib fill-in for
what prediction they screwed up that time. Falling factory orders,
dropping employment, the Inquisition, nobody ever expects it.

Yeah, I know academic economists just analyze the situation, they don't
fix it.

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 07:32 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> Miss Tightottom also snapped yardsticks over knuckles for starting a
> sentance with an "and".

Or ending a sentence with a preposition. How many sentences worthy of
Yoda have been constructed because of that little foible?

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 07:40 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> She probably squashed many budding literary careers. And she was
> wrong.

I subscribe to the Céline school of composition... All you need are
ellipses...

[mIiSk⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄ngjAC]

It won't work if a union wants it because Big Money will shut down the
operation and then hire non-union workers in a new operation.


It won't work if a state wants it because Big Money will move operation
to another state.

It will work if the feds wants it. There are only so much you can
automate or outsource. Minimum-wage menial jobs will always be there.
Big Money has to pay the $15/hr or get out of the US.

[PaxPerPoten]

And move to Canada to be with dumb fucks like you.
>
>
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

No one can predict where our politics is going to go now, but it's
clear that the intellectual, or philosophical principles behind those
two poles no longer have any force. And there is nothing on the
horizon to suggest they will regain it.

My hope is that the barbaric self-interest to which populism tends to
degenerate has a short and enfeebled life, as it often has in the
past.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

So the Cold War was for nothing then? After all..it was the
socialist/communists against everyone else.

So by your thinking..the term Non Radical Islam and Radical Islam
really have no validity either?

Oddly enough..you seem to have overlooked a few things....

"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever
means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even
lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when
those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
***Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum***
--The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.

I don't believe gun owners have rights. Sarah Brady

We must get rid of all the guns. Sarah Brady

Gallup: Yes, Democrats, liberals favor socialism

By Jennifer Harper The Washington Times - November 30, 2012, 01:48PM

Are Democrats and liberals really socialists? Looks like it. Numbers
from a new Gallup Poll provide some backing for claims made by GOP
rivals and conservatives over the years: 53 percent of Democrats and
62 percent of liberals give a “positive review of socialism,” the
pollster found, compared to 23 percent of Republicans and 25 percent
of conservatives.

Other archetypal beliefs are also very much in play. While
three-fourths of both Democrats and liberals give a positive review of
the federal government, that sentiment is shared by just 27 percent of
Republicans and 32 percent of conservatives. There’s a big divide on
the concept of “big business” as well. Gallup found that 75 percent of
Republicans, 72 percent of conservatives give thumbs-up to big
business, compared to 44 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of
liberals.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Now that I set it up....lets look at what you consider to be
"bullshit", shall we?

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/republic-vs-socialist.html

The America Republic -vs- Socialist America

"Conservatives want a Constitutional Government in the US. That's
all!"

J. D. Longstreet
March 8, 2009
Look at the title of this piece again. Read it closely... and let it
sink in.

The difference between Conservative Government and a Socialist
Government (that of the American Left) when shaken down to its raw
essentials will make, or break, the United States of America.

The American Democrat Party, which is, in truth, the socialist party,
does not see it that way. Actually they do see it that way, but the
problem they have is that they cannot exist under a Constitutional
government in the US. Freedom and Socialism cannot exist in the same
place, much like "Matter" and "Anti-Matter". And therein lies the
problem, which is rotting away at the foundation of the United States.

Let me see if I can break it down a bit more:

Under a Constitutional government, the power of the government is
limited. Limited government allows the citizens to rule their country.

Under the Socialist brand of government, sometimes called an
"Administrative state", citizens do not rule their country,
bureaucrats do, and with them the elite intellectuals. At least THEY
think they are elite!

The United States was founded as a free country. Its citizens were
autonomous. They were free. The US had a free economy. That was the
way the designers of this land, the Founding Fathers, planned it. And
it worked… right up to the dawn of "Socialism in American" during the
reign of, and as the direct results of actions taken by, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. It has been downhill for America ever since.

Socialism is a creeping disease. It is quiet and deadly. It offers
much and deliver almost nothing.

Simply put, Socialism is a trade off. A people must give up freedom
for security. It is just that simple. IF you would be a free people,
then you cannot allow socialism, in any form, in your country's
government. If, on the other hand, you wish to be secure, from want
and fear, then you absolutely MUST give up your freedom. That is the
choice.

The American Left is the driving force behind socialism in America.
Lets be clear: Socialism is anti-American.

The Founding Fathers did not give us a socialist state; they gave us a
Representative Republic. America is NOT a Democracy as you may have
been taught in school. America is a representative republic.

Look… Americans , indeed, human beings, are not equal. A stroll down
any beach, on a hot summer day, will give the lie to that! And the
Founding Fathers knew that. That was not what they meant when they
noted in "The Declaration" that "all men are created equal". They were
referring to those inalienable rights, and natural rights, which are
the endowment of all mankind as a gift from our Creator. So they set
about designing a form of government, which would balance freedom and
equality in a state, which would allow both. That was a near
impossible task, if not entirely impossible. But they made a grand
attempt at it and it worked right up 'til the FDR Administration.

You see, under the original Constitution, the people of the United
States were, indeed, a free people. We were autonomous. And… WE were
sovereign. The Government was created, by the Founding Fathers, to be
a servant of the people of the U.S.

Roosevelt and the American Left didn't see it that way and they began
to change it. There had been, previously, a contract, a covenant, if
you will, between the American people and the American government
under which the American people would grant the American government
certain powers… while at the same time granting themselves certain
rights. The government had no power of it's own, All government power
was derived from the people and the government could grant themselves
none.

But Roosevelt, and the American Left, changed that. The Left decided
the agreement, the contract, if you will, between the people of the US
and their government was backwards. They decided that instead of the
people deciding the powers granted to the government, the government
would grasp power and the government would decide the limits of the
people's freedom and the sovereignty of the people! No longer would
the people dictate to the government. Now, the government dictates to
the people. The government is no longer OF the people. It is run, and
ruled over, by bureaucrats and intellectual elites who know better,
what you need and want, than you do! What we have today is a
government running this country, which has never stood for election…
ever! The elected officials are simply shills of that shadow
government of bureaucrats and intellectuals who actually pull the
strings, and push the buttons.

It takes very little thought and consideration to see that this form
of government is absolutely NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted, and
planned, for this country.

In effect, what we have had in this country is a coup-de-tat, American
Style!

To put it plainly, the US government has been hi-jacked!

Those Americans, my age, look around us and we do not recognize this
socialist state, this welfare state, this "nanny state". It certainly
is NOT the America of our youth, where a man was free to be what he
wanted and to suffer the consequences of bad decisions, and bad
choices, as well as good decisions and good choices.

Equality was understood to mean Equality of Endowment by the Creator.
Not equality of social status, of income, of education, of well, the
modern day list goes on and on. Each time a rule, or law, was passed
to make society more equal… somebody lost. Americans lost. What did we
lose? Freedom is what we lost.

The American Left has decided they are the elite Americans who know,
better than you, how you should live your life, worship your God, do
your job, enjoy your vacation, build your house, drive your car, get
an education, which doctor you visit, which hospital you select, even
to the last detail of how you groom your lawn, or whether you can fly
a US flag outside the home you THINK you own! The American Left is
into every aspect of your daily life. Because they are convinced that
you and I, the rabble, the "great unwashed", are not capable of taking
care of ourselves. No one is required to be responsible for his or her
actions anymore. It is now understood that when someone commits a
heinous act, it is not the perpetrator's fault! That is a part of the
bargain struck with the American Left.

The American Left simply seized the power as a "Beneficent Dictator".
And Americans allowed it; indeed some welcomed it with open arms! (The
slow-witted among us, the least ambitious among us, those who sought
to milk the system for every dime they could, and of course, those who
sought power for themselves in the New American Socialism.)

What Americans forgot was… that dictators, beneficent or otherwise,
take your freedom! A dictator cannot exist in a free environment.
Today's America has become content to allow "others" to govern us, to
rule over us. We know longer believe ourselves capable of ruling
ourselves.

The Great Ronald Reagan, in a speech he made in 1964, said the
following:

"It doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private
property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it
mean whether you hold the deed or title to your business or property
if the government holds the power of life and death over that business
or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find
some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute.
Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a
perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable, rights are now
considered to be dispensation of government, and freedom has never
been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp, as it is at this
very moment!"

And THAT, dear reader was in 1964!

The American left is slick. They have packaged themselves as loving,
tolerant, do-gooders, who seek only to make your life easier and to
make, and keep, you secure. You needn't worry about a thing 'cause
they have it covered! Americans have bought it… hook, line, and
sinker. At least those of the baby boom generation have.

Those of us born before World War Two experienced the actual loss of
our country. We slipped though the Public School System ahead of the
changes, which "dumbed down an entire generation of American kids"
while stoking their self-esteem. We came out the other side of the
American education system aware of the value of a free country. The
baby boom generation did not. It is entirely the product of the
American Left.

Today, the New American Socialism reigns supreme. The result? A nation
in decline! A nation, having not yet reached its zenith, has sold its
birthright to the devil. Now, America is reaping, what it has sown.

We are quickly becoming a second rate power. Our citizens are among
the least educated in the world. We no longer have an economy based on
research, development, and manufacturing, we have only a "service
economy". We service that which others build! Our society is quite
likely the most amoral society on earth. It has been said that if God,
Himself does not destroy us, then HE owes an apology to Sodom and
Gomorrah! Yes, we, America, have/has become the kind of country to
which we used to send missionaries!

Oh, yeah, that Baby Boom Generation, the American generation "dumbed
down" but filled with carefully stoked self-esteem… well, they ran,
head long, into reality. And… they folded like a cheap suit!

Like a virulent cancer the American Left's brand of socialism is
eating away the bedrock of America. It is relentlessly chewing away at
the fabric of what was once the greatest nation on earth. Socialism,
like the evil that it is, lies. All the promises of "paradise on
earth" are all lies.

America has bought the Big Lie. The price was freedom. America is no
longer free. America is, once again, only a dream in the restless
night of those of us who knew her when she was "that bright shining
city on a hill". Like Camelot, it was only a passing, ethereal,
grandiose, dream. A dream the American Left has turned into a
nightmare. "


Was there any other questions?

[Stormin Mormon]

The steeply increased min wage has already resulted
in layoffs. Touch pad ordering instead of the teen
ager on first job "fries with that?". And price hikes
on merchandise, to provide the required monies to pay
for (fewer) employees.

"work" is a relative term. If you want to fundamentally
transform the USA, it's working fine.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

[Stormin Mormon]

That is one, up with which she will not put.

[Stormin Mormon]

Of course, (given a personal choice), there is a lot to
be said (or written, [preferably in English {with correct
grammar} or similar language {with respect to Americans
and Australiains} possibly on the computer] with a
qwerty key board) for multiple level parenthases.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gA8cz.38313$5l6....@fx29.iad...

Recursion (ri-kûr’-zh?n) noun. See recursion.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:50:22 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 06/26/2016 04:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
>>> Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
>>> they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
>>> blaming liberals for those conservative policies.
>>
>>It's time to get over all that 'liberal' and 'conservative' bullshit.
>>The oligarchs love it when the great unwashed lose themselves in
>>political labels like the fans of some football club.
>
>So the Cold War was for nothing then? After all..it was the
>socialist/communists against everyone else.
>
>So by your thinking..the term Non Radical Islam and Radical Islam
>really have no validity either?
>
>Oddly enough..you seem to have overlooked a few things....
>
>"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever
>means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even
>lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when
>those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
>***Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum***
>--The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.

You incompetent moron. Don't you know that this crap has been revealed
as bogus by numerous sources?

"According to gun rights activist Chris Knox (Neal Knox's son):
"The quote originally appeared in Machine Gun News, June 1991, Volume
5, Number 1, page 6. in the column "RAFFICA" by Dan Shea, Column 2,
Paragraph 2. (Also see Dan Shea's comments, which drives a proverbial
stake through the heart of this apocryphal quote).

"Neal Knox checked into this extensively -- before it appeared in the
National Educator -- and concluded that this quote just never
happened."

"It simply sounds bogus on its face, sounding more like dialogue from
a bad 1930s propaganda movie than anything a real person would say.
It's often easier to believe something we'd really like to see."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

What is the matter with you, Gunner? How can you just copy and paste
this crap without a trace of skepticism? Have you just breathed too
many lead fumes, after all?

--
Ed Huntress

[zaXFk⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄JFgAL]

It was the bad acid back in the 60's. He still hasn't recovered after
all these years. Totally brain dead.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:54:32 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 06/26/2016 04:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
>>> Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
>>> they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
>>> blaming liberals for those conservative policies.
>>
>>It's time to get over all that 'liberal' and 'conservative' bullshit.
>>The oligarchs love it when the great unwashed lose themselves in
>>political labels like the fans of some football club.
>
>Now that I set it up....lets look at what you consider to be
>"bullshit", shall we?
>
>http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/republic-vs-socialist.html
>
>The America Republic -vs- Socialist America
>
>"Conservatives want a Constitutional Government in the US. That's
>all!"
>
>J. D. Longstreet
>March 8, 2009
>Look at the title of this piece again. Read it closely... and let it
>sink in.

"Look… Americans , indeed, human beings, are not equal. A stroll down
any beach, on a hot summer day, will give the lie to that! And the
Founding Fathers knew that."

Which beach do you think the Founding Fathers like to stroll? Rehoboth
Beach was just a short drive from Philadelphia, down Delaware Route 1.
Maybe that was their favorite.

How did you get on the Mouth-Breathers' Book Club, Gunner? Did you
have to make a contribution, or did you get Prescription Assistance?

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 10:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> My hope is that the barbaric self-interest to which populism tends to
> degenerate has a short and enfeebled life, as it often has in the
> past.

Do you prefer the barbaric self-interest of the oligarchy? How much more
barbaric can you get than the permanent unsuccessful wars, the trade
treaties that further enrich the uber-wealthy, and the bailouts and
favorable legislation that let's the Wall Street Casino operate as
usual? If it's populism that is required to cut out the rot and
corruption, bring it on. Or is naked self-interest only bad when
exhibited by hoi polloi?

[rbowman]

On 06/27/2016 01:54 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> The difference between Conservative Government and a Socialist
> Government (that of the American Left) when shaken down to its raw
> essentials will make, or break, the United States of America.

What have the cuckservatives done for you lately?

[rbowman]

On 06/27/2016 06:01 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Of course, (given a personal choice), there is a lot to
> be said (or written, [preferably in English {with correct
> grammar} or similar language {with respect to Americans
> and Australiains} possibly on the computer] with a
> qwerty key board) for multiple level parenthases.
>

I don't do Lisp...

[rbowman]

On 06/26/2016 09:56 PM, mIiSk⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄ngjAC wrote:
> It will work if the feds wants it. There are only so much you can
> automate or outsource. Minimum-wage menial jobs will always be there.
> Big Money has to pay the $15/hr or get out of the US.

Big money already left if you haven't noticed. What's left are jobs that
aren't worth $15/hour. Making America great again isn't going to be done
by declaring burger flipper wages to be $15.

The supermarket has a self checkout lane I use because I usually have
only a few items and it is faster. If the wage requirements for the
check out clerks becomes uneconomical, look for more kiosks.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:33:15 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 06/26/2016 10:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> My hope is that the barbaric self-interest to which populism tends to
>> degenerate has a short and enfeebled life, as it often has in the
>> past.
>
>Do you prefer the barbaric self-interest of the oligarchy?

Decisions, decisions...

>How much more
>barbaric can you get than the permanent unsuccessful wars, the trade
>treaties that further enrich the uber-wealthy, and the bailouts and
>favorable legislation that let's the Wall Street Casino operate as
>usual? If it's populism that is required to cut out the rot and
>corruption, bring it on. Or is naked self-interest only bad when
>exhibited by hoi polloi?

That's a tough choice, Robert. One thing you could do is try voting
with your head instead of your testicles. If it catches on, we might
get something good going.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:45:14 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 06/26/2016 09:56 PM, mIiSk???????? ? ?????????ngjAC wrote:
>> It will work if the feds wants it. There are only so much you can
>> automate or outsource. Minimum-wage menial jobs will always be there.
>> Big Money has to pay the $15/hr or get out of the US.
>
>Big money already left if you haven't noticed. What's left are jobs that
>aren't worth $15/hour. Making America great again isn't going to be done
>by declaring burger flipper wages to be $15.

We could deport all the Mexicans, and open up thousands of jobs
picking peaches and watermelons.

>
>The supermarket has a self checkout lane I use because I usually have
>only a few items and it is faster. If the wage requirements for the
>check out clerks becomes uneconomical, look for more kiosks.

Then maybe those people will get trained for real jobs. A job for
which you're a stand-in for a bar-code scanner and a recorded voice
doesn't have much of a future.

--
Ed Huntress

[jGEnT⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄BULSf]

[jGEnT⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄BULSf]

rbowman wrote on 6/27/2016 9:45 AM:

I always stay away from self-checkout kiosks.

Have they figured out how to stock the shelves with machines yet? Or a
machine that can respond to a call to mop up spills on isle 9? Or a
machine that can retrieve the shopping carts from the parking lot? Or a
machine that can prevent people from going out the door without paying
for the groceries in the cart?

[Ed Huntress]

I just did a little deep-checking on this quote, and it originally was
printed by Dan Shea in _Machine Gun News_. Here's what Shea said about
it later:

"This quote did not originate with me. It came from a Class 3 Dealer
in Indiana, who said the "Quote" at Knob Creek, with a big circle of
other Class 3 dealers, who all became outraged. After he said it, I
asked him for the source, and he gave me one that sounded credible....
later, after it went into print, and everyone got all excited about
it, I called him for the source again... he waffled, and said he
really didn't know where it came from, but "It sounded like it would
be true, didn't it?"

"I got quite an education on that, it was the first time in 15 years
that I had ever let something that important go without writing it
down first.... and yes, it did "Sound like it would be true" in that
time period. Very embarrassing, but a good insight into the birth of
an "urban legend."

Dan Shea
Gen Mgr, Small Arms Review magazine (http://www.smallarmsreview.com)
(Former Technical Editor of the defunct Machine Gun News.)

--
Ed Huntress

[MNbEe⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄kXXoa]

Unfortunately the US is full of unwashed masses like Gummer Arse and
Stormin Moron. They are hypnotized by reality TV style campaign road
shows. Big Money funds both sides. You choose the lessor of two evils.
Big Money always has a winning horse.

[Ed Huntress]

Yes, but individually, if we take our civic duty seriously, we can
look past the money-funded publicity and vote for a candidate.

I'm not suggesting that we'll overcome the hypnotized masses, but it
is the thing we can do -- along with making some effort to get the big
money out of it.

Of course, if you *like* the big money, you can vote for Trump, which
will give you a right-wing Supreme Court, and more Citizens United
cases for a generation. As they say, money is apeech, political speech
is not subject to normal rules of libel and fraud, and whoever has the
most money gets the most speech, because having great wealth is proof
of virtue.

The S.C. candidates that Trump has in mind believe that the
Constitution really *is* a suicide pact.

--
Ed Huntress
>
>

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/26/2016 8:30 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 06/26/2016 02:29 PM, dIEpK⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄iJOeX wrote:
>>
>> Obama's $15 minimum-wage legislation may well be the solution to
>> slave-wages. This virtual "union wage" covers everybody at the bottom of
>> the food chain.
>
> Won't work.

Oh, it will work, all right. It will work to eliminate employment
opportunities for low-skill/low-education young workers. It will work
to increase prices of goods and services that rely on such labor. It
will work to speed up automation. It will work to shift employment to
unionized higher-wage workers (this is why organized labor supports a
higher minimum wage.)

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:16:10 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 6/26/2016 8:30 PM, rbowman wrote:

>> On 06/26/2016 02:29 PM, dIEpK???????? ? ?????????iJOeX wrote:
>>>
>>> Obama's $15 minimum-wage legislation may well be the solution to
>>> slave-wages. This virtual "union wage" covers everybody at the bottom of
>>> the food chain.
>>
>> Won't work.
>
>Oh, it will work, all right. It will work to eliminate employment
>opportunities for low-skill/low-education young workers. It will work
>to increase prices of goods and services that rely on such labor. It
>will work to speed up automation. It will work to shift employment to
>unionized higher-wage workers (this is why organized labor supports a
>higher minimum wage.)

Or it might mean that McD''s has to lower its franchise royalties a
bit from 12.5% of sales. After all, for an average of just over $1.2
million investment, a McDonald's franchisee only sells a little over
$2.5 million per year and returns a measly $750,000 average profit.
That's a lousy 63% ROI...er...yeah....

As Rick Perry once said, oops...

--
Ed Huntress

[whoyak...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:15:12 -0400, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:34:36 -0400, MNbEe???????? ? ?????????kXXoa
><Ln...@NmtWE.com> wrote:

>>Unfortunately the US is full of unwashed masses like Gummer Arse and
>>Stormin Moron. They are hypnotized by reality TV style campaign road
>>shows. Big Money funds both sides. You choose the lessor of two evils.
>>Big Money always has a winning horse.
>
>Yes, but individually, if we take our civic duty seriously,

That would require common sense. Something the Wiebers of the world prove they don't have, day in
and day out.

My prediction: it's increasingly clear how much of Trump's support comes from the most vile of the
easily hypnotized. (one example
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/arizona/trump-supporter-rages-849031) Many of the rest don't
want to been seen as quite that stupid and disgusting, so they will sort of accidentally vote for
their self interest. The Wiebers and Jaques will invent some imbecilic excuses for being losers,
again. And those will include some hilariously misogynistic rants and more declarations of my
imminent death. Yippee!

[J. D. Dobrow]

On 6/27/2016 12:50 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/26/2016 04:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
>>> Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
>>> they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
>>> blaming liberals for those conservative policies.
>>
>> It's time to get over all that 'liberal' and 'conservative' bullshit.
>> The oligarchs love it when the great unwashed lose themselves in
>> political labels like the fans of some football club.
>
> So the Cold War was for nothing then? After all..it was the
> socialist/communists against everyone else.
>
> So by your thinking..the term Non Radical Islam and Radical Islam
> really have no validity either?
>
> Oddly enough..you seem to have overlooked a few things....
>
> "Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever
> means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even
> lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when
> those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
> ***Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum***
> --The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.

This is a bullshit "quote" - not a real quotation at all.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus_brady.html

It's complete bullshit, which is why you believe it.

[J. D. Dobrow]

On 6/27/2016 12:54 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/26/2016 04:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
>>> Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
>>> they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
>>> blaming liberals for those conservative policies.
>>
>> It's time to get over all that 'liberal' and 'conservative' bullshit.
>> The oligarchs love it when the great unwashed lose themselves in
>> political labels like the fans of some football club.
>
> Now that I set it up....

You set up more bullshit.

>
> http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/republic-vs-socialist.html
>
> The America Republic -vs- Socialist America
>
> "Conservatives want a Constitutional Government in the US. That's all!"

That's a lie.

> J. D. Longstreet

A nobody.

> The difference between Conservative Government and a Socialist
> Government (that of the American Left) when shaken down to its raw
> essentials will make, or break, the United States of America.
>
> The American Democrat Party,

No such party.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/27/2016 9:39 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:15:12 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Yes, but individually, if we take our civic duty seriously, we can
>> look past the money-funded publicity and vote for a candidate.
>

> IF I HAD a candidate to vote for !!

Most of the time, voting for a candidate is stupid. You should vote for
the party that most closely represents your political philosophy.

Suppose there are two main candidates, one of them a paragon of virtue,
the other a thorough cretin. Suppose that both of them, including the
cretin, seem credible in terms of the likelihood of enacting - or making
a good faith effort to enact - the policies they advocate. Now suppose
the paragon of virtue stands for everything you oppose in government,
while the cretin advocates exactly the policies you believe are right.
For whom should you vote? The answer is obvious: you forget about the
cretin's cretinism and mark your ballot for him. Understand that just
about everyone who has ever held the presidency has been a cretin on
some level; they only differ in degree and by how well they can conceal it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/27/2016 9:43 AM, whoyak...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:15:12 -0400, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:34:36 -0400, MNbEe???????? ? ?????????kXXoa
>> <Ln...@NmtWE.com> wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately the US is full of unwashed masses like Gummer Arse and
>>> Stormin Moron. They are hypnotized by reality TV style campaign road
>>> shows. Big Money funds both sides. You choose the lessor of two evils.
>>> Big Money always has a winning horse.
>>
>> Yes, but individually, if we take our civic duty seriously,
>
> That would require common sense. Something the Wiebers of the world prove they don't have, day in
> and day out.
>
> My prediction: it's increasingly clear how much of Trump's support comes from the most vile of the
> easily hypnotized. (one example
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/arizona/trump-supporter-rages-849031)

Yoicks! I know that filth like Fisher are out there, but it's still
jarring to see a detailed profile of one of them.

Fisher is emblematic of a huge percentage of Trump supporters, and many
of the rest, while not that vile themselves, are nonetheless supportive
- they're quite happy to have a Fisher expressing what they're too timid
to say themselves.

It is obvious that Fisher speaks for gummer.

[Rudy Canoza]

The point is, an effective minimum wage - one that is higher than the
market-clearing price for that type of labor - necessarily is going to
have some kind of effect on employment, the *distribution* of
employment, capital investment, and the prices and quantities of the
goods and services produced using labor that is subject to the minimum.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:39:24 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:15:12 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>Yes, but individually, if we take our civic duty seriously, we can
>>look past the money-funded publicity and vote for a candidate.
>

>IF I HAD a candidate to vote for !!

Vote for yourself. Or vote for me. (If nominated, I will not run. If
elected, I will not serve...but I'd love the compliment!)

>
>>I'm not suggesting that we'll overcome the hypnotized masses, but it
>>is the thing we can do -- along with making some effort to get the big
>>money out of it.
>

>The trouble is that both parties have only offered candidates for the
>hypnotized masses. Reasoning, middle of the road candidates don't make
>it through the primaries - even if they do get to try entering them.

Uh, Hillary is as close to middle-of-the-road as we've had in a long
time. And she's smart. I'll grant that you probably hate her for some
reason (is it her choice of lipstick?), so I won't push that idea.

>
>I can't remember once when a President said "bullshit" on thier party
>line and did something because he thought it was the right way to go.
>You can probably come up with something to put on the table but it
>will be an outlier.

>
>>Of course, if you *like* the big money, you can vote for Trump, which
>>will give you a right-wing Supreme Court, and more Citizens United
>>cases for a generation. As they say, money is apeech, political speech
>>is not subject to normal rules of libel and fraud, and whoever has the
>>most money gets the most speech, because having great wealth is proof
>>of virtue.
>

>Well, I only have one example at the moment and it's a weak one, but
>he was expected to kowtow to the NRA when he met them and they both
>came out of thier meeting with the proposed policies unchanged. Maybe
>he can talk to power brokers and still tell them he ain't gonna do it
>their way.

I think they told him to go piss up a rope. He was just fishing,
anyway.

>
>>The S.C. candidates that Trump has in mind believe that the
>>Constitution really *is* a suicide pact.
>

>Danger Will Robinson. You are veering close to being one of the
>hypnotized masses. I'm sure an open assessment can find good and bad
>about any of them. Do we expect Hillary to NOT pack the SC liberal for
>the next generation?

First suggestion: READ Citizen's United -- particularly Stevens'
dissent.

I do expect Hillary to nominate court liberals, but maybe not the way
you mean. "Liberal" and "conservative" mean something very different
to adjudication. They refer to theories of jurisprudence, which are
unlike the use of those terms in politics. The Heller decision, FWIW,
was, jurisprudentially, moderately liberal (original understanding)
rather than a jurisprudentially conservative (original intent)
decision. It probably was also influenced by conservative politics,
but that willingness to look beyond "intent," as per the position
taken by Robert Bork, made it less than conservative in the sense of
jurisprudence. Heller took into account modern technology and the
changed role of the militia. We could use more of those.

As for the politics of potential Justices, I don't think we'll see
really strong political biases. I read a lot of Court cases. What we
get from "liberal " Justices tends to be a focus on decisions that
favor individuals. From "conservatives," we tend to get decisions that
favor institutions.

Remember that Earl Warren was a staunch political conservative when he
was appointed. But he made decisions that favor individuals. Thus,
he's branded a "liberal" in hindsight.

What worries me about "conservative" Justices today is their tendency
to defer to institutions (Congress, businesses, religions, and
others). The idea that corporations are "people," in anything more
than the original purpose of giving them certain legal prerogatives
and creating fictional "persons" for that purpose, is a throwback to
the courts of the 1920s. I don't think we should go there.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/27/2016 10:32 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:01:21 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
>> Of course, (given a personal choice), there is a lot to
>> be said (or written, [preferably in English {with correct
>> grammar} or similar language {with respect to Americans
>> and Australiains} possibly on the computer] with a
>> qwerty key board) for multiple level parenthases.
>

> You do realize the qwerty was designed to slow down good typists ?

Complete myth: https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html

By the way, the title of the paper - "The Fable of the Keys" - is a play
on words of a famous paper by Steven N.S. Cheung, "The Fable of the
Bees," in which at least one alleged instance of "market failure" is
demolished. The Liebowitz-Margolis "Keys" paper demolishes still other
"market failure" allegations, the QWERTY-Dvorak myth being one of them.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/27/2016 10:43 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:25:13 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/2016 9:39 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:15:12 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, but individually, if we take our civic duty seriously, we can
>>>> look past the money-funded publicity and vote for a candidate.
>>>
>>> IF I HAD a candidate to vote for !!
>>
>> Most of the time, voting for a candidate is stupid. You should vote for
>> the party that most closely represents your political philosophy.
>

> Agreed. But that would be none. We have to choose between idiot #1 and
> idiot #the other one. They do not follow thier parties official
> platform during the campaign. They will not follow either the party
> platform or what they promised once in office.

Until relatively recently, the Republican party generally came
significantly closer to my political values than the Democratic party,
so I was mostly happy when the Republicans controlled the presidency and
at least one house of Congress, especially the Senate. Of course, I
never voted for them. I'm libertarian in outlook, so I always vote for
the Libertarian candidate because the party most closely reflects my
values. I'll happily vote for Gary Johnson this year.

>
>> Suppose there are two main candidates, one of them a paragon of virtue,
>> the other a thorough cretin.
>

> So far, you have one right.

>
>> Suppose that both of them, including the
>> cretin, seem credible in terms of the likelihood of enacting - or making
>> a good faith effort to enact - the policies they advocate.
>

> It would be a significant departure from history.

>
>> Now suppose
>> the paragon of virtue stands for everything you oppose in government,
>> while the cretin advocates exactly the policies you believe are right.
>

> Still, they are both lying though their teeth.

Not necessarily.

>> For whom should you vote?
>

> Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another
> beer.

>
>> The answer is obvious: you forget about the
>> cretin's cretinism and mark your ballot for him. Understand that just
>> about everyone who has ever held the presidency has been a cretin on
>> some level; they only differ in degree and by how well they can conceal it.
>

> We should have an addition column "none of the above".

No, that shouldn't be on the ballot. It enables stupid people to feel a
false sense of virtue based on their laziness and unwillingness to lift
a goddamned finger to try to get a candidate they like on the ballot.
It's stupid people cynicism.

[Ed Huntress]

Ha-ha! "Well, I'd never say things like that myself, but I understand
where he's coming from, and I don't disagree..."

...as the speaker munches on a tostada at a Trump rally...

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:14:01 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

Ok, maybe you missed the research reports I posted yesterday from the
Dept. of Labor and from the St. Louis Fed.

If you're interested, here are the links:

https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/

It has effects, but not, according to the research, on employment.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

This is not worthwhile at all.

> http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/

Did you really read this one? David Neumark is saying almost exactly
what I said: while there may not be an appreciable effect on *total*
employment, there is a significant effect on the composition of
employment, with jobs shifting away from low- and unskilled workers to
high skilled (and higher wage) workers. This makes perfect sense, as
relative prices, not absolute prices, are what matter.

Suppose there is a minimum wage of $7.50. Suppose you're a small
business owner, and for simplicity your choice for employees is between
unionized skilled workers earning $30 an hour, or the unskilled minimum
wage workers. Two unskilled workers can produce slightly less than one
skilled worker in the same amount of time. You hire two of them and pay
a combined $15 an hour, and get slightly less output than if you hired
one skilled worker at $30 an hour. This is a no-brainer: You're
getting almost the same output for half the cost.

Now a $15/hour minimum wage law takes effect. If you keep the two
minimum wage workers, you're getting less output for the same wages paid
than you would if you fired them and hired the skilled worker. The
greater the productivity differential between skilled and unskilled
labor, the more likely you are to fire the unskilled and hire the
skilled, if the minimum wage rises.

Relative prices explain a lot of phenomena. People in areas that are
noted for certain types of produce often complain bitterly that it's
hard to get the "good stuff" in their areas, seemingly a paradox. The
explanation is relative prices. Suppose the price of a really good
apple in Washington state (or upstate New York) is 10¢, while the price
of a mediocre apple is 5¢, for a relative price of 2:1. Now suppose it
costs 5¢ to ship an apple to Los Angeles or Miami, and the entire
shipping cost is included in the retail price. A good apple now costs
15¢ in L.A. and Miami, and an inferior apple is 10¢, for a relative
price of 1.5:1. The price of good apples is cheaper relative to
inferior apples in L.A. and Miami than it is in WA and NY, and so people
demand more of them. The good apples all - at least, mostly - get
shipped there.

> It has effects, but not, according to the research, on employment.

See above - it *does* have effects on the composition of employment.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/27/2016 12:02 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> In that case we must conclude the designers of QWERTY were complete
> morons as they made every mistake possible.
>
> I only skimmed your reference but it seems its intent is to attack the
> claim the QWERTY was a marketing failure. That is not the issue.
> Obviously it was spectacularly successful. It displaced earlier
> arrangements and staved off later ones.

Liebowitz and Margolis convincingly show that QWERTY did not slow
typists down. QWERTY typists were winning speed contests back when
multiple keyboard layouts were still available.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:09:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

Just a statement from a good source. You need the next one if you want
to dig into it.

>
>> http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
>
>Did you really read this one?

Yes, when it was published. And, IIRC, I read a couple of the
references. These employment issues are part of what I follow for
work.

>David Neumark is saying almost exactly
>what I said: while there may not be an appreciable effect on *total*
>employment, there is a significant effect on the composition of
>employment, with jobs shifting away from low- and unskilled workers to
>high skilled (and higher wage) workers. This makes perfect sense, as
>relative prices, not absolute prices, are what matter.

Good for you! <g> Yes, that would be what we would have discussed
yesterday, if you had seen my earlier post.

Interesting. Not as difficult to think through as comparative
advantage, but similar in a way.

>
>> It has effects, but not, according to the research, on employment.
>
>See above - it *does* have effects on the composition of employment.

Right. I think we're talking past each other here. The research I
noted above, when you get into the studies on which it's based, tries
to account for the effect of putting more money into the hands of the
lowest-wage workers. They do that in a larger context -- 'way beyond
the examples you give above.

And the bottom line seems to be that the net effect is close to zero.
As you know, people at the bottom spend almost all of their additional
income when they get a raise. That consumption increases demand. More
demand means more production, and that means more jobs.

This has been easier to study in recent years because it's a lot
easier to look at really big sets of data. My son considers 50,000
records to be a "small" dataset.

So, if the broader effect on employment is zero, there goes the myth,
as my first reference above puts it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Phil Kangas]

"Winston_Smith" <
> wrote in message

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:30:22 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

> In that case we must conclude the designers of QWERTY
> were complete
> morons as they made every mistake possible.
>
> I only skimmed your reference but it seems its intent
> is to attack the
> claim the QWERTY was a marketing failure. That is not
> the issue.
> Obviously it was spectacularly successful. It
> displaced earlier
> arrangements and staved off later ones.
>

> It was successful because typists could go as fast as
> they were able
> and not jam the machine. Very often.
>
> The only cites it makes to tests between the two is
> in the 1930s. The
> tests seem to support Dvorak but the author of the
> article questions
> their validity. That's hardly any proof of anything.
>
> Several of his references support the superiority of
> Dvorak.
>
> In any event, these must have been made on mechanical
> typewriters. The
> modern assessment of the two keyboards is based on
> electronic
> equipment.
>
> I note the paper gives us no clue of what credentials
> the author might
> bring to the subject. I note he starts out saying the
> dog ate his
> homework and he had to recover it with errors.
> Finally I note the link
> he gives to a pdf version of his paper is to an
> unrelated article on
> an unrelated subject.
>
> His scholarship must be questioned.
>

IMHO, the DVORAK is unquestionably superior to the
QWERTY
on modern keyboards. It's crazy that it still even
exists! And why
are schools still teaching centrifugal 'force' when
there is no such
thing. No one has been able to define it because it
ain't there....
Back in school we were told it was equal but opposite
to centripetal
force. Teacher got pissed off when I told him he just
described
motion in a straight line.

[Ed Huntress]

This old chestnut drives me crazy. Centrifugal force is the force
applied the means of containment or restraint. On a cord holding a
ball that's swung around, it's the linear force on the cord. It's
equivalent to the centripital force of acceleration, operating in the
opposite direction.

I wonder how that business got started? What did they call the force
required to oppose the centripital force, without centrifugal force?

>Back in school we were told it was equal but opposite
>to centripetal
>force. Teacher got pissed off when I told him he just
>described
>motion in a straight line.

It's not MOTION. There is no motion to the force. The linear force
keeps changing its vector, but its instantaneous value is always a
simple, linear force.

Sheesh.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

There was no analysis behind any of it.

>>> http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
>>
>> Did you really read this one?
>
> Yes, when it was published. And, IIRC, I read a couple of the
> references. These employment issues are part of what I follow for
> work.
>
>> David Neumark is saying almost exactly
>> what I said: while there may not be an appreciable effect on *total*
>> employment, there is a significant effect on the composition of
>> employment, with jobs shifting away from low- and unskilled workers to
>> high skilled (and higher wage) workers. This makes perfect sense, as
>> relative prices, not absolute prices, are what matter.
>
> Good for you! <g> Yes, that would be what we would have discussed
> yesterday, if you had seen my earlier post.

So it was not accurate for you to say the link supports the idea that
there is little or no effect on employment. There is quite a
significant effect on employment, just not on total employment.

I think the response to shifts in relative prices, and comparative
advantage, are about equally complex. In fact, comparative advantage
depends on relative prices. If a country has an absolute advantage in
both goods (two goods are usually used for the illustration, for
simplicity), but its advantage in one is much greater, it means that if
it is self-sufficient in both, it is giving up a greater amount of the
good in which its advantage is greater in order to get some amount of
the other good, whereas for the other country it's the reverse. For the
country with the absolute advantage in both goods, the relative price of
producing the good in which it has a lower advantage is higher, in terms
of forgone output of the good in which it has a greater advantage.
Thus, it is cheaper to specialize in the good in which it has a greater
advantage and trade for the good in which it has a lesser advantage.

>>
>>> It has effects, but not, according to the research, on employment.
>>
>> See above - it *does* have effects on the composition of employment.
>
> Right. I think we're talking past each other here. The research I
> noted above, when you get into the studies on which it's based, tries
> to account for the effect of putting more money into the hands of the
> lowest-wage workers. They do that in a larger context -- 'way beyond
> the examples you give above.
>
> And the bottom line seems to be that the net effect is close to zero.
> As you know, people at the bottom spend almost all of their additional
> income when they get a raise. That consumption increases demand. More
> demand means more production, and that means more jobs.
>
> This has been easier to study in recent years because it's a lot
> easier to look at really big sets of data. My son considers 50,000
> records to be a "small" dataset.
>
> So, if the broader effect on employment is zero, there goes the myth,
> as my first reference above puts it.

There's no getting around the fact that low-skilled workers who don't
already have a job see their job prospects worsen after a rise in the
minimum wage.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:20:40 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>

As I made clear in an earlier post in this thread, yesterday, I was
talking about net employment numbers:

"Summary: The data is slightly mixed, but there are more analyses that
show slight positive increases in employment, than those that show a
negative one."

Right.

>
>>>
>>>> It has effects, but not, according to the research, on employment.
>>>
>>> See above - it *does* have effects on the composition of employment.
>>
>> Right. I think we're talking past each other here. The research I
>> noted above, when you get into the studies on which it's based, tries
>> to account for the effect of putting more money into the hands of the
>> lowest-wage workers. They do that in a larger context -- 'way beyond
>> the examples you give above.
>>
>> And the bottom line seems to be that the net effect is close to zero.
>> As you know, people at the bottom spend almost all of their additional
>> income when they get a raise. That consumption increases demand. More
>> demand means more production, and that means more jobs.
>>
>> This has been easier to study in recent years because it's a lot
>> easier to look at really big sets of data. My son considers 50,000
>> records to be a "small" dataset.
>>
>> So, if the broader effect on employment is zero, there goes the myth,
>> as my first reference above puts it.
>
>There's no getting around the fact that low-skilled workers who don't
>already have a job see their job prospects worsen after a rise in the
>minimum wage.

That may be, but if the net effect on the number of jobs is zero,
where to those new jobs, the ones that make up for the losses, come
from, and who is filling them?

The old theory is that raising the minimum wage has a net negative
effect on the number of jobs. The fact seems to be that it has no net
effect at all.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/27/2016 1:02 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:11:05 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 6/27/2016 12:02 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:30:22 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2016 10:32 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You do realize the qwerty was designed to slow down good typists ?
>>>>
>>>> Complete myth: https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
>

>>> In that case we must conclude the designers of QWERTY were complete
>>> morons as they made every mistake possible.
>>>
>>> I only skimmed your reference but it seems its intent is to attack the
>>> claim the QWERTY was a marketing failure. That is not the issue.
>>> Obviously it was spectacularly successful. It displaced earlier
>>> arrangements and staved off later ones.
>>
>> Liebowitz and Margolis convincingly show that QWERTY did not slow
>> typists down.
>

> Not in the paper you cited.

Yes, indeed there is, in section III.

> The article itself says it's addressing
> marketing failure. Not one word about design intent.

As always, you're wrong and increasing your stubbornness the more you
are proved wrong. They write quite a lot about the design intent: to
reduce jamming of the type bars. Along the way, they demolish the claim
that the design intent was to slow down typists:

Some authors even claim that the keyboard is actually configured to
minimize speed since decreasing speed would have been one way to
avoid the jamming of the typewriter. At the time, however, a
two-finger hunt-and-peck method was contemplated, so the keyboard
speed envisioned was quite different from touch-typing speeds.

> Not one word about design result

You didn't read the paper.

> except that the author doubts the validity of
> tests he doesn't like.

No, he shows that the tests didn't support the claims of Dvorak partisans.

>> QWERTY typists were winning speed contests back when
>> multiple keyboard layouts were still available.
>

> Debunked by your own cite.

Nope.

> It was two finger typists against touch typists.

Nothing prevented people using the alternate keyboards from learning to
use them in touch typing.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/27/2016 12:02 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:30:22 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> In that case we must conclude the designers of QWERTY were complete
> morons as they made every mistake possible.
>
> I only skimmed your reference but it seems its intent is to attack the
> claim the QWERTY was a marketing failure. That is not the issue.
> Obviously it was spectacularly successful.

Stupid: *market* failure, not "marketing" failure. The allegation is
that QWERTY was an "inferior" standard that not only prevailed at
adoption but persisted as the standard when supposedly superior
technology emerged. This is supposed to indicate a "failure" of markets
to work efficiently. They debunk that thoroughly.

[Rudy Canoza]

That's ridiculous. First of all, the cost of switching a computer
keyboard from QWERTY to Dvorak is virtually zero, unlike the cost of
converting a typewriter. Secondly, the Dvorak partisans claim that the
time required to learn Dvorak after having earlier learned QWERTY is
quite short; if there really were an advantage, people would have done
it, given you can remap the keyboard for (virtually) free and find free
Dvorak instructional guides on the web.

I know exactly one person who uses the Dvorak keyboard, and he only does
it - as he does so many other things - because of a bizarre wish to be
different. It's really almost pointless - he uses voice-to-text for
most of his e-mails and other documents anyway.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ibg2nbhb5opksb0pa...@4ax.com...

This rousing number from a smash hit Broadway musical could be our
next National Anthem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6jp_MKI_6w

--Javert

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:3vk2nb1psfmqqvt30...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:15:12 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>Yes, but individually, if we take our civic duty seriously, we can
>>look past the money-funded publicity and vote for a candidate.
>

> IF I HAD a candidate to vote for !!
>

>>I'm not suggesting that we'll overcome the hypnotized masses, but it
>>is the thing we can do -- along with making some effort to get the
>>big
>>money out of it.
>

> The trouble is that both parties have only offered candidates for
> the
> hypnotized masses. Reasoning, middle of the road candidates don't
> make
> it through the primaries - even if they do get to try entering them.
>

Kasich's NH speeches were so sparsely attended that he had time to
chat with me. Graham didn't do much better. Trump filled the hall
right from the start. Don't ask me why.
--jsw

[news16]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:02:26 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

> In that case we must conclude the designers of QWERTY were complete
> morons as they made every mistake possible.

What part of history did you lot wake up in. Great tech has always lost
to marketing. It whyt people buy lightbulbs that need continual
replacement, etc. Then there is the list of "devices" where the worst one
captured the market.

[Jim Wilkins]

"news16" <new...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:nksci1$mon$6...@dont-email.me...

People who haven't the time or skill to repair stuff buy the cheapest
ones that do the job. When we techies design what -we- would buy we
need to be reminded that most VCRs flashed 12:00 because they were too
much of a nuisance to learn to set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creep

OTOH I spent the week restoring Maytag "Dependable Care" washing
machines from 40~50 years ago, when they were growing their reputation
with machines that were uneconomically overbuilt.
--jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message

news:5ie3nb57f0bkjt0a2...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:48:56 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> if there really were an advantage, people would have done it
>

> I'm reminded of one of the managers that once came to me to design
> new
> equipment. He gave me a long litany of all the things what were
> wrong
> with what he had and all the things it couldn't do or did badly.
>
> Then he told me to build me one just like the one he had but that
> worked.
>
> I pointed out that if it was broken, I'd first see if it could be
> repaired or upgraded. If nothing was found broken or mal-adjusted,
> if
> it was working as designed, an exact copy would work the same way.
>
> He valiantly hung in there. He wanted one just like the old one,
> don't
> change anything (that's a quote), but have it work well.
>
> It took a couple more iterations before he saw the slightest glimmer
> of light. Finally he gave me free reign and he was extremely pleased
> with the new machine but I always had the feeling he thought I was
> selling him snake oil that an exact copy would work exactly the same
> way as the original.
>
> Ah, management. Once they get the hell out of the way, engineering
> is
> easy. At least my boss had been though the drill enough times that
> he
> learned to give me a job and let me alone.
>

The development of the jet engine is a good case study of
engineering's versus management's conflicting goals:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1982/January%201982/0182engine.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37

--jsw

[Ned Simmons]

The belief that centrifugal force doesn't exist is a remarkably
persistent affliction. My guess is that it has its origins in either
an incomplete statement by the victim's high school physics teacher,
or a misunderstanding of the term "fictitious force."

The afflicted individual's physics instructor may have said, "There's
no such thing as centrifugal force," when they should have said,
"Centrifugal force does not exist in an inertial (Newtonian) reference
frame, and since this is a course in pure Newtonian mechanics,
centrifugal force has no place here." That doesn't mean centrifugal
force doesn't exist in other frames of reference.

Second, centrifugal force is considered a fictitious (or pseudo)
force, which only means that it isn't one of the fundamental physical
forces (1), not that it doesn't exist. In other words, the F in F=ma
is a fictitious force, not a fundamental force, but it is nonetheless
real.

Interestingly, I've never seen a claim by a non-believer that the
pressure that you feel in the seat of your pants when your car
accelerates doesn't exist. Not so for the force between the door and
your shoulder as you go around a corner -- that one's right out.

(1)The fundamental forces are the gravitational, electromagnetic,
strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. And gravitation is under a
cloud since Einstein. When was the last time you heard an otherwise
sane person deny the existence of gravity?

--
Ned Simmons

[AVjgZ⛄⫸Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ⸎ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ⫷⛄QOvTH]

It is actually very simply.

If you swing a ball on a string around in a circular motion, Newton says
the ball will have a tendency to fly off in a tangential direction
because the ball will try to maintain its motion in a straight line.

In order to prevent the ball from flying off, the string must exert a
centripetal force to pull the ball inward.

Since the ball is now restrained by the string to fly in a circular
motion, Newton says an "equal and opposite" force exists in the string
to prevent the ball from collapsing into the centre of the circular
motion. That "equal and opposite" force is called the centrifugal force.

If the string is not elastic then the length of the string will be
constant. The centripetal force and the centrifugal force will always be
equal and opposite, and proportion to the rotational speed of the ball
around the centre (RPM).

In planetary motion, the planets are prevented from flying off into deep
space by the gravitation force between the planet and the Sun. The
planet is prevented from falling into the Sun by virtue of is circular
orbit which creates a centrifugal force.

In this case the planet will fly off (into a higher orbit) until the
centrifugal force (by virtue of the higher orbit) equals the
gravitational force between the planet and the Sun. The gravitational
force in this case will balance out the centrifugal force and the planet
will be in a permanent orbit around the Sun.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:37:33 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 06/27/2016 01:54 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> The difference between Conservative Government and a Socialist
>> Government (that of the American Left) when shaken down to its raw
>> essentials will make, or break, the United States of America.
>
>What have the cuckservatives done for you lately?

They have left me alone. More than can be said about the other
side...humm?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:11:48 -0400, zaXFk???????? ? ?????????JFgAL
<xj...@vpDam.com> wrote:

>Ed Huntress wrote on 6/27/2016 8:49 AM:
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:50:22 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/26/2016 04:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
>>>>> Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
>>>>> they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
>>>>> blaming liberals for those conservative policies.
>>>>
>>>> It's time to get over all that 'liberal' and 'conservative' bullshit.
>>>> The oligarchs love it when the great unwashed lose themselves in
>>>> political labels like the fans of some football club.
>>>
>>> So the Cold War was for nothing then? After all..it was the
>>> socialist/communists against everyone else.
>>>
>>> So by your thinking..the term Non Radical Islam and Radical Islam
>>> really have no validity either?
>>>
>>> Oddly enough..you seem to have overlooked a few things....
>>>
>>> "Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever
>>> means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even
>>> lie. Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when
>>> those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
>>> ***Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum***
>>> --The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.
>>
>> You incompetent moron. Don't you know that this crap has been revealed
>> as bogus by numerous sources?
>>
>> "According to gun rights activist Chris Knox (Neal Knox's son):
>> "The quote originally appeared in Machine Gun News, June 1991, Volume
>> 5, Number 1, page 6. in the column "RAFFICA" by Dan Shea, Column 2,
>> Paragraph 2. (Also see Dan Shea's comments, which drives a proverbial
>> stake through the heart of this apocryphal quote).
>>
>> "Neal Knox checked into this extensively -- before it appeared in the
>> National Educator -- and concluded that this quote just never
>> happened."
>>
>> "It simply sounds bogus on its face, sounding more like dialogue from
>> a bad 1930s propaganda movie than anything a real person would say.
>> It's often easier to believe something we'd really like to see."
>>
>> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
>>
>> What is the matter with you, Gunner? How can you just copy and paste
>> this crap without a trace of skepticism? Have you just breathed too
>> many lead fumes, after all?
>

I thought Id make you guys twitch....snicker...
I also noted that the 2 verifiable quotes from Brady were..snipped
away in your responses.

ROFLMAO!

>It was the bad acid back in the 60's. He still hasn't recovered after
>all these years. Totally brain dead.

Snicker....(VBG)
>
March 21 2016 3:35 PM
The Supreme Court Gets Really Close to Saying That Stun Guns Are
Protected By the Second Amendment


When Justice Antonin Scalia died, court-watchers on the left and right
assumed that, once a new liberal took his seat, the court would move
quickly to reverse or limit Scalia’s most important decision—District
of Columbia v. Heller, which reinterpreted the Second Amendment to
provide an individual right to bear arms.

On Monday, however, the Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned opinion
simultaneously reaffirming Heller—and, arguably, even expanding it.
Most surprisingly, the decision noted no dissents, meaning the liberal
justices presumably endorsed it. This silence from the left doesn’t
necessarily mean that the court’s progressive bloc is now embracing an
absolutist Second Amendment jurisprudence. But it does suggest, at the
very least, that the liberals are waiting for a sympathetic colleague
before chipping away at Heller—and may indicate that the progressive
justices are hesitant to move against Heller at all.

The decision, Caetano v. Massachusetts, does not quite state that the
Second Amendment protects stun guns, but its implications to that
effect are pretty obvious. Caetano involved the prosecution of Jaime
Caetano, a domestic violence victim who threatened her abuser with a
stun gun. Although Caetano succeeded in scaring away her abusive
ex-boyfriend, she also broke the law: Massachusetts forbids private
possession of “electrical weapon[s].” Inexplicably, the police
arrested her, and prosecutors charged her with violating the stun gun
ban. (Credit to Second Amendment advocates for finding a test case in
which the defendant acted so nobly and the state so idiotically.)
Caetano argued that the Constitution shielded her right to own a stun
gun, because such weapons qualified as “arms” within the meaning of
the Second Amendment.

In an evasive and dubious opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court disagreed. It insisted that, under Heller, the only
constitutionally protected weapons are those “contemplated by Congress
in 1789” when it drafted the Second Amendment. Stun guns, “a
thoroughly modern invention,” are thus outside the Constitution’s
protections. But this holding plainly contradicts Heller, which
explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment extends to arms “that were
not in existence at the time of the founding.” The Massachusetts court
also decided that stun guns are not “readily adaptable to use in the
military”—an utterly irrelevant question under Heller, which
painstakingly detached the Second Amendment from its militia context.
Noting these analytical problems, the Supreme Court simply vacated the
Massachusetts court’s ruling and ordered a new judgment, one that
actually follows Heller.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas—the court’s
new dream team—filed a concurring opinion proclaiming that “the
decision below … does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals
like Caetano who must defend themselves because the state will not.”
Alito’s opinion criticized his colleagues’ brief decision as
“grudging” and framed the lower court’s opinion as an attack on “the
fundamental right of self-defense.” His ominous tone suggests he does
not trust his own court to ward off future perceived assaults on the
Second Amendment. Thomas echoed this fear when he broke his silence
last month, portentously describing gun ownership as a constitutional
right “at least as of now.” But where is their evidence that the
post-Scalia court may turn against gun rights? It would be a steep
uphill climb to overturn Heller, one that might expend more political
capital than the court can afford to lose. And the unanimity of
Caetano, grudging or not, suggests that the liberal justices aren’t
eager to lead the charge. "

Which one of you bozos lives in Mass? I keep forgetting...being it
and you are rather forgetable people.

ROFLMAO!!

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:34:36 -0400, MNbEe???????? ? ?????????kXXoa

<Ln...@NmtWE.com> wrote:

>Ed Huntress wrote on 6/27/2016 9:47 AM:

>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:33:15 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/26/2016 10:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> My hope is that the barbaric self-interest to which populism tends to
>>>> degenerate has a short and enfeebled life, as it often has in the
>>>> past.
>>>
>>> Do you prefer the barbaric self-interest of the oligarchy?
>>
>> Decisions, decisions...
>>
>>> How much more
>>> barbaric can you get than the permanent unsuccessful wars, the trade
>>> treaties that further enrich the uber-wealthy, and the bailouts and
>>> favorable legislation that let's the Wall Street Casino operate as
>>> usual? If it's populism that is required to cut out the rot and
>>> corruption, bring it on. Or is naked self-interest only bad when
>>> exhibited by hoi polloi?
>>
>> That's a tough choice, Robert. One thing you could do is try voting
>> with your head instead of your testicles. If it catches on, we might
>> get something good going.
>>
>
>Unfortunately the US is full of unwashed masses like Gummer Arse and
>Stormin Moron. They are hypnotized by reality TV style campaign road
>shows. Big Money funds both sides. You choose the lessor of two evils.
>Big Money always has a winning horse.

Ive not watched TV for at least 6 months.

Again more buffoonery from you. But then..it is your natural habitat
isnt it?

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:01:48 -0400, jGEnT???????? ? ?????????BULSf
<Ul...@gpKaX.com> wrote:

>rbowman wrote on 6/27/2016 9:45 AM:
>> On 06/26/2016 09:56 PM, mIiSk???????? ? ?????????ngjAC wrote:
>>> It will work if the feds wants it. There are only so much you can
>>> automate or outsource. Minimum-wage menial jobs will always be there.
>>> Big Money has to pay the $15/hr or get out of the US.
>>
>> Big money already left if you haven't noticed. What's left are jobs that
>> aren't worth $15/hour. Making America great again isn't going to be done
>> by declaring burger flipper wages to be $15.
>>
>> The supermarket has a self checkout lane I use because I usually have
>> only a few items and it is faster. If the wage requirements for the
>> check out clerks becomes uneconomical, look for more kiosks.
>
>I always stay away from self-checkout kiosks.
>
>Have they figured out how to stock the shelves with machines yet? Or a
>machine that can respond to a call to mop up spills on isle 9? Or a
>machine that can retrieve the shopping carts from the parking lot? Or a
>machine that can prevent people from going out the door without paying
>for the groceries in the cart?
>
Yes, yes, yes, no

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:50:22 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I don't believe gun owners have rights. Sarah Brady
>
>We must get rid of all the guns. Sarah Brady
>
>Gallup: Yes, Democrats, liberals favor socialism
>
>By Jennifer Harper The Washington Times - November 30, 2012, 01:48PM
>
>Are Democrats and liberals really socialists? Looks like it. Numbers
>from a new Gallup Poll provide some backing for claims made by GOP
>rivals and conservatives over the years: 53 percent of Democrats and
>62 percent of liberals give a “positive review of socialism,” the
>pollster found, compared to 23 percent of Republicans and 25 percent
>of conservatives.
>
>Other archetypal beliefs are also very much in play. While
>three-fourths of both Democrats and liberals give a positive review of
>the federal government, that sentiment is shared by just 27 percent of
>Republicans and 32 percent of conservatives. There’s a big divide on
>the concept of “big business” as well. Gallup found that 75 percent of
>Republicans, 72 percent of conservatives give thumbs-up to big
>business, compared to 44 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of
>liberals.

Its truely funny watching Fast Eddy and the Spruge go off on my
intentionally including a bogus quote, and ignoring everything else
in the post. And there were ZIP comments about the followup post
defining the dangers of American Socialism.

You guys...hung yourselves yet again, by a cord around your dicks.

(VBG)

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:54:32 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:34:54 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>wrote:
>

>>On 06/26/2016 04:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> You're the one with the liberal positions. You may not realize it.
>>> Trump populists are doing this every day, and they have no idea that
>>> they're blaming conservative policies for their problems, while
>>> blaming liberals for those conservative policies.
>>
>>It's time to get over all that 'liberal' and 'conservative' bullshit.
>>The oligarchs love it when the great unwashed lose themselves in
>>political labels like the fans of some football club.
>

>Now that I set it up....lets look at what you consider to be
>"bullshit", shall we?

What..no comments from our Leftwing Bretheren?
ROFLMAO!!!


>
>http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/republic-vs-socialist.html
>
>The America Republic -vs- Socialist America
>
>"Conservatives want a Constitutional Government in the US. That's
>all!"
>
>J. D. Longstreet
>March 8, 2009
>Look at the title of this piece again. Read it closely... and let it
>sink in.

>
>The difference between Conservative Government and a Socialist
>Government (that of the American Left) when shaken down to its raw
>essentials will make, or break, the United States of America.
>

>The American Democrat Party, which is, in truth, the socialist party,
>does not see it that way. Actually they do see it that way, but the
>problem they have is that they cannot exist under a Constitutional
>government in the US. Freedom and Socialism cannot exist in the same
>place, much like "Matter" and "Anti-Matter". And therein lies the
>problem, which is rotting away at the foundation of the United States.
>
>Let me see if I can break it down a bit more:
>
>Under a Constitutional government, the power of the government is
>limited. Limited government allows the citizens to rule their country.
>
>Under the Socialist brand of government, sometimes called an
>"Administrative state", citizens do not rule their country,
>bureaucrats do, and with them the elite intellectuals. At least THEY
>think they are elite!
>
>The United States was founded as a free country. Its citizens were
>autonomous. They were free. The US had a free economy. That was the
>way the designers of this land, the Founding Fathers, planned it. And
>it worked… right up to the dawn of "Socialism in American" during the
>reign of, and as the direct results of actions taken by, Franklin
>Delano Roosevelt. It has been downhill for America ever since.
>
>Socialism is a creeping disease. It is quiet and deadly. It offers
>much and deliver almost nothing.
>
>Simply put, Socialism is a trade off. A people must give up freedom
>for security. It is just that simple. IF you would be a free people,
>then you cannot allow socialism, in any form, in your country's
>government. If, on the other hand, you wish to be secure, from want
>and fear, then you absolutely MUST give up your freedom. That is the
>choice.
>
>The American Left is the driving force behind socialism in America.
>Lets be clear: Socialism is anti-American.
>
>The Founding Fathers did not give us a socialist state; they gave us a
>Representative Republic. America is NOT a Democracy as you may have
>been taught in school. America is a representative republic.
>
>Look… Americans , indeed, human beings, are not equal. A stroll down
>any beach, on a hot summer day, will give the lie to that! And the
>Founding Fathers knew that. That was not what they meant when they
>noted in "The Declaration" that "all men are created equal". They were
>referring to those inalienable rights, and natural rights, which are
>the endowment of all mankind as a gift from our Creator. So they set
>about designing a form of government, which would balance freedom and
>equality in a state, which would allow both. That was a near
>impossible task, if not entirely impossible. But they made a grand
>attempt at it and it worked right up 'til the FDR Administration.
>
>You see, under the original Constitution, the people of the United
>States were, indeed, a free people. We were autonomous. And… WE were
>sovereign. The Government was created, by the Founding Fathers, to be
>a servant of the people of the U.S.
>
>Roosevelt and the American Left didn't see it that way and they began
>to change it. There had been, previously, a contract, a covenant, if
>you will, between the American people and the American government
>under which the American people would grant the American government
>certain powers… while at the same time granting themselves certain
>rights. The government had no power of it's own, All government power
>was derived from the people and the government could grant themselves
>none.
>
>But Roosevelt, and the American Left, changed that. The Left decided
>the agreement, the contract, if you will, between the people of the US
>and their government was backwards. They decided that instead of the
>people deciding the powers granted to the government, the government
>would grasp power and the government would decide the limits of the
>people's freedom and the sovereignty of the people! No longer would
>the people dictate to the government. Now, the government dictates to
>the people. The government is no longer OF the people. It is run, and
>ruled over, by bureaucrats and intellectual elites who know better,
>what you need and want, than you do! What we have today is a
>government running this country, which has never stood for election…
>ever! The elected officials are simply shills of that shadow
>government of bureaucrats and intellectuals who actually pull the
>strings, and push the buttons.
>
>It takes very little thought and consideration to see that this form
>of government is absolutely NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted, and
>planned, for this country.
>
>In effect, what we have had in this country is a coup-de-tat, American
>Style!
>
>To put it plainly, the US government has been hi-jacked!
>
>Those Americans, my age, look around us and we do not recognize this
>socialist state, this welfare state, this "nanny state". It certainly
>is NOT the America of our youth, where a man was free to be what he
>wanted and to suffer the consequences of bad decisions, and bad
>choices, as well as good decisions and good choices.
>
>Equality was understood to mean Equality of Endowment by the Creator.
>Not equality of social status, of income, of education, of well, the
>modern day list goes on and on. Each time a rule, or law, was passed
>to make society more equal… somebody lost. Americans lost. What did we
>lose? Freedom is what we lost.
>
>The American Left has decided they are the elite Americans who know,
>better than you, how you should live your life, worship your God, do
>your job, enjoy your vacation, build your house, drive your car, get
>an education, which doctor you visit, which hospital you select, even
>to the last detail of how you groom your lawn, or whether you can fly
>a US flag outside the home you THINK you own! The American Left is
>into every aspect of your daily life. Because they are convinced that
>you and I, the rabble, the "great unwashed", are not capable of taking
>care of ourselves. No one is required to be responsible for his or her
>actions anymore. It is now understood that when someone commits a
>heinous act, it is not the perpetrator's fault! That is a part of the
>bargain struck with the American Left.
>
>The American Left simply seized the power as a "Beneficent Dictator".
>And Americans allowed it; indeed some welcomed it with open arms! (The
>slow-witted among us, the least ambitious among us, those who sought
>to milk the system for every dime they could, and of course, those who
>sought power for themselves in the New American Socialism.)
>
>What Americans forgot was… that dictators, beneficent or otherwise,
>take your freedom! A dictator cannot exist in a free environment.
>Today's America has become content to allow "others" to govern us, to
>rule over us. We know longer believe ourselves capable of ruling
>ourselves.
>
>The Great Ronald Reagan, in a speech he made in 1964, said the
>following:
>
> "It doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private
>property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it
>mean whether you hold the deed or title to your business or property
>if the government holds the power of life and death over that business
>or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find
>some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute.
>Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a
>perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable, rights are now
>considered to be dispensation of government, and freedom has never
>been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp, as it is at this
>very moment!"
>
>And THAT, dear reader was in 1964!
>
>The American left is slick. They have packaged themselves as loving,
>tolerant, do-gooders, who seek only to make your life easier and to
>make, and keep, you secure. You needn't worry about a thing 'cause
>they have it covered! Americans have bought it… hook, line, and
>sinker. At least those of the baby boom generation have.
>
>Those of us born before World War Two experienced the actual loss of
>our country. We slipped though the Public School System ahead of the
>changes, which "dumbed down an entire generation of American kids"
>while stoking their self-esteem. We came out the other side of the
>American education system aware of the value of a free country. The
>baby boom generation did not. It is entirely the product of the
>American Left.
>
>Today, the New American Socialism reigns supreme. The result? A nation
>in decline! A nation, having not yet reached its zenith, has sold its
>birthright to the devil. Now, America is reaping, what it has sown.
>
>We are quickly becoming a second rate power. Our citizens are among
>the least educated in the world. We no longer have an economy based on
>research, development, and manufacturing, we have only a "service
>economy". We service that which others build! Our society is quite
>likely the most amoral society on earth. It has been said that if God,
>Himself does not destroy us, then HE owes an apology to Sodom and
>Gomorrah! Yes, we, America, have/has become the kind of country to
>which we used to send missionaries!
>
>Oh, yeah, that Baby Boom Generation, the American generation "dumbed
>down" but filled with carefully stoked self-esteem… well, they ran,
>head long, into reality. And… they folded like a cheap suit!
>
>Like a virulent cancer the American Left's brand of socialism is
>eating away the bedrock of America. It is relentlessly chewing away at
>the fabric of what was once the greatest nation on earth. Socialism,
>like the evil that it is, lies. All the promises of "paradise on
>earth" are all lies.
>
>America has bought the Big Lie. The price was freedom. America is no
>longer free. America is, once again, only a dream in the restless
>night of those of us who knew her when she was "that bright shining
>city on a hill". Like Camelot, it was only a passing, ethereal,
>grandiose, dream. A dream the American Left has turned into a
>nightmare. "
>
>
>Was there any other questions?

[Ed Huntress]

Thanks, yeah, we went around on this in high school physics. I had a
talk with my teacher, saying that I thought the way it was taught was
confusing and it was one of those things that made some kids hate
physics.

He generally agreed with me. Up to that point, forces were always
equal and opposite. Then, all of the sudden, we're taught that there
really isn't a centrifugal force.

I found that once kids realized we really were dealing with equal and
opposite forces, it was a lot easier to change the frame of reference
and talk about the acceleration of the rotating object. We made the
transition by starting with instantaneous forces.

--
Ed Huntress
>
>
>
>