Sunspots could soon disappear for decades: study

September 15, 2010 by Lin Edwards, Phys.org report
Photo Credit: NASA/TRACE

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades. The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age.

Sunspots are regions of electrically charged, superheated gas (plasma) on the surface of the , formed when upwellings of the magnetic field trap the ionized plasma. The magnetic field prevents the gas from releasing the heat and sinking back below the sun’s surface. These areas are somewhat cooler than the surrounding and so appear to us as dark spots.

Sunspots have been observed at least since the early 17th century, and they are known to follow an 11 year cycle from to . The solar minimum usually lasts around 16 months, but the current minimum has already lasted 26 months, which is the longest minimum in a hundred years.

Since 1990, Matthew Penn and William Livingston, solar astronomers with the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, have been using a measurement known as Zeeman splitting to study the magnetic strength of sunspots. The Zeeman splitting is the distance between a pair of infrared spectral lines in a taken of the light emitted by iron atoms in the atmosphere of the sun. The wider the distance, the greater is the intensity of the magnetic field.

Penn and Livingston examined 1500 sunspots and found that the average strength of the magnetic field of the sunspots has dropped from around 2700 gauss to 2000 gauss. (In comparison, the Earth’s magnetic field is below one gauss.) The reasons for the decline are unknown, but Livingston said that if the strength continues to decrease at the same rate it will drop to 1500 gauss by 2016, and below this strength the formation of sunspots appears to be impossible.

During the period from 1645 to 1715, a time known as the Maunder Minimum, there were almost no sunspots. This period coincided with the Little Ice Age, which produced lower than average temperatures in Europe. Livingston said their results should be treated with caution as their techniques are relatively new and it is not yet known if the decline in magnetic field strength will continue, and that “only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up.”

David Hathaway, a solar physicist with the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, also cautioned the calculations do not take into account that many small sunspots with relatively weak magnetic fields appeared during the last solar maximum, and if these are not included in the calculations the average strength would seem higher than it actually was.

Penn and Livingston’s paper has been submitted to the online colloquium, International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273.

Explore further: Are Sunspots Disappearing?

More information: Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields, Matthew Penn and William Livingston, arXiv:1009.0784v1 [astro-ph.SR]

Related Stories

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

September 3, 2009

The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers ...

Study may explain the extended solar minimum

March 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The recent solar minimum extended fifteen months longer than predicted, and a new study may explain why, and improve the predictions for future solar cycles.

Long-standing sunspot puzzle solved

August 19, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at the Universities of Glasgow, Strathclyde and Central Lancashire have used 21st Century solar observations and image processing to finally solve a sunspot puzzle first noticed in the 18th Century.

Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?

June 18, 2009

The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why.

Solar Cycle Driven by More than Sunspots

September 17, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Challenging conventional wisdom, new research finds that the number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun's impact on Earth over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. The study, ...

Next solar storm cycle will likely start next March

April 27, 2007

The next 11-year cycle of solar storms will most likely start next March and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012—up to a year later than expected—according to a forecast issued by the NOAA Space Environment Center in coordination ...

Recommended for you

NASA's new mini satellite will study Milky Way's halo

July 18, 2018

Astronomers keep coming up short when they survey "normal" matter, the material that makes up galaxies, stars and planets. A new NASA-sponsored CubeSat mission called HaloSat, deployed from the International Space Station ...

Supersharp images from new VLT adaptive optics

July 18, 2018

ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) has achieved first light with a new adaptive optics mode called laser tomography—and has captured remarkably sharp test images of the planet Neptune and other objects. The MUSE instrument ...

Jupiter's moon count reaches 79, including tiny 'oddball'

July 17, 2018

Twelve new moons orbiting Jupiter have been found—11 "normal" outer moons, and one that they're calling an "oddball." This brings Jupiter's total number of known moons to a whopping 79—the most of any planet in our Solar ...

Astronomers find a famous exoplanet's doppelgänger

July 17, 2018

When it comes to extrasolar planets, appearances can be deceiving. Astronomers have imaged a new planet, and it appears nearly identical to one of the best studied gas-giant planets. But this doppelgänger differs in one ...

Dawn mission to gather more data in home stretch

July 17, 2018

As NASA's Dawn spacecraft prepares to wrap up its groundbreaking 11-year mission, which has included two successful extended missions at Ceres, it will continue to explore—collecting images and other data.

371 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mosahlah
2.5 / 5 (24) Sep 15, 2010
Ah, I can hear it now. "The effects of AGW are masked by the solar minimum, but temporary". I was expecting some kind of fallback position after consist failure of climate models.
furlong64
3.9 / 5 (28) Sep 15, 2010
Ugh, this is a fine article but I could just hear the gross oversimplifications from the anti-science crowd as I read it. Looks like one beat me here. Anti-evolution, anti-global warming, the drone is always the same. Predictable.
Ronan
4.1 / 5 (15) Sep 15, 2010
Hrm. How valid is this kind of extrapolation, I wonder? I mean, the sun does not exactly behave linearly; you can't just draw a line between point A and point B and assume that point C is ever going to happen. Then again, of course, there's obviously a precedent for a long, cold, sunspotless period...Wait and see, I guess.

If it does happen, though, I imagine it'll end up being something of a mixed blessing; the temporary cooldown in global temperatures will be nice, but as Mosahlah demonstrates so helpfully, it'll also cripple the acceptance of global warming--and thus, the political drive to do something about rising CO2. I'm not looking forward to a combination of rising solar activity and high CO2 levels, once we emerge from the minimum; that could be very nasty.
Sancho
2.8 / 5 (19) Sep 15, 2010
Al Gore will soon be urging carbon credits for burning MORE "fossil" fuels as humanity desperately seeks to stave off something a lot more threatening than AGW --- a solar-spawned little ice age.

Ronan
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2010
Sancho: Erm...for what it's worth, the degree of badness you could get from global warming is a good deal more than possible from something like the Maunder minimum--after all, we got through the Maunder minimum with only a few scrapes, so to speak, but the worst-case scenarios for global warming imply a near-collapse--or outright collapse--of global civilization. Worst-case, of course, but even so. The threats of a little ice age don't quite match up.
Arkaleus
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 15, 2010
Our world is operating very close to operational minimums; It's just how our economy works. None of our societies have planned for a disruption in the natural systems that we depend on. If another little ice age appears, the geopolitical effects may be devastating. Nothing motivates wars like resource shortages, especially food.
SteveL
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2010
Our world is operating very close to operational minimums; It's just how our economy works. None of our societies have planned for a disruption in the natural systems that we depend on. If another little ice age appears, the geopolitical effects may be devastating. Nothing motivates wars like resource shortages, especially food.

WWII was instrumental in enabling technology and the systems engineering required to support such technology.
A 'crisis' is also an opportunity.
But, the 'crisis' of GW is way overblown, but not the risk of asteroid impacts.


WWII wasn't really the same as the GW scenario. The states still had an intact and expanding industrial capacity, while the rest of the industrial world was reduced to shambles. The point is that after WW2 the capacity still existed, so the loss of capacity wasn't completely global.

I have no idea where that asteroid came from.
Arkaleus
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 15, 2010
Yeah, crisis is an opportunity, but when you look at the factions that exist today their agendas are mostly hostile to liberty-based societies and our constitutional republic. The factions camped outside our walls seem to desire wealth and power for themselves, at the expense of civilization and human progress. There doesn't seem to be any real opposition to these factions, other than their own timidness and fear of exposing themselves and their agendas.

Natural events like food shortages caused by a solar cooling event may provide them the chaos they need to re-organize society around their wills. Sadly, nature may provide them a real crisis, rather than the manufactured one they tried to create in AGW nonsense.

It's not like the people are intelligent enough to offer any alternatives to factional totalitarianism, right? They certainly won't offer any resistance to whatever power rises to dominance.
SteveL
4.3 / 5 (19) Sep 15, 2010
"But, the 'crisis' of GW is way overblown,"

I've worked in the plastics industry in the SE part of the USA for the past 27 years and we are starting to see issues we've not experienced before. Our evaporative cooling towers, chillers and HVAC units are either struggling or no longer able to maintain setpoints required for our processes - even at the reduced production required by a slow economy. A heat pump can only pump so much heat into a heated atmosphere. An evaporative cooling tower can only transfer so much heat and evaporate so much water into an already hot and humid environment.

Now, you may discount any effects of GW, but I have instrumentation that tells me that properly maintained equipment is getting to the point where it can no longer support our production processes.

Compensating for this is only possible with the installation of larger units that often require more power to operate. Multiply this effect world wide and do the math.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2010
I would have to conclude that this article is the product of someone either looking for funding, or someone seeking research time on an observatory. The above story is nearly a verbatim repeat of the following story from nearly two years ago:
http://findarticl...1060879/

I do notice that the current version has replaced some of the prior wild speculations with new wild speculations, so it's not entirely a repeat of the old story. At least they included a cautionary warning that we should disregard what they are saying this time.
omatumr
2 / 5 (15) Sep 15, 2010
Thanks for having the courage to present this news story on Earth's heat source - the Sun.

That was the title of a paper published last year ["Earth's heat source - the Sun", Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144] when the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was still being ignored by Al Gore, world leaders, the UN and the UN's IPCC, science journals, the news media, TV, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA, DOE, EPA and other research agencies that NAS controls through budget review.

I am especially pleased to see that a solar physicist with the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama [Dr. David Hathaway] is now aware of the Sun's influence on Earth's ever-changing climate.

More will be revealed,
Oliver K. Manuel
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2010
This story reaffirms the unyielding spiritual foundation of science:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

[Numerous Bible verses; Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85]

Oliver K. Manuel
Shakescene21
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2010
The cooling effect from diminished sunspot activity is likely to be less than the warming effect from GHG, so the net effect will probably be that Global Warming will continue at a slower rate than expected over the next several decades. This should be considered GREAT NEWS because it will would give us badly needed time to prepare.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (15) Sep 15, 2010
Ah, I can hear it now. "The effects of AGW are masked by the solar minimum, but temporary". I was expecting some kind of fallback position after consist failure of climate models.

-and what if the temperature continues to rise? the last decade was the hotest on record.

Gswift,
There you go again, claiming all scientist care about is money. Go buy a telescope and watch the sun for decades, then come back and claim with a straight face that sun spots counts are being manipulated. Rediculous arguement, always the same, but only used when the science doesn't fit your desires and beleifs.

Oliver K. Manuel,

I hope your right, but science is not the deciding factor in the U.S., money and power is. Information dessimination is key to truth, and our media is highly controlled and propagandized.
Shawn_Goldwater
2.8 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2010
"...but the current minimum has already lasted 26 months..."

Is this article up to date? Solar Cycle 24 has begun and sunspots are on the increase. Whatever one thinks of the strength of cycle 24 and what may come after, can we accurately be said to still be in a minimum?
gunslingor1
3.8 / 5 (16) Sep 15, 2010
marjon,

There are 3 likely causes of massive extinction events in the next 100 years, things that can bring the human race to our knees:
1. Nuclear war
2. Pollution (not just AGW... what happens when cancer rates reach 60%?)
3. astrophysical phenomenon

1 and 2 are both man made causes. These are my highest concern, we created this danger not god/universe. In my eyes, there is no greater sin that to destroy the planet (this is a beleif not science, learn the difference marjon and state which you are giving).

As for #3, yes it is a great concern. It would be one hell of milestone for our species if we can divert a natural disaster on the scale of mass extinctions (AGW is not a "natural" disaster). We are actively looking for objects in space, but I think only like 5% of the sky is accounted for... your right, it should be expanded.

Still, a massive astroid impact is on the scale of one every 10 to 100s of thousands of years.. AGW is once in the next 10 to 100 years.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2010
Don't shrug off the cancer arguement marjon, this is the main concern of most environmentalists who are also doctors, not AGW. 25% of global populations got cancer sometime in there life around 1950 (smoking rates, in were 60%). Now 38% of the population gets cancer sometime in their life (smoking rates are less than 25%). that's 13% increase in 50 years. following this pattern, by 2050 they expect cancer rates to top 50% of the population. The large majority of doctors contribute this to air pollution.

If you really regect the evidence of AWG based on a BELIEF, focus on the health consequences when discussing modernizing our fuel source.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2010
If it does happen, though, I imagine it'll end up being something of a mixed blessing; the temporary cooldown in global temperatures will be nice, but as Mosahlah demonstrates so helpfully, it'll also cripple the acceptance of global warming--and thus, the political drive to do something about rising CO2. I'm not looking forward to a combination of rising solar activity and high CO2 levels, once we emerge from the minimum; that could be very nasty.

Well think of it this way, it will be well definable through the secondary vector of CO2 emissions, "ocean acidification".

If we drop into a period of low solar output and temperatures decline, we'll see a rather marked decrease in the pH of the ocean and potentially a decrease in the measurements of atmospheric CO2.

One immediate benefit will come from the understanding of the solar interaction on the carbon cycle, allowing us to seperate noise from data with higher precision. If anything the issue may become more visible.
omatumr
2 / 5 (16) Sep 15, 2010
Oliver K. Manuel,

I hope your right, but science is not the deciding factor in the U.S., money and power is. Information dessimination is key to truth, and our media is highly controlled and propagandized.


Spiritual truths are powerful, as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi demonstrated in defeating the British Empire.

Governments, science, and the media are and were "highly controlled and propagandized." But all those forces together are naught compared to the forces that determine our next heartbeat and the time when the Earth quakes or the Sun sneezes.

I would much rather be on the side of spiritual truths than in the camp of Al Gore, world leaders, the UN and the UN's IPCC, science journals, the news media, TV, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA, DOE, EPA and other research agencies that NAS controls through budget review.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2010
I have no idea where that asteroid came from.

No one else will either.
Asteroid impacts are KNOWN to have occur and their effects are documents.
Where is the concern? Where are the chicken littles?
AGW MAY cause...COULD cause....and we MUST act NOW!
On a basis of risk, asteroids should top the list, not AGW.

You're neglecting the fact that we've been talking about CO2 emissions in scientific circles for almost a half century now and nothing has changed. We've only recently become interested in impact events and extinctions.

Let's fix our problems in order of easily preventable to not preventable and potentially adaptable.

If a large enough body came through, we're screwed. Only way to fix that problem is to leave Earth and have colonies already standing by, a real possibility. Problem is, you'll need to get the entire world on board, just like you will need to with emissions. Nothing can be done about any global problem until we have a global understanding.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2010
marjon,

CO2 absorbs more IR radiation than air and releases more heat as a result. Do you really challenge this?
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (13) Sep 15, 2010
Oliver K. Manuel,

I agree Oliver, but I am losing hope fast that truth will prevail IN TIME, before the terrible happens.

Einstein said: "I'm not a pacifist but a militant pacifist"

I couldn't agree more. I will fight to the death to save the lives of the innocents. Truth will prevail in the end, but it may really be "THE END". The evidence for AGW is overwelming and common sense at this point, and it really may already be far to late to stop it.
gunslingor1
3.8 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2010
"Recent news just claimed methane from cows was more significant than human produce CO2."
-there are other forces at work in the media... big oil.
-I've done the math and it is a false claim. Do the math, I'm tiered of reiterating it for you.

another one from Einstein: "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"

I agree some scientists are curropt, but not the majority who accept AGW as a fact of nature.

H2O absorbs orders of magnitude more IR energy than CO2

-I could beleive that, but global humitity hasn't doubled in the last 50 years, and I would imagin it has been proven to be relatively constant during the years before the industrial revolution. Please, contradict my BELEIF with real SCIENCE.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2010
@ Gunslingor: What?

This article doesn't conflict with my views at all. It sounds like good science to me, so my views, if I had any in regard to sunspots, wouldn't enter into it anyway. Fact is fact. The part about sun spots stopping in 40 years is speculation though, as the story itself says.

I was merely pointing out that the article is an old article that's been resubmitted for some reason. As Shawn G. pointed out, it doesn't even seem to be up to date. One logical reason for digging up an old press release would be that they are preparing to request time on a telescope, and another reason could be a funding review approaching. That's not in any way a bad thing. I was just pointing out my thoughts about why an obviously old article would suddenly re-surface like this. They don't seem to have anything new to add to the story.
gunslingor1
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2010
If it were every climatologist would agree and every technical solution, like nuclear energy, would be promoted and developed worldwide.


You really expect EVERY climatologist to agree!? ha! that'll never happen. A simple majority does me fine. Anyway, the majority should drive our future, not the minority nor the supermajority as you request. Driving off a supermajority is ineffective cause you can never get it; this is what happened to congress after the modifications to the filabuster (spelling baad?)... they are crippled.
Ronan
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2010
Well think of it this way, it will be well definable through the secondary vector of CO2 emissions, "ocean acidification".

If we drop into a period of low solar output and temperatures decline, we'll see a rather marked decrease in the pH of the ocean and potentially a decrease in the measurements of atmospheric CO2.

One immediate benefit will come from the understanding of the solar interaction on the carbon cycle, allowing us to seperate noise from data with higher precision. If anything the issue may become more visible.

Ah, yes; somehow, I always manage to forget about ocean acidification when I'm thinking about the effects of global warming. And the impacts of that on, say, the fishing industry might well be enough to provide enough of an impetus to shift power production to something that doesn't pump CO2 into the atmosphere...hope for the best, I guess.
gunslingor1
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2010
marjon: forget AGW... care about the other other effect, if you don't beleive the evidence by now you never will, lets move on.

1. Are you okay with massive deaths from cancer?
2. Are you okay with ocean acidification?
3. are you okay with 25mpg cars when 100mpg cars can be produced for nearly the same cost?
4. Are you okay with soot in our cities and smog in the air?
5. are you okay with chemicals in your water?

These are all but a few consequences of pollution. Please answer the questions, are you okay with this?

I have.


Good. So you agree it is a bogus claim?
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2010
If a decision has to be made quickly, it should be the majority. You think it should be the minority?

Over and over again we talk, but you never address the other effects of pollution. Please, answer my questions.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2010
Ah, okay. so you think cow farts are to blaim for GW? You think cancer rates are stable? you think ocean ph has not changed? You think CO2 has not doubled?

Okay! I'm done with you then bro... I just don't have the time to give you that much education.
gunslingor1
3.6 / 5 (13) Sep 15, 2010
Read my words in context; when a path forward is needed, science, not belief should be the deciding factor. Scientists never agree 100% as you would desire, so the accepted principles written in the text books comes from the majority. There are people who beleive special relativity is false (like you with negative effects of pollution) but the majority came to consensus. The LARGE, and I mean large, majority think AWG is valid.

Nice article... Cancer DEATHS have decline due to medical advance... Cancer rates ahve increased according to your article which agrees with my sources.

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).."
lol, 2002 article before it was even passed. That was a prediction based on models. What relevance does it have anyway?

gunslingor1
3.6 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2010
The last one, yet again, was an opinion piece, not science.

You don't beleive in scientific measurements using well established methods. As a result, to reiterate, I'm done with you. If you don't beleive in measurement theory you cannot use science at all, only belief... again we come to this. You must be a preacher or something. Go ahead, have the last word, make it good.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2010
This paper is an admission that the Sun has dominant control of Earth's climate and yet another reaffirmation of the unyielding spiritual foundation of science:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

[Numerous Bible verses; Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85]

That truth is more powerful than the combined political influence of Al Gore, world leaders, the UN and the UN's IPCC, science journals, the news media, TV, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA, DOE, EPA and other research agencies that NAS controls through budget review.

So be of good cheer,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

3432682
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 15, 2010
The overwhelming evidence of global warming is 1/2 degree F in 150 years. Yawn.
gunslingor1
3.6 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2010
Yep!!! I sure as heck don't trust em.

Oliver K. Manuel,

Wow, I didn't ealize your coming from that angle.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 15, 2010
Yep!!! On the basis of spiritual truths, I recently requested the resignation of the editor of Nature for promoting three falsehoods as scientific facts:

Falsehoods:

1. Man-made CO2 induced global warming.

2. Earth's heat source is well-behaved H-fusion reactor.

3. Fusion powers the Sun and is our best hope for meeting future energy needs.

Scientific Facts:

1. Earth's heat source is a variable star [Energy & Environ 20 (2009) 131-144]: arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

2. Space-age measurements showed that "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856]: arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509

3. Neutron repulsion supplies most of the Sun energy ["The Sun's origin, composition and source of energy", Lunar & Planet. Sci. Conf. XXXII (2001) paper 1041] and is a far greater source of nuclear energy than H-fusion ["Neutron repulsion" (2010) manuscript under review].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 15, 2010
" . . . only one in four Americans say they trust the government to do what is right always or most of the time, . . ."
http://politicalt...+Ticker)


Thanks, Marjon.

The poll further affirms the validity of this spiritual truth:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

And the absurdity of misusing science as a propaganda tool.

So be of good cheer,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Sanescience
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2010
Once again I am reminded that science and religion are close cousins.

Not because of any intrinsic properties, simply because of human psychology.

Our intellect may now grant us amazing powers of observation, analysis, and control over over our physical environment but we still haven't grappled with the reality that it's purpose is to get what our "animal" (core) brain wants.

And one of those core desires is to be "right", and recognized for it. So you get what I see here, a bunch of people using their intellectual conversation skills to scratch their animal brain "itch" on topics that are so vague and ill defined that only *faith* can explain their levels of certainty.

Oh, and gunslingor1 listed 3 likely causes of massive extinction events in the next 100 years... you left off the most likely one. A bio-engineered disease. Basement bio-hackers are going to replay the computer virus trend, but in real life.

omatumr
2 / 5 (13) Sep 15, 2010
IMHO science and spirituality are close cousins.

Science and religion are often enemies.

S & R are dominated by bigots.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
knikiy
2.5 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2010
I wonder if it really is possible to accurately predict the future by studying the past? Assuming we know all there is to know about the past, but that takes time so now here we are further into the future still playing catch-up. Probably a good idea to hedge our bets.
bhiestand
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2010
Yep!!! On the basis of spiritual truths, I recently requested the resignation of the editor of Nature for promoting three falsehoods as scientific facts...

You heard it here first! Oliver K. Manuel bases his scientific arguments on spiritual truths.

As is common with people who base their arguments entirely on "spiritual truths", you oversimplify every argument, engage in character assassination against everyone who disagrees with you (pretty much every scientist working for a major organization), and make numerous spurious claims, baldly asserting their truth.
bhiestand
3.7 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2010
Sorry to hurt your brain, but life is more complicated than you claim. The sun doesn't "control" the Earth's temperature, it provides one (or more) variable input. Do you argue that the atmosphere has NO effect on temperatures? If so, you're a fool. If not, then you have to agree that both solar activity AND atmospheric changes can affect temperatures on Earth. I'm sure you have a bible verse which disproves this, though?

This article is only talking about one potential input... and it's already irrelevant because we're coming out of the minimum.
Shawn_Goldwater
5 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2010
Actually, per my comment above, I see that spaceweather.com explains that even the occasional spotless day means that solar minimum is still ongoing. Solar max's NEVER have a spotless day, apparently. And our current minimum do seem to be longer.

There's a very helpful explanation with updated data here: http://spaceweath...3bmhqid0
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
Actually, per my comment above, I see that spaceweather.com explains that even the occasional spotless day means that solar minimum is still ongoing. Solar max's NEVER have a spotless day, apparently. And our current minimum do seem to be longer.

There's a very helpful explanation with updated data here: http://spaceweath...3bmhqid0


We shall all be a little colder, by and by.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (11) Sep 16, 2010
I've worked in the plastics industry in the SE part of the USA for the past 27 years and we are starting to see issues we've not experienced before
Here we have steve demonstrating the flip-side wrt the publics skepticism of AGW, .. the publics gullible nature. You're not going to personally NOTICE global temperatures changes. The natural variation in local temperatures washes out any global trend. I too work in plastics (IMM medical) for 18 years in the humidity of Florida, do moisture analysis on dried plastics, pc, nylon, delrin, etc, and notice no problems that aren't seasonal.

gunslingor1
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2010
Oh, and gunslingor1 listed 3 likely causes of massive extinction events in the next 100 years... you left off the most likely one. A bio-engineered disease. Basement bio-hackers are going to replay the computer virus trend, but in real life.

-I don't consider it as important, but still important. 99.999999% of deseases are species specific, if that changes with technology it would be equal to nuclear winter. I am concerned about humanity, but more concerned about the planet... the planet can servive without humans, humans can't survive without the planet yet.. besides, I wouldn't mind seeing this planet produce another (of many, whom are all gone and not quite as intelligent as humans) intelligent species.

bhiestand,
I agree Oliver K. Manuel seems to be a bit evil in my eyes, mixing science with ORGANIZED religion. He cannot be objective at all, after all, he knows how the universe was created, in 7 days =). Therefore he is just being manipulative to make his god happy.
SteveL
4.9 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
I have no idea where that asteroid came from.

No one else will either.
Asteroid impacts are KNOWN to have occur and their effects are documents.
Where is the concern? Where are the chicken littles?
AGW MAY cause...COULD cause....and we MUST act NOW!
On a basis of risk, asteroids should top the list, not AGW.


This is an article about changes in sun spot activity. Asteroids are a separate topic completely. Unless you're a great believer in karma, you should not consider that addressing any human component of global warming will have any effect on an asteroid.

Don't mis-understand: I see evidence of global warming, however to me the jury is still out concerning the degree of effect that humans play in the matter. We seem to repeatedly think it, whatever the present "it" is, is all about us humans. What an incredible ego our species has. In any instance, if a bit of panic can be the motivation to reduce dependence on carbon-based energy, then lets run wild.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (12) Sep 16, 2010
1. You heard it here first! Oliver K. Manuel bases his scientific arguments on spiritual truths.


2. The sun doesn't "control" the Earth's temperature, it provides one (or more) variable input.


3. I agree Oliver K. Manuel seems to be a bit evil in my eyes, mixing science with ORGANIZED religion. He cannot be objective at all, after all, he knows how the universe was created, in 7 days =).


1. No. Science relies on spiritual truths, like:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

2. The Sun heats planet Earth, evaporates water to make the rains that feed the flow of rivers back to the oceans, and the Sun sustains the cycle of life.

3. Spirituality and real science are unlike ORGANIZED religions. I do know how the universe was created, but space age measurements show that our Sun is the re-cycled remains of the supernova that gave birth to the Solar System 5 Gyr ago [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856]:
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3

Oliver K Manuel
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2010
Don't mis-understand: I see evidence of global warming, however to me the jury is still out concerning the degree of effect that humans play in the matter.
Well I agree with that reasoning.
gunslingor1
3.1 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2010
Don't mis-understand: I see evidence of global warming, however to me the jury is still out concerning the degree of effect that humans play in the matter.

-I agree somewhat. We know humans can cause a nuclear winter and kill all life on the planet with a single nuclear war. I think, if I remeber correctly, it would only take 5 H bombs set off around the globe... The US has 100s!.
-as for global warming and mans ability to affect climate in other ways, let me ask this. Do you think that, giving the right resources and time, man COULD someday teraform Mars or other planets? I think the best way to do this, if possible, would be to have a local 6 billion people population change the atmophere with daily activities, not a giant scifi machine.

-All that really matters is that we admit there is a danger. Also realize we have far better fuel sources, without even considering AGW as a factor. I mean, we've harnessed the power of the atom, far greater than any chemical reaction.
SteveL
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
As for omatumr's comparison between science and religion, I have to agree to a certain extent. Just try to question, or profess disbelief in either and you'll notice the same knee-jerk reactions. Both proponents would exclaim blasphemy and do their best and with all sincerity to convince you otherwise - all while concerned for your sanity. I think OKM is just jerking on strings to watch which puppets jump.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (12) Sep 16, 2010
Just try to question, or profess disbelief in either and you'll notice the same knee-jerk reactions.
No. Question science and you'll start an inquiry if the field isn't well known, if the field is well known you'll be confronted with proof and have your error demonstrated to you.

With religion you'll jsut be outcast or possibly murdered.

Science isn't controlled by anyone or any body politic. If you can demonstrate new science it is adopted. If you attempt to demonstrate new religion you're hunted like an animal by prior religions. This is the difference between a body of knowledge and a body of false knowledge.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic, good way to put it I guess.

Religion speaks in a SINGLE absolute, while science speaks in ZERO absolutes. That's why they really aren't compatible; philosophy takes the place of religion in any workable partnership because philosophy, like science, takes nothing as absolute reality, unlike religion which takes everything involved as absolute reality...which is very useful for controlling a population.

Everything is questioned constantly in science, particularly the root of all sciences - physics. a lto of religions tell you you'll burn in hell for all eternity if you question the word and don't "beleive"... hence, you control a great deal of people with what you write under those conditions.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2010
Marjon: Could it be that Pons and Fleischmann might have been relegated to the back burner because they made a serious error? Their experiment was replicated by hundreds of labs and their excess heat was found to be related to inadequate controls in their experiment. Other, much more sensitive experiments showed conclusively that the process did not work. So, you are using a proven embarrassing failure of quality control as your example of scientific persecution. Your true capability to understand science comes out in the belief that Pons and Fleischmann were "driven out of the field." They screwed up big time and announced unproven results on the news instead of having it peer reviewed. Thanks for showing your true colors.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (13) Sep 16, 2010
Events at the National AGU meeting in Washington, DC in April 1976 convinced me that organized science and organized religion are identical twins.

Organized science has suffered severe constipation since then.

The Climategate scandal exposed the basic problem. Perhaps movement in science will start again.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
gunslingor1
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 16, 2010
The Climategate scandal exposed the basic problem. Perhaps movement in science will start again.


-Oliver, have you read any of the climegate emails, or are you just repeating what you saw on TV. Go to wikileaks, download the emails, then come back here and show me exactly which email is incriminating.
-I've alrady done this... There is nothing there other than the typical innappropriate talk that goes on in all offices... but there was nothing deceptive, dishonest or illegal. Please, show me your evidence.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 16, 2010
If you read up, you'll see marjon doesn't beleive in measurement theory, he thinks it's false science. What's he proposing now, perpetual motion? Makes sense considering he doesn't think measurements can be made in this universe.

It really too bad scientists are not open to new ideas.

That comment really takes some balls to come in here and say, and clearly shows more sides of your ignorance.
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (12) Sep 16, 2010
Yep, organized science and organized religion are identical twins.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2010
Marjon: If you read enough you can find reports of hauntings and angels appearing. The report you list seems to be from 1996. I have seen even newer reports listing success but they never stand up to peer review. Liquid flow calorimetry is a very difficult task. It is not unusual for errors to be made. The reason I am familiar with this field is that our lab tried to replicate the P&F work and showed that with 1000 times more sensitivity (thermal measurements are one of our specialties) there was no unaccounted excess heat. I was impressed with the ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen and deuterium. The amount we had could suck up a lecture bottle in seconds. However, we accounted for the heat of absorption and showed there was no nuclear reaction taking place. Time after time the experiments have proven the null hypothesis.
gunslingor1
3.6 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2010
Yep, organized science and organized religion are identical twins.

-I don't know, perhaps your right. But I have yet to see much in the way of "organized" science. I mean really, there isn't a building full of scientists focusing on a single solution with absolutely ZERO flexibility or open mindedness to a better solution, thank god.

This is my conflict with religion, I think the real solution MAY be far better than any religion has conceived yet. And I can't talk to highly religious people because they have no open mindedness to other solutions, they can't they think they'll burn in hell if they question the word! I never have this problem with scientists, and I have yet to see an "organized" equivalent to religion.
gunslingor1
3.6 / 5 (10) Sep 16, 2010
For once, you are right marjon. I spoke without considering the exception to the rule. I have met maybe 4 or 5 seriously religious people whom were seriously open minded to our conversastions, one was a millioniare businessman and one was actually a Rabbi, one was a mentor... can't think of others, but there are a few... and it's not black and white, just a spectrum. Science, needs to be on the far open minded side of the spectrum while religion is completely incapable of approaching that side MOST of the time because of the way it was constructed.

Happy Marjon? =)
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (19) Sep 16, 2010
No.
You are too closed minded. You sound like a bigot who claims to have a few minority friends.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who is a demonstrated bigot with no friends.
otto1932
5 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2010
1. No. Science relies on spiritual truths, like:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."
A Truth which can critically endanger society will not be allowed to propagate. New technologies will not be developed before their Time. Obviously.

Similarly, many necessary developments have been sold under the guise of sensationalism. Plutonium, for instance, is the most valuable material that a civilization at our stage of development can possess.

Fissionables are freedom and insurance, and it took a dire Threat to prompt the enormous concerted Effort to produce them worldwide.

The technologies developed as a consequence of the crisis of AGW are critical to Plans for survival on a world with dwindling resources, and for a decisive effort to colonize space.

The Time for these technologies has arrived; the Methods employed to cause their development are irrelevant to the Fact that we will need them to survive and thrive, whether the earth is warming or not.
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (20) Sep 16, 2010
How do you know?
You just make unsubstantiated claims about religion and me. How scientific!

You have demonstrated your bigotry and misanthropy in virtually every thread in which you comment, marjon. You also demonstrate that you wouldn't know substance from irrelevancy if it smacked you in the face, as evidenced from your bald-faced attempts to inject your social/political/economic opinions into completely irrelevant topics, then lie about them, and them bomb the threads with more irrelevant and cherry-picked quote mining.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 16, 2010
I love how you accuse me of groundlessly attacking you, and then you go and do the very things for which you are attacked. Your ignorant self-righteousness is a better advocate for those who oppose you than anything else they can say.
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2010
“a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet."
They already do, lucky for everybody.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2010
Yep, organized science and organized religion are identical twins.

-I don't know, perhaps your right. But I have yet to see much in the way of "organized" science.


Does this spiritual truth reveal the similarity of organized science and organized religion:

Lao Tzu: "To know that you do not know is best,
To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."

thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2010
marjon: I knew it would come down to your quoting Fox "news." I had assumed that was where you got your "scientific information." Now you have proven that true. Actually, even though Fox tries to spin it, their quote: "The explanation he gave last week was that the impact from greenhouse gas emissions covers a broad "disruption" of climate patterns ranging from precipitation to storms to hot and cold temperatures. Those changes, he said, affect the availability of water, productivity of farms, spread of disease and other factors." tells the story pretty well. Warming of the Earth leads to a change in moisture balance and energy transport in both the oceans and atmosphere. It is disruptive. Then they go on to confuse weather with climate in their quote: "Are they going to change the name of weathermen to disruption analysts?" Once again showing the quality of your science sources.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2010
unlike religion which takes everything involved as absolute reality...which is very useful for controlling a population.
Well that isn't true of all religions. You can't really pass this description off on many types of Buddhism, Shinto, etc. It is a rather strong aspect of western religion.
If it were every climatologist would agree and every technical solution, like nuclear energy, would be promoted and developed worldwide.

Hate to break it to you but Nuclear has become all the rage in every country that actually listens to their climatologists.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2010
The last time a nuclear plant was build in the US was over 30 years ago. My state, South Carolina, is currently planning to build two new ones. They submitted a request for approval to the federal government last year, which is expected to take 3 to 4 years for approval. Local utility companies are paying for this through rate increases, not the federal government. The federal government has been holding them back every step of the way. South Carolina is the first, but there are a total of 14 nuclear reactors planned in the US right now. It takes 15 to 20 years to build them once they get approval. It takes 10 to 15 years to do everything needed to get approval, called a COL (construction and operating license).
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2010
"Do you think that, giving the right resources and time, man COULD someday teraform Mars or other planets?"

Our descendents are counting on it. Currently Mars doesn't have enough mass to hold an atmosphere we can use. It would be an incredible engineering challenge, but I've never been fond of the concept that challenges can't be met. Humanity still has difficulty seeing beyond each present generation, much less to the degree of forsight required to persue the survival of our species.
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2010
The last time a nuclear plant was build in the US was over 30 years ago. My state, South Carolina, is currently planning to build two new ones. They submitted a request for approval to the federal government last year, which is expected to take 3 to 4 years for approval. Local utility companies are paying for this through rate increases, not the federal government. The federal government has been holding them back every step of the way. South Carolina is the first, but there are a total of 14 nuclear reactors planned in the US right now. It takes 15 to 20 years to build them once they get approval. It takes 10 to 15 years to do everything needed to get approval, called a COL (construction and operating license).


And I live only 25 miles from where one in SC is to be built. My youngest son works for an electrical contractor and they are already bidding on the 10-year "Cherokee project".
Star_Gazer
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2010
This is will be good.. will give us a chance to burn off the remaining oil and switch to something different without causing runaway greenhouse effect and turning this planet into venus.. Keep on burning, people!
MorituriMax
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2010
Editors at TG Daily, "We need to ramp up site use in the message boards. Add an article about the Sun and how it's output may be going down. Also link it to possible climate change. Make it vague enough the nobody will be able to cite clear facts for or against global warming."

Mission Accomplished.
TheQuietMan
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2010
I see more personal feuds carried on here than anything. The theory of what could happen during an extended minimum is tentative, we're going to find out either way (including whether the minimum is going to last as long as the tentative prediction.

As for global warming, people see what they want to see. I remember on of my favorite authors saying (paraphrasing), "Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational animal".
ForFreeMinds
2 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2010
Given government's purpose is to preserve our liberties, I think there must be very strong evidence that either man-made or natural activity will harm our lives or liberty before we allow government force to be used to counteract such activity. And the harm must far outweigh the cost. Otherwise, people who want to use the power for their benefit will use fear mongering to achieve those ends.

As far as I can see, no strong evidence that any harm would come from some global warming, or even that there is measurable man made warming. And while we have the record of the little ice age, I don't think that trying to counter the effects is worthwhile. I believe we can readily adapt to either scenario.
bhiestand
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2010
Given government's purpose is to preserve our liberties, I think there must be very strong evidence...before we allow government force to be used to counteract such activity.

That's not the purpose of government, it's just the definition you chose to use because it proves your tautological point.

I can counter that govt's purpose is to prevent others from doing harm to us, necessitating that the government not allow anyone to pollute unless it can be demonstrated that it won't result in harming others, but there's not a constitutional basis for either argument.

In the case of climate change, the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the costs. Most studies show minimal effects on the economy with many potential benefits for the economy--it's really just a small nudge in our domestic policies. The combined costs of climate change, peak oil, toxic pollution, ocean acidification, and energy dependence, on the other hand, have the potential to drastically harm our entire society.
ERF
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2010
The earths climate has many variables affecting it from solar output(all solar output, not just IR) cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, volcanism, Malinkovich cycles, plate tectonics, atmospheric constituents, circulation patterns, ocean/landmass thermal and chemistry effects, aerosols and albedo just to name a few. If a model does not accurately account for all of these effects. Then the model is complete fiction. It's called the real world!
includao
5 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
Our world is operating very close to operational minimums; It's just how our economy works. None of our societies have planned for a disruption in the natural systems that we depend on. If another little ice age appears, the geopolitical effects may be devastating. Nothing motivates wars like resource shortages, especially food.

WWII was instrumental in enabling technology and the systems engineering required to support such technology.
A 'crisis' is also an opportunity.
But, the 'crisis' of GW is way overblown, but not the risk of asteroid impacts.


you are talking about numbers and economical interactions.

we live in a potentially civilized world, we are not used to violence or suffering in large scales. hence why I feel that most humans don't like the idea of being nearly killed or starved to death, considering that GW is true and the effects are disastrous
includao
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2010
How do you know?
You just make unsubstantiated claims about religion and me. How scientific!

You have demonstrated your bigotry and misanthropy in virtually every thread in which you comment, marjon. You also demonstrate that you wouldn't know substance from irrelevancy if it smacked you in the face, as evidenced from your bald-faced attempts to inject your social/political/economic opinions into completely irrelevant topics, then lie about them, and them bomb the threads with more irrelevant and cherry-picked quote mining.

I raise issues and present facts that contradict your assertions and instead of defending the assertion you attack me. That's ok with me as it says more about you than me.


every post from you is an exercise in pseudoscience, fallacies and citations from Fox News. You are an insane paranoid schizopathic instable lunatic that amuses himself citing foxnews and cato institute, completely biased sources.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2010
Given government's purpose is to preserve our liberties, I think there must be very strong evidence that either man-made or natural activity will harm our lives or liberty before we allow government force to be used to counteract such activity.
The money we spend on oil is used to fund the enemies of the country. Is that good enough for you?
The earths climate has many variables affecting it from solar output(all solar output, not just IR) cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, volcanism, Malinkovich cycles, plate tectonics, atmospheric constituents, circulation patterns, ocean/landmass thermal and chemistry effects, aerosols and albedo just to name a few. If a model does not accurately account for all of these effects. Then the model is complete fiction. It's called the real world!

First, the sun doesn't emit IR. The Earth emits IR. Second, one did not model the solar system perfectly on the first pass, yet it greatly improved our understanding of reality.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2010
I just want to show our MARJON is taking his cues from Fox news to manipulate the facts to serve his purpose:
For gunslingor:
""If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less vulnerable to resource-supply disruption than the world we live in now."
The years have been kind to those forecasts -- or more important, the years have been good for humanity. The benign trends have continued. Our species is better off in just about every measurable material way. And there is stronger reason than ever to believe that progressive trends will continue indefinitely."
http://www.cato.o..._id=6263

Now, if you open the referenced article, it first says the following, followed by his prefered arguement:

gunslingor1
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2010
In 1980 the Global 2000 Report to the President began by stating that "if present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now." The introduction to The Resourceful Earth (edited by Julian Simon and the late Herman Kahn) revised that passage: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less vulnerable to resource-supply disruption than the world we live in now."

Do you see now marjon how manipulative you are being. It should be clear from your own action that you care nothing about the solution, only about being 'right', no matter what the cost (just like fox!). You give a two sided opinion article as a reference, present it as fact by only showing your side of the arguement, and assume the rest of us are to stupid to check your sources (just like fox!). Fox must be so proud.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2010
"And I live only 25 miles from where one in SC is to be built. My youngest son works for an electrical contractor and they are already bidding on the 10-year "Cherokee project"

Wow, cool. I live in Pelion (part of Lexington County). We're practically neighbors. :)

"Second, one did not model the solar system perfectly on the first pass, yet it greatly improved our understanding of reality"

Yep, that sums it up; the difference between science and a belief. Science is demonstrable whereas beliefs don't need to be. If you have no models which represent reality, then it starts to sound an aweful lot like a religion to me. Never mind predictions, I challenge anyone to create an accurate model of the CURRENT STATE of our atmosphere, land and sea with any hint of accuracy. Heck, I'll even make the challenge easy. Just get an accurate picture of wind direction around the globe at all altitudes at any given time. Surely that's not too hard with 100 cubic mile grids (10x10x10).
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2010
COOL! Yeah, nukes are definitely up and coming, as they were and should have continued to be 40 years ago.

I'm actually working on the Bellefonte nuclear plant project, we just got approved for the detailed engineering phase... $250million to do the engineering. Construction should start within 2 years.

There is hope, no matter how hard the oil loving marjon likes to fill the pockets of big oil above health and environment, there is still hope.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2010
Science is demonstrable whereas beliefs don't need to be. If you have no models which represent reality, then it starts to sound an aweful lot like a religion to me.
Actually they've already done the wind simulator. When people hear that the models are incomplete, I can't help but link commentary like yours to the misunderstanding that the common public has. When you hear that a model is incomplete, do you think that it's wireframe diagrams as opposed to a full blown CGI motion picture in terms of the scope of incompleteness?

You've missed the point of my statement. We learn more about reality everytime we model. We make a model that is complete to our understanding and run it. Then we compare that model to reality and see what we're missing. Then we investigate reality, find what we're missing and add it to the next model. The next model is run to see if it matches reality. When it doesn't we go exploring again. It isn't a "guess and don't check" game like religion.
gwargh
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2010
Yep, that sums it up; the difference between science and a belief. Science is demonstrable whereas beliefs don't need to be. If you have no models which represent reality, then it starts to sound an aweful lot like a religion to me.


You're missing the point of a model. A model can't be over parametrized, or it is simply a mirror of reality, and becomes unpredictable. The fewer variables you need in a model, the better.
A model is MEANT to be a simplification, and to show trends rather than details. Of course, the models are probabilistic, so the trend may not be followed, but the general expectation (and the general result for a good model) is that it will.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2010
"Models are to be used, not believed."
George Box.

"Don't believe everything that you hear."
-Anonymous

People don't "believe" models. People investigate the rammifications of models and others check those same models for errors. Welcome to the world where saying something doesn't automatically make it true. We call it reality.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2010
The people in IPCC seem to.
Well as we all know "seem" implies your interpretation of events. We also know that you've proved yourself to be a delusional liar.

You can imply whatever you like, it doesn't make your statements factual.

Yes that is an ad hominem attack, and when it comes to reality, you've shown that you're well outside of it making the statement relevant. Just figured I'd save you the one line post and inevitable reply that you're probably constructing in crayon at the moment.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2010
LOL, I feel bad, but he really does deserve it.

I don't think he's said a single comment that got higher than a 1 star.
gunslingor1
3.3 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2010
What matters is what you can prove.

Okay, prove that global warming is false! If you can't, then it doesn't matter to you right!? So stop gabbering about it.

I mean, quarks matter right? yet we cannot prove their existance, only infer it.

We know CO2 has double.
No other source other than man has been PROVEN to be plausible.
We know CO2 aborbs more IR radiation and release more heat.
Therefore we infer a temperature rise is likely.

This was the base of theory developed many decades ago.

The theory has been proven by observations of Venus, therefore we KNOW GW is a real phenominon.

The question then becomes, how much CO2= how much temperature rise.

but you fail to even get to this point in the analysis because you still claim GW is a false theory, even though it has been proven. All you need, to prove it to yourself, is a water bottle filled with air and one filled with CO2, both with a temperature element. Leave em out in the sun and you'll have your prof
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2010
What I keep saying, in science, consensus, votes, 'stars' is immaterial. What matters is what you can prove.
I can prove my ad hominem by quoting your posts from other threads.

What are the uncertainties in climate model predictions past and present?
Statistically significant or all inconsistencies?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2010
First, the sun doesn't emit IR. The Earth emits IR.
Allow me to clarify my quoted statement as it is incorrect as originally posted. The sun emits IR however it doesn't weigh into the radiance budget of the lower atmosphere as it is almost entirely filtered by the upper levels of the upper atmosphere. Thank you for the correction Thermodynamics, I appreciate it.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2010
marjon: Let me explain why no one puts any stock in what you write here. You just quoted an informal letter from Mockton and failed to give the APS disclaimer that went with it. The disclaimer says:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

They went out of their way to reaffirm that he was wrong. They put it up to give more than ample space to deniers like you. His conclusions are classic examples of wrong interpretations, such as his assertion the Earth has not warmed since 1998. Great example of why your comments are not worth the electrons wasted to show them.
gunslingor1
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2010
Why did APS publish?

-because we like to here opposing arguements to scientific theories. The problem with this one singular subject is that the opposition has no cloths.. they are opposing to obstruct, not to inform, as you yourself are doing.

God exists. Prove it false.

BY YOUR OWN PREVIOUS LOGIC, SINCE YOU CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, GOD DOESN"T MATTER. I disagree with this wholeheartedly... but I guess you only like to play in your own little ballpark of a reality.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (17) Sep 20, 2010
I don't know how many times I have to correct you on this, marjon, but science works entirely by consensus. The methods science employs are agreed to by consensus, they conclusions they come to are confirmed by consensus, the experiments are repeated by peers to form a consensus. The very fact that new, revolutionary scientific theories often only become dominant after the old guard dies off proves that science works by consensus. The isolated, idiosyncratic researcher will never change science unless he can create a consensus about what he finds. Science isn't about finding metaphysical "Truth." It's about finding practical correlations, making predictions, and applying those correlations and predictions to our lives. This is an entirely consensual affair.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2010
Yes, Planck was right. When the old guard opponents are so entrenched and institutionalized the only thing that changes scientific consensus is their deaths, and the younger scientists forming a consensus behind their backs. And when the opponents are really good at indoctrination, it can take generations for an alternate consensus to emerge. The point is that this is how science does its work, by forming a consensus between its practitioners.
gunslingor1
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2010
I agree... AGW is well accepted, most opponents have already either switched sides or died.. It is the accepted theory.

Ever George Bush, FINALLY!, after many years of denying the possibilities of pollution having any negative consequences what so ever, FINAL!, admitted, not only are green house gases a danger, but the increase was caused by man. GEORGE BUSH, FINALLY!

What does that say about you, lol, just kidding; no one is as stupid as that guy, lolol.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
Okay, prove that global warming is false! If you can't, then it doesn't matter to you right!? So stop gabbering about it.

God exists. Prove it false.
Using the statements of God's requirement to answer prayer as noted in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16, one can prove that God doesn't exist simply through praying for an item and watching it not appear.
So why hasn't the global mean temp increased just as fast a CO2?
Correlation is not causation.
Except when you understand the physics of CO2 and IR absorption. A doubling of CO2 does not create a doubling of warming in a linear scale. It is asymptotic.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2010
First, the sun doesn't emit IR. The Earth emits IR.
Allow me to clarify my quoted statement as it is incorrect as originally posted. The sun emits IR however it doesn't weigh into the radiance budget of the lower atmosphere as it is almost entirely filtered by the upper levels of the upper atmosphere. Thank you for the correction Thermodynamics, I appreciate it.

And allow me to clarify again.

I was flatly incorrect. The sun does emit Ir within the lower atmosphere. My apologies, shouldn't happen again, I recant my prior statement, thanks again Thermo.
snwboardn
1 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2010
Instead of arguing the same facts any time GW is brought up why don't you guys spend some time arguing on what should be done about it? People on both side are in a status-quo argument that isnt changing anything. There are only a few options;
1. Population reduction - Highly unethical
2. Increase technology to be more efficient - which during our current economical troubles is highly unlikely
3. Force everyone to live like the guy on Discovery's "Dual Survival" ... barefoot and eating grubs
Take your pick and do something about it...
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2010
marjon: Once again you are incorrect. The response of the earth has no logarithmic relationship to CO2. The response is more complex and non-linear. Instead of a simple relationship of input to the atmosphere you have the thermal mass of the earth and each type of absorber (solid, liquid, gas) and the fluids are in motion (both horizontally and vertically). As an example, to control a simple system like a furnace, we have to use controllers which respond to change as direct, first derivative, second derivative, and integral. There is no way to directly control based on input and any direct relationship to temperature. However, we know that if we want the system to get hotter we turn up the energy source and if we want it to cool down we turn down the energy source. The earth is similar. Turn up the energy source and it gets hotter in a complex way. That includes excursions up and down as the temperature increases (just like a typical furnace will oscillate as it heats).
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
snwboardn: You have a great point about being proactive, however, to act you have to have support. While you might think that everyone will jump behind action, you are wrong. There are many people out there who have no idea of the science, get their information from FOX news, and don't believe there is any problem at all. Without the public understanding there is a problem that should be acted on there will be no action. It is the rest of the people who are influenced by the deniers that I try to reach in this forum by laying out the science as it stands right now. Then those who have not been following the science can understand it better. There are a lot of "grenade" throwers in this forum who put forward the denier agenda without the science. Those are the people many of us try to counter. It is not, generally, an argument since the deniers repeat sound bites that have been proven wrong. We just want to make sure the casual reader knows the science and the references.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2010
marjon: Did you even get a GED?

You state:"That source is the sun. How do you plan to turn it up?" In response to my comment about a furnace.

Since you might really be as poorly educated as you appear to be, I will try to explain this so that you can understand. In the case of GHGs the source is the Earth (secondary to the sun which is approximately constant). The earth radiates, predominantly in the IR. Some of that is trapped by the CO2. We turn up that source by increasing CO2. I know you are going to come back with something equally as ignorant, but I had to try to answer anyway.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
marjon: On the other set of questions you asked: "But you know what each ppm of CO2 will do?
How do you model atm H2O: vapor that absorbs IR and clouds that reflect?
If CO2 is such a major heat trap, has the daily high-low temperature spread in deserts decreased?
A good measure of humidity is to look at the high and low daily temp. If it is ~40F, it is very dry. If"

What part of my statement: "The response is more complex and non-linear." did you not understand?

If you really care about those questions you should do some homework and get answers to them. It would take me thousands of words and some referring to papers and books to adequately answer those questions. Do your own homework for a change. Quit trying to divert the discussion with your tangent questions.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2010
Water as a component of our atmosphere is easy to model. There's just about as much water vapor in the atmosphere as the atmosphere can hold, as evidenced by the fact that there are lots of clouds in the sky somewhere in the world, all the time. If there were much more water vapor in the atmosphere, it would condense out and produce what sane people call rain. Water vapor is a red herring.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
marjon: So, you have your own answers to your questions. As suspected, you were just baiting anyone who would go for your trolling. Of course your answers are wrong, but I would expect nothing more from you.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2010
Except when you understand the physics of CO2 and IR absorption. A doubling of CO2 does not create a doubling of warming in a linear scale. It is asymptotic.

No, it is logarithmic.

So you don't know what asymptotic means. Perhaps you should frequent a different site. One where definitions don't matter and people only use commonly used words.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
Give it up marjon. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? You haven't convinced a soul, as is evident from your comment ratings. Don't you know when you have lost an arguement? Can't you give up? I mean, if your right then nothing will happen and if we are right life as we know it may no longer be possible; you must be an alteriative motive, why obstruct us? your arguements are either moronic, contradictory or just facetious responses to our comments... you provide no evidence, only opinions and pretend like it's scientific data. You do not beleive in measurements for some bizzar reason.

You really can only be one of two things in my eyes, either ignorant and incompetant or curropt and manipulative.
gwargh
5 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2010
marjon is a partisan. In all that I've spoken to him, he simply believes all scientists to be "progressives", "leftists", etc. He's the new breed of conservative that makes moderates out of the normal conservatives (me included), because everything done by these leftists is clearly an attempt to turn the world into a liberal paradise, where, somehow, liberals take away all your rights, because that is clearly what liberals try to do. He sees no reason, hears no reason and smells no reason. I had, and in some sense, still have hope that he will understand the error of his reasoning, but this seems less and less likely.
gunslingor1
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2010
why obstruct us?
Because you want to obstruct me.


Yeah, I obstruct you trying to obstruct us saving the freaking planet man. It's not like we are evil, we are trying to save your life and you look us straight in the face and say FU and call us lieres. What's your agenda, to be write at all costs?

Where does the earth get its heat?

primarily the sun followed by radioactive decay in the earth. You should really know this if your going to be argueing these subjects.

gwargh,

I couldn't agree more. Marjon stinks of big oil, tea party and fox news. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he's being paid to post on these sites... in which case he along with Sarrah Palin (if in still in office) should be fired due to incompetence, lol.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2010
First off, in 73 I was negative 8 years old.
If you decide to 'save the planet' using technology, free markets and persuasion, I can support you. If you believe you all have some special knowledge and know what is best for the rest of humanity and use the power of the state to force 'saving the planet', I will oppose that as it has been demonstrated to fail in the past.

I completely agree with that under most situations. The problem in this case, we don't have a free market. I mean you buy oil from Shell, Amaco, whatever... the price is fixed and manipulated by oil futures, intentionally in my opinion. So how do you expect capitalism to decide when we really have a corporate run socialist system?

You should know better than most, posting on these blogs. There is a huge demand for fuel efficient vehicles, and the technology is there, google 300mpg, research other designs.

The market decided long ago, but monopolies on products of necessity are outside the free market.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
We are literally being "FORCED", to use your words, to kill the planet. We want a free market that will bring better products to us. But they resist because, i suspect, they fear losing control over the population. I have no special knowledge other than knowing far more about Coal, combustion turbines, Nuclear generating stations and more then most, it's my job. But everything I know about climate is common knowledge at this point, at least for technically minded folks.

You think I'm claiming I know what's best for humanity and I'm trying to force it on the US! Not at all. I'm simply trying to stop people like you from forcing me to die of cancer. Your agenda to keep the status quo directly affects me, my agenda to set minimum full efficiency standards to a modern level has little to no impact on you.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
What I ask for is no different than a speed limit. To be analogious, from your standpoint (which I do understand and sympathize with), a speed limit is infringing on societies rights to go fast. From my viewpoint, not having a speed limit is infridging on peoples rights to life which will be lost more often without speed limits.

There are advantages and disadvantages to all systems. Nuclear isn't 100% perfect, but compared to coal (a thousand year old fuel source) it's 500% perfect. There comes a point, when technology has progressed to certain epoches, were the choice is obvious because the advantages infinitely outway the disadvantages. Ignoring AGW, fossil fuels are obsolete. Unfortunately, since fossil is largely controlled entirely by 4 or 5 US companies (british BP being a lapdog or partner in crime of the US) the free market is hushed.

The market has spoken. But big oil is not a free market by anymeans, and your far more ignorant than I thought if you think this.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
Hey anyone going to the "Million Moderate March" aka "festival to restore sanity to Washington vs. feastival to keep fear alive and restore truthiness to Washington" in Washington?

John Stewart and Steven Colbert are doing a counter festival to Glenn Beck trying to be MLK.

It's gonna be HUGE!

it's 10-30-10

I'm going no matter what, even if I have to quite my job.
bhiestand
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
I'm considering it, gunslingor7, but not sure I'll be able to make it. Plenty of my friends and family, going.

I'm more interested in "Keep Fear Alive", though. I've been waiting for an excuse to use my "STOP THEM BEFORE THEY EAT OUR BABIES!" sign.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2010
Hey anyone going to the "Million Moderate March" aka "festival to restore sanity to Washington vs. feastival to keep fear alive and restore truthiness to Washington" in Washington?
I'll be there guns. I wouldn't miss it for anything.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2010
Guys, lets MEET UP! Seriously!
snwboardn
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010


I'm going no matter what, even if I have to quite my job.


Give me your boss's number so I can call him for an interview after you pack up your desk ;)
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
"First, the demagoguery: There is no such entity as Big Oil. The idea that large American oil companies are able to manipulate oil or gasoline prices is nonsense. Only 6 percent of world oil reserves are held by investor-owned oil companies while nearly 80 percent are owned by the national oil companies of foreign governments. "
Big Oil is defined as a trade cartel, primarily composed of OPEC member states. Your source is almost as ignorant as you are.
we should reverse current policies that discourage the production of domestic oil and natural gas. That means expanding access to non-park federal lands in the West, Alaska, and under the waters off our coasts.
I'll pass. How about we use something other than the last known domestic energy reserves, like nuclear or anything other than fossil fuels.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
And govt's mandate all sorts of safety features driving up the weight. Look at all the university competition for fuel efficient vehicles. Where is a commercially viable 300 mpg car? Viability means producible and reliable at a reasonable price.

-like I said, do the freaking research dude. 300mpg is an extreme version.. If they can make a 300mpg car running on gas alone, you don't think they could make one using modern technologies with 100-200mpg?

Come on dude, your just being argumentative and ignorant if you really think 30mpg is the best we can do. Do you really beleive this?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
The story is about sun spots. The headline is poor at best, as it refers to a linear projection that the original author stated that there is no evidence for the trend to continue linearly.

I'm not sure where the debate about CO2 enters into this, but since Pandora's box seems to be missing it's lid:

Finding good cheap energy sources besides coal and oil seems like an obvious win-win for everyone. You would be stupid not to support such efforts as conservation, alternative energy of all types, more efficient transportation, agriculture, industial processes, heating and air conditioning, etc. The economic benefits alone are enough to support these efforts. The argument I have is not against those efforts. The tragedy I see is that these issues have been handcuffed to CO2 levels so that a global market of carbon credits worth in excess of 100 billion euros anually can be created. That situation is made worse by the fact that the regulatory oversite is done by the ones getting rich.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
The tragedy I see is that these issues have been handcuffed to CO2 levels so that a global market of carbon credits worth in excess of 100 billion euros anually can be created. That situation is made worse by the fact that the regulatory oversite is done by the ones getting rich.
I think the majority of us are in agreement with this stance. My question is why don't you speak to this point as opposed to continuously speaking to the status quo as the only other option?
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
Gswift, I agree with most of what you said.

The tragedy I see is that these issues have been handcuffed to CO2 levels

I agree. People like marjon refuse to acknowledge the other benefits of modern technology, like reduced cancer, no suite in citys, no ocean acidification, far cheaper fuel, more choices, no dependance on foriegn energy, etc..

In my opinion, the reason the debate of our energy future, as discussed by the media, is only focus on foreign dependance and CO2 levels is because these are still a bit debatable. The other issues really aren't. They really like to maintain the we are still researching phase. It's like my chemist roomate in college. He worked for Lever, soap mfr, to develop a phospherous free detergent (which creates serious issues in our waters), spent 2 years and developed a good product. gave the package to his boss and his boss throw it in a draw; when he ask what next, his boss said "nothing, we just need to maintain the appearance of caring".
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
Yes, I have a hard time voicing my thoughts because it is a complicated issue and it's easy to become diverted into debate over minutiea (spelling?). As I've said many times, I fully support research funding far in excess of what we currently do. I really did mean it when I described the current political debate as a tragedy. I think many people, especially Americans, get caught up in the arguement over whether CO2 is causing GW and the other arguement about whether reductions in CO2 by cap and trade will have any effect. I personally find cap and trade to be about the worst thing anyone has ever done for environmental progress. Huge sums of money that may otherwise have gone to good purpose are now funnelled into the pockets of people with only self interest. There are plenty of better ideas than cap and trade that would accomplish so much more with so much less damaging side-effects. If they were proposing a better scheme than C&T then I think fewer conservatives would oppose them.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
Of course, with even just a few small modifications to cap and trade, even I may support the effort. I just want to keep Al Gore's hands out of the cookie jar and make sure anyone getting rich from the deal is in full view of the public eye. The trading could be done exclusively through audited non-profits for example. The system should also include a renew/non-renew drop dead date rather than being a never ending fountain of money for the CO2 credit brokers. The way it is now, there's no transparency to the public and no accountability to any third party. Electric bills in the US could go to any imaginable level, and there would be no way for us to change it or to find out where all that money is going. I do like the free market approach, but even the stock market has checks and balances, and safety valves to prevent disaster.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
One more thing: 100 billion Euros is quite a big incentive for corruption. In fact, there's no way that much money is at stake without corruption occurring, even to the extent of murder, extortion, conspiracy, espionage etc. Those things are done for far less money than 100 billion euros every day. Try suggesting a change in the C&T scheme that takes the money out of Al Gore's pocket and see what happens. We civilians should refuse to accept any CO2 reduction plan that allows third party individuals to become wealthy, in my opinion. It's just blatantly counter-productive to real climate/energy progress.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
I agree for the most part. As your probably aware, cap and trade didn't originate as an environmentalist idea.

Here's the problem. Everytime we do the analysis and determine the best course of action, we are ignored and responded to with "its to hard" or other mombo jumbo.

These oil companies still like to maintain an appeaerance of caring. So they propose knowing unworkable solutions like wind or solar or clean coal and push them hard.

So us environmental engineers say, okay, you want wind... here's your 5MW wind turbines... you want solar, okay, here's the design of a 60% efficent cell + water heater design... you want clean coal, okay here, build a activated carbon filtration system the size of manhattan and you'll capture 10% of the CO2. Any workable solution is ignored. I suspect this is what is happening with carbon credits.

It can work if designed right. I mean, just the expection of it coming is having a dramatic effect. I'm actually involved in the following:
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
http://www.greenb...ed-units

Tva is planning for the coming carbon trade by closing coal units, building more nuclear and installing basic pollution controls on the coal units that remain (these pollution controls have a negligable effect, but it helps I guess).

Your right though. If they create loopholes in the system, TVA's plan will be scrapped and we'll have to start over AGAIN!

Anyway, note that the cap n trade isn't designed to be run by third party's, but it probably will be; that's just wallstreet for you, repackaging everything under the sun.

Here is how it is supposed to work: Every carbon produce is given credits, for free, by the government. If you don't use them all (by installing pollution controls and such) you can sell them... some will be sold to third parties as you state. The last part, which is mostly ignored yet the most import part, is that every year, the gov reduces the amount of credits it gives.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
That's the only way it will work, and there has to be a target like "In 2050 ZERO carbon creadits will be given, though a small amount may still be available in the market for those lagging behind the transion".

This is a workable solution, it's not the BEST solution in my opinion, but it's workable. Rather than installing expensive and fairly ineffective pollution controls on coal units that are going to be shut down, just build nuclear which is far more profitable than coal, even with the over regulation. Instead of CT/CC sites, build solar thermal and such.

Rather than progressively and ineffectively increasing full efficiency standards for gas cars, but not trucks which have zero pollution controls, simply switch our fuel source to a more benign source. Electric or hydrogen seem the best to me, but there are others.

There is a VERY good chance we are far past the point of no return. There is still a small amount of hope, it's why I'm an engineer working in power.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
I personally find cap and trade to be about the worst thing anyone has ever done for environmental progress. Huge sums of money that may otherwise have gone to good purpose are now funnelled into the pockets of people with only self interest. There are plenty of better ideas than cap and trade that would accomplish so much more with so much less damaging side-effects. If they were proposing a better scheme than C&T then I think fewer conservatives would oppose them.
Well I have to disagree with two points you raise here. C&T was well done with CFC emissions, however I see CFC emission and CO2 emission to be wholly seperate issues as CFCs were easily replaced while CO2 doesn't have a replacement, only a mitigation.
For the most part, you're correct, C&T is just another Big Business casino except the house (people) always loses.

As for conservatives, the tide of conservatism in the US has changed greatly in the past 10 years. They've become status quo supporters.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
Now you are getting into areas where there are some huge differences of opinion. My point is that we really don't even need to get into that kind of debate. Whether AGW is real or not doesn't even matter. Whether CO2 is significant doesn't matter. Imagine the end result if we take a smarter approach to this thing. Say, for example, that the US embarks on a dedicated search for solar energy collection similar to the Manhattan Project. Would that work? How about another project of that nature focused on creating a better battery/capacitor. Such projects would pay for themselves many times over. Imagine every home in the civilized world being able to go off-grid in five or ten years. Wow. Now that's what we need; Not carbon credits. If Obama really wants to do something cool, he has the power to do stuff like that without even having to pass any new laws. Nobody would object to an effort like that except big oil. lol.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
Completely agreed, however, Big Oil does own a good portion of our government. Just look at the ban on imported ethanol from Brazil.

We need another Apollo/Manhatten project for energy, and we need it now. When Biden said "You need to spend yourself out of debt" he was right. The problem is, the stimulus isn't the type of spending that gets you out of debt. A large scale technology and industry project does.
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
I agree completely with both of you. Big oil does own a big chunk of the soul of our governemnt. That's the problem Gswift, your ideas are the BEST solutions. But big oil, whom does own a great deal of shares in media outlets as well, only allows unworkable solutions to come to the table. As soon it becomes workable with a lot of work and inovation, they kill it. As soon as 5MW wind turbines were developed, Bush killed the subsidies. Same happened to Solar. Same thing happened with the EV-1.

....solar energy collection similar to the Manhattan Project. ...

Yes. Neglicting transmission issues, It would only take a PV array 100x100 miles placed in texas to power the entire US grid. Switch it to solar thermal and it would only have to be 50x50 miles (estimating here).

...focused on creating a better battery/capacitor.

Already been done, the patents are now owned by big oil and kept quite. Same thing happened with Debears, owning diamond production patents.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
BRAVO, I couldn't agree more. Offer wild salaries to attract the best minds in the world if that's what it takes, though I suspect that the best people would offer body parts in exchange for a chance to be part of it. The really cool part of such a project is that it could end up being privately funded, at least in part. Unlike the Apollo or Manhatten projects, a project to develop alternative energy would actually have enough potential to be profitable to attract private investment, especially in this economy.

And the best part of all: the patents would be publicly held. :)
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
Shoot, I've already sacriced a big chunk of my life to be part of it. Anyway, I am severely glad we agree on a path forward, regardless of our opinions on GW, and most technical minds would agree. But technical minds don't run this country, technical minds don't run these businesses, corporate minds do.

So what do we do now guys? Please!
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
"So what do we do now guys? Please!"

GSwift7 for President?
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
A wolf in sheeps clothing, sneaking up the ranks of big oil or governement, I think, is the only real hope until things get really bad. When cancer rates top 50, ground water is undrinkable, the gulf of mexico is a tar pit, and the air is unbreathable without filtration, I do think there will be a real revolution... but that would, obviously be to late.

So strange about humanity, we have to see a disaterious result before we beleave there is a danger. A lot like indutrsial cyber security which I've worked on, no one is taking it seriously even though I or any moderately knowledgable hacker could take control of these plants from the house for god's sake.

It take a disaster to make us move, or a supermajority. Freaking supermajorities.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
Shoot, I've already sacriced a big chunk of my life to be part of it. Anyway, I am severely glad we agree on a path forward, regardless of our opinions on GW, and most technical minds would agree. But technical minds don't run this country, technical minds don't run these businesses, corporate minds do.

So what do we do now guys? Please!

Marketing an idea isn't based on the idea. It is based in having others agree with your beliefs which will lead them to acting as you do.

Since we've determined that at least us 3 have the same beliefs, we simply need to spread our ideology around and let those who are interested, buy in of their own accord. If you want the government to do something, you build a PAC or Lobby and start making yourself heard.

I'm up for that, or starting even garage projects and moving forward from there. With the brainpower on this site and some of the contacts we have we could get something going.

Hell, GPS was born out of a side project.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
Skeptic, your a man after my own heart.

We should really meet up at that festival.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
Skeptic, your a man after my own heart.

We should really meet up at that festival.


So I think the real question here is, who else is in?
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
I'm up for that, or starting even garage projects and moving forward from there. With the brainpower on this site and some of the contacts we have we could get something going.

I've been studying fuel efficient car designs since the age of 13, almost 2 decades now, in my personal time. I am 110% positive I can make a normal looking sedan (not the bizar looking pruis and leaf designs) that will get a MINIMUM of 100 mpg, will be ale to accept a variety of fuel sources, increase the range compared to traditional sedans, and have zero loss of performance.

But it would take some real capital to design and build the prototype... this is why I work.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
yeah, the Tucker got a supposed 35 mpg all the way back in 1948 I believe. Of course that didn't include a catalytic converter, and it probably used leaded fuel, but still not bad for that day.

"So I think the real question here is, who else is in?"

What does it take to propose a referendum?

Yeah, I know. There aren't any federal referendums, but I'm surprised to read that only the West half of the country (mainly) have referendum at the state level.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
What does it take to propose a referendum?

Yeah, I know. There aren't any federal referendums, but I'm surprised to read that only the West half of the country (mainly) have referendum at the state level.

There's a method to get bills proposed in congress for residents of MA. I know quite a few residents. Let me perform some investigation and see what we'd have to do.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
If you wanted to organize a movement or form an organization of citizens, what would be the goal? Would you be specific, for example seeking funding for a "Zues Solar Power Project", or would you be more general, seeking support for a "Power of the Future" general research drive, or some other option?
gunslingor1
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
I think the first step should be a 6 month analysis of all the options in writing, followed by implementation of the BEST options.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
I humbly suggest being as specific as possible. The goal of "Save the Planet" is already in use, if you know what I mean. I personally like the idea of promoting a national project to seek out and implement one clean power source that can compete with coal, oil or gas. The key to the success of Manhatten and Apollo is that they were laser focused on a specific goal.
MattPenn
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2010
Hello,

Please remove the following sentence from your first paragraph: "They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades."

If you read our paper, which you have linked to this web page, you will see that the latest data suggest that 1/2 of the sunspots may be absent from the solar surface in 2021. This is also clearly seen in our Figure 1.

Thank-you for your interest in this exciting field of research; but I hope you can do a better job moving forward when you present summaries of scientific papers.

Best wishes,
Matt Penn
NSO, Tucson
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
I humbly suggest being as specific as possible. The goal of "Save the Planet" is already in use, if you know what I mean. I personally like the idea of promoting a national project to seek out and implement one clean power source that can compete with coal, oil or gas. The key to the success of Manhatten and Apollo is that they were laser focused on a specific goal.
Agreed. There's an old joke that's told in NASA circles where everyone tried to get their pet project into the Apollo mission.

After about 4 days of arguing, the lead engineer stood up and said "Do you gentlemen want to get to the moon or not?"

I want to get there.
TehDog
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2010
"Three-wheeled cars offer unique advantages in aerodynamic design and build costs, but they also work from a fundamental disadvantage in terms of handling. "
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Reliant Robin :-

http://www.youtub...CkjX3PWs

tbh, when you stick an overweight yorkshire man in one of those, you are asking for trouble :)
I actually drove one of these many years ago, it was quite stable.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2010
What do moderates get excited about? They claim to be moderate.
What do Christians have to be proud of, they claim to be humble.
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2010
Alright guys, no more bickering. Marjon, thank you for your attempts at being productive. I honestly haven't put much thought into 3 wheeled vehicles, I don't think it's needed. I think we need to offer a car that looks and feels little different than gasoline cars. Like the prius, ugly as hell; if it was a normal gas car, I would never consider buying it.

Anyway folks, I agree on the direct goal. But anything that focuses on researching more 'unknown', 'undiscovered' or 'unworkable' alternatives, I don't want to be part of.. its being done enough. We have existing technologies that will work just fine, far better than what we currently have. We just need to do the calculations formally, write them up, determine the precise details of the plan (e.g. car designs, how many nuclear solar etc sites are needed, timeline and steps to phase out coal, etc)and start pushing hard for implementation.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2010
We have existing technologies that will work just fine, far better than what we currently have.
Electric Diesel hybrids that can run SVO straight and get about 80-120 MPG. Effectively banned in the US due to the government's interest in domestic automakers. It's embarassing to watch ourselves flounder in this country.
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2010
We have existing technologies that will work just fine, far better than what we currently have.
Electric Diesel hybrids that can run SVO straight and get about 80-120 MPG. Effectively banned in the US due to the government's interest in domestic automakers. It's embarassing to watch ourselves flounder in this country.


Agreed about the floundering, but I want to stay away from diesel. high efficiency does not always mean less pollution, particular talking about diesels. Oil company's are pushing for diesels because there is less overhead associated with refining, but diesil is the dirtiest of dirties. Lets just try to give the consumer the option to get off of fossil completely; currently, there is no option. We can make the car able to run on fossil if we plan on designing a hydrogen internal combustion engine, but really, the main goal should be changing our primary fuel sources; at least giving the consumer the ability to make capitalism work.
gunslingor1
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2010
marjon, we are not by any means on the side of big government, we are not by any means on the side of big business, we are however on the side of big truths.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2010
Agreed about the floundering, but I want to stay away from diesel. high efficiency does not always mean less pollution, particular talking about diesels.
That's why I said "SVO" otherwise known as "Straight Vegetable Oil". Completely petroleum free.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2010
Regulations are laws.
Governments are composed of people.
People are not laws.
Therefore, regulations are not government.

Do try to use those crayons rather than eating them or stuffing them up your nose going forward.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2010
-The larger the population, the more laws are required to maintain order.
-The larger the corporations grow, the more regulations are required.

This is just basic rules of governance. Tea partiers don't seem to mind big governement stepping in to pass more laws against civilians (like no gay mariage or abortions), but they do seem to care about laws passed against big business. I wonder why?

You seem to be under the impression that markets can make the best decisions for the people (rather than government) but markets do not always make the best decisions. Markets exist for profit alone. If there was no regulation of these companies, heroin would be legal and we would all be junkies. Government, at least in principle in this country, exists for the people and by the people. I don't trust either, but overa long enough timeline, governement will make the better choices for society more often. They have to maintain an appears of 'for the people by the people', business does not.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
Governments are composed of people.

Those govt people enforce the laws and the regulations they write.
We should excuse the concentration camp guards who were just following the law?
People write the regulations, sometimes with zero authority from Congress (those are people, too.)
If you violate regulation, who will punish you? The people who work for the govt, who are just following the orders from other people who are govt agents.


What the hell is your point?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2010
Governments are composed of people.

Those govt people enforce the laws and the regulations they write.
We should excuse the concentration camp guards who were just following the law?
People write the regulations, sometimes with zero authority from Congress (those are people, too.)
If you violate regulation, who will punish you? The people who work for the govt, who are just following the orders from other people who are govt agents.
Are you telling us that you want more government regulators and fewer regulations? Your stance doesn't make sense.

It only takes 3 groups of people to enforce regulations. The group making the regulations (Congress or a proxy empowered by congress), the judicial system of judges and courts, and the auditors checking the regulated to ensure that the regulations are working properly and being adhered to.

You don't seem to understand how checks and balances work.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2010
Markets exist to meet the needs and wants of those who participate in the market. In a free trade, both profit from the trade or the trade would not occur. If value your product more than I value my dollar and you value my dollar more than your product. We trade and we both receive value. Win-win.

It is never that simple, especial in this day and age.

Markets exist to meet the needs and wants of those who participate in the market.

True, consumers needs are meet and the needs of the business are also met. But governement also exists for the needs of the people. So what's your point? there needs to be a balance, this should be the arguement; not whether we need more or less governement in general, but where and when governement should be applied. Do you really beleive in a 100% capitalist system with zero governement oversite? To me, this is as bad if not far worse than being a Marxist.

Any wrokable form of modern governement takes piece from ALL classical forms.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2010
Says who?
The tea party members what the federal government to be limited by the Constitution as it was designed.
The average Tea Party member doesn't have more than a high school education and is easily tricked into doing what their corporate overlords in the GOP want them to do.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2010
For example Marjon,

Business lobists somehow got the governement to make it illegal to put the following label on food: "Not Genetically Modified".

Now, the governement is pretty evil for doing this, but so is business. Business themselves, in this case, are trying to take control of the markets by taking away the consumers rights to choice.

We have to keep business and governement separated, and both need to check the other for unethical behavior. When the colude, the above happens and, inevitably, coorporations, not the market, end up running everything.

Do you really argue with this man? Lets try to find common ground. Tell me what you agree with first. Then we can adress the disagreements; this will be far more productive for you.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2010
Sorry Marjon, the above example should make it clear that the republican party, and it was primarily republicans +1 democrate, I think, that did this... should make it clear that the republican party isn't interested in free market, they are interested in business dictated regulation for the benefit of corporations, not the people.

Another example of business dictating there own regulations is pharmaceutical adds. The association of medical examiners originally recommend that the governement not allow adds of drugs because patients will see them, want the drugs as advertised without really understanding the cemistry and risk, and go to the doctors seeking the drugs and influencing the prognosis; rather than the doctor precribing an appropriate drug. This was the case for many years until, now, not only can you advertise drugs, you can lie about the effects.

This is not for the good of the people, it's for more profit for the drug companies. This is what the republicians stand for
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2010
The government put itself in the business of regulating food and demanding all sorts of information on labels. Why shouldn't the producers of food have a say?

-As they should. If they didn't, food producers wouldn't even have to tell the consumers nutritional contents, thus taking away the ability to chose healthy non processed foods. I can't beleive this is what you want. You really don't want someone to force these guys to tell the us what they do to our food? How do you expect capitalism to work? Damn straight producers should have a say. Food producers were trying to have a say; organic farmers wanted to market their product as "not genetically modified" because most food we buy today is genetically modified without consumers knowledge and this would have given the small producers a leg up in the markets. Monsanto got the law pasted making it illegal to put the label. This is not capitalism buddy, a MONOPOLY ON NECESSITY IS INCAPABLE OF CAPITALISM. So what do we do?
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2010
When have I NOT said this?
All my opponents demand government inference in business.

-We have no choice at this point. Your party is all about interference in peoples lives; no gay marriage, no abortion, no pot, warrentless wiretapping, etc. But they want business to be 100% free to manipulate markets and control consumer choices. I'm all for reducing laws for consumers, but not for business in this day and age. This has limits; I mean, when the fathers gave the right to bare arms, do you think they intented us to have the right of a citizen to have a hydrogen bomb? Do you think we should have the right to an H bomb?

What needs? The Constitution defined those needs quite explicitly, ..

-What needs!? Protecting citizens from enemies, BOTH FOREIGN AND DEMESTIC including corporations and civilians, both, not one or the other.

As great as the constitution is, we also need to understand it was writen by racist slave owners before the electronics age.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2010
What is govt oversight? The govt's job is to protect property rights in a free market. Govt is not necessary for this function as this can be accomplished by the private sector.

-come on man, you really want tobaco mfrs to market there products as healthy? You seem to be all about giving preference to business rights over the rights of civilians, why? I want to know what they do to my food; you want them to have the rights to hide this from me and force the good food producers, the honest farmers, out of business.

-You want to live in a world where everything is run by big business? That means a toll on every road, it means mining and minerals doesn't have to pay royalties from materials owned by all americans, it means price fixing and false advertising. It does not mean a free market, it means a market who's regulations are dictated by only the most powerful corporations, not the small farmer. Is this the world you want?

Capitalism can work, but only when rules are set.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2010
You need to comprehend that the rights of business in a truely 100% FREE MARKET sometimes conflicts with the rights of civilians in a democracy or republic. Resolution is required.

You always prefer business rights over citizen rights? But why? The only reason I can think, business has more money to buy your congressional votes.

Self regulation never works unless the parties involved truely have a high degree of ethics. Business is about money, not consumers. I hope you get this and agree.

Gov should be involved in all sectors of business, setting rules as an independant party to protect both the consumers and make a stable environment for capitalism to flourish. I mean, think about it. Where does money come from? It comes from the gov, you don't think gov should have the right to set rules regarding it? If thats the case, coorporatations will, once again, create shanty towns and there own currency. They make decisions based on immediate profit, not the good of the people.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2010
Guns, you're wasting your time with marjon. Marjon doesn't recognize that the policies fed to him by the media he chooses would lead him into servitude. As Kruschev said of socialism one can say about slavery.

Americans will never accept a direct shift to slavery, however, if one can entice them, point by point, to allow for corporate largess, they will offer themselves up for shackles with a smile.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2010
lol, true that. Your right Skeptic, I don't know why I bother. I mean, I do understand and sympathize with marjons views; but the fact that he can't even comprehend the other sides view point makes the debate and resolution/compromise impossible. I'm done now, unsubcribed. Talk to you later skeptic.
gunslingor1
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2010
There are rules and regulations for citizens, there must also be rules and regulations for business 'period'.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2010
They can refuse to buy their products!
But at what cost?

You can refuse to buy power from PSNH in New Hampshire, but there are no other power companies who can deliver to your location. Have a happy winter season.

You can refuse to purchase food from a particular supermarket chain, if there are no other food sources you're going to have a helluva problem feeding yourself regularly in most climates.

The consumer does not have the economic power that a large company does. The government levels that playing field to prevent consumer slavery.

And just a quick history lesson for you, the Gold window was closed by Nixon, not FDR. FDR instituted an enforced buyback to enact economic stabilization against the rich gold owners of the time who were corrupting the market for personal gain. My, my how times don't change.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2010
I'll offer my two centavos I guess: If you look at a comparison between medications regulated by the FDA and products like the ones sold at GNC, which mostly are not FDA regulated, then you start to see some interesting things Marjon. Even the ones that ARE regulated get caught making false claims once in a while, but in large part I can feel safe that the pain reliever I buy at walmart is 'safe' for me. On the other hand, if I go to GNC and buy some 'organic' or 'herbal' weight loss supliment, I really have no idea what I'm in for. They aren't required to list the active ingredients, and they aren't required to do any testing for side effects or possible interactions with other chemicals I may or may not be taking. Knowing that the FDA controled products usually have SOME kind of possibility to harm me, it leaves me dumbfounded why anyone would risk taking an untested, uncontroled product on a daily basis.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2010
On the flip side of that, I happen to know for a fact that you can lable a package of bread as being 'organic' simply by using flour that came from wheat which was planted and harvested by GPS-controlled tractors. I also happen to know that there is so little difference between 'normal' vegetable oil and vegetable oil with Omega 3 in it that you can use them interchangeably in bread. You can use Omega 3 oil in all your products and only lable some of them as 'Omega 3' enhanced, and the ing-nut panel (as the ingredient-nutrition panel is called in the food industry), can simply say 'vegetable oil' even when you use the Omega 3 kind. Omega 3 isn't FDA controlled. That may surprise someone like my girlfriend who refuses to eat any animal products, since Omega-3 oil is a fish product.

I guess what you don't know won't hurt you SOME times.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2010
Actually, I think Omega3 fish oils are now regulated; happened very recently. Actually, I think you need a perscription for certain ones... doctors have told me this is unnecessary, and just a way to charge more. Don't know myself though.

Anyway marjon, we are not talking about a city-state market system from 2 thousand years ago. Modern markets have evolved, and only those focusing on profits at any cost have survived. You don't want to regulate small family owned businesses, I guess I could understand that, but large coorporations must be regultated.

Skeptic was right. I hate my power company and if this were true capitalism, I would be able to buy from a competitor. Since there is only one for a given area, I cannot, so the governement has to maintain a certain standard; citizens demand it, I demand it. Capitalism requires competition to even be called capitalism, its fundamental to the economic system. If its not capitalism in a given sector, regulation must set benchmarks.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2010
One more point about non-regulated products: Let's say that the Marjon Plastic Fork Company, based in Laguna Beach California, produces the finest quality organic polymer cutlery in the world. They use 100% renewable energy to power thier facility (children on tread-mills in the back room). It costs them $5.00 to make a fork. The GSwift7 corporation, with a secret facility in the 3rd world country of Gunsligorland, makes imitation plastic forks from reconstituded baby seal concentrate. It costs GSwift7 Corp $0.07 to make it's forks because it buys illegal baby seal concentrate from Skepticorp on the black market. Without government controls, GSwift7 Corp can package it's cheap knockoffs in fake Marjon boxes and sell them to unsuspecting people in Kansas. The only way for Marjon Company to prevent it is to hire Blackwater to nuke the whole country of Gunslignorland. Think of the poor children of Gunslingorland.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2010
lol, nice, but I doubt he'll understand that either. He thinks GswiftCorp will, out of the goodness of their hearts, not package the product under anothers name. He prefers capitalist anarchy I guess. He likes to be lied to when buying products. Enjoy your penis enlargement pills marjon, YOU NEED EM, lolol.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2010
P.S. If anyone spews soda or milk out their nose when they read that, I want pictures.

It's Friday and it's time to go home, so you all have a great weekend.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2010
That is where 20/20, 60 Minutes or a newspaper enters.

Except those news corps have a deal that allows them to rake in 10% of all the profits made by GSwift7 Co with any muckrakers being dredged in front of the press and impeached through libelous stories drummed up in back room unregulated business deals.

Tough shit for Marjon plastic Incorporatedl, they go under, even though they followed reasonable safety concerns. No one could help them, even the ones who really wanted to because of backroom unregulated deals.

So there's an industrial accident in Skepticland and the baby seal extract is poisoned with mercury. Everyone who uses the products made of these items have their first infant child die due to toxic breastmilk from their unsuspecting mothers.

No government to protect those people, or save those children, not to mention the shut down of the only fair and just company that employed American people rather than backroom labor with tainted products.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2010
That is why there must be regulations, that are erected by the government, which are composed of people who have a vested interest in the safety and benefit of their constituents.

When those regulations do become overbearing or oppressive, the people keep the government in check. When the regulations are too loose the government fixes them and keeps the companies in check.

The people thereby control the companies, however, they must educate themselves enough to understand how the whole system works.
bhiestand
5 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2010
1) The US Govt. made slavery illegal and forced private citizens and companies to give up their "property". That's just one more argument in our favor.

2) You're complaining about the Department of Justice not doing anything about slave labor because they're taking legal action against a private company which was using slave labor?

3) "FAIRTRADE Mark" wouldn't mean anything if the GOVERNMENT didn't provide for the enforcement side of it.

Your examples are terrible, and it's painfully obvious that you are trolling. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.
bhiestand
5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2010
I would like to end this discussion with a thank you to Matt Penn, one of the authors of this paper, for his correction to PhysOrg's reporting:

Please remove the following sentence from your first paragraph: "They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades."

If you read our paper, which you have linked to this web page, you will see that the latest data suggest that 1/2 of the sunspots may be absent from the solar surface in 2021. This is also clearly seen in our Figure 1.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2010
Look at that. 5 posts in a row from Marjon.

This is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating memes to yourself in order to prevent being convinced that you're wrong.

Hilarious. He's not trying to convince us. He's trying to convince himself.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2010
So you assert.
This isn't exactly a win-win situation for you, but it is for me. If you aren't trying to convince yourself, then you've taken the immoral stance of saying it is completely acceptable to allow the economy to turn into the wild west, where those with good moral imperative get screwed, and you're not jsut ok with it, but all for it.

So pick your poison. Either you're a scumbag, or you're brainwashed.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2010
Like those who were taken by Madoff when the SEC looked the other way?
Or the bank in MA that was punished by the FDIC for not making enough bad loans?
Or all those 401K suckers who trusted the govt?
All of which would have happened with no legal repercussions or retrieved funds without regulation. In your ideal world all of those acts would be legal. Own up to your meme.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2010
Marjon, are you going to own up to the abuses of the freemarket as we outlined above or not? Until you can properly answer to those, you have no business speaking economics.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2010
marjon you moron.

Your saying that since the government allows .001% of all manufactured products to be produced by slave labor, the goverment shouldn't go after any slave labor.

I mean, this is your arguement. Here are the points you made in order:
1. you admit companies get screwed by your response to Gswift
2. you think media coverage will fix it
3. Skeptic explains why media is incapable of regulation and explains why regulations are important.
4. You explain the .001% in which trade regulations fail to protect the slaves.

So I ask, you really think media coverage will have a bigger effect on slave labor than regulation and law enforcement? Really? Does the media have guns? Should we give them authority to arrest and interigate people? Why not throw in torture while we are at it.

The people have spoken, most of us want the same level of laws imposed on corporations as are imposed on us, citizens. To repeat a phase shouted at me by your kind "Love it or Leave it"!
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2010
My marjon prophecy filter is comming on. I predict he'll post something about how sweatshops have raised the living standard amongst those in southeast asia.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2010
marjon, you've been proven wrong a number of times duirng this discussion and not once did you acknoledge it, you just keep deflecting and changing the subject. You need to learn to admit when you are wrong, like all of us have done throughout this conversation. You have zero credibility.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2010
Your 100% right, none of us here are defending governments abuses of power. But you are defending coorporate abuses of power. Why? Any abuse of power should be shunned, it's why they call it abuse. Do you see why people are pissed at you?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2010
Of course they are. People here advocate for govt to have MORE power to abuse.
No one has advocated that. You're assuming and stating things that are not accurate, again.
If you really want to curb any corporate abuse, make them responsive to their customers. That doesn't occur when corporations can buy politicians to make regulations that favor their business at the expense of competition.
You mean like government enforced regulations that provide protective provisions for consumers.
The solution is to limit the power of the government to control the economy, to regulate businesses.
What?

So which do you want? Businesses with accountability, or businesses that are wholly free from accountability?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2010
What business is free of accountability?
Any business that isn't following regulations.
The only business like that are those protected by the govt.
So if there are no laws that determine how a business must operate, what accountability is there?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2010
Why SH attacks the Tea Party:
"The elite's fear and loathing of the tea party movement is rooted in the recognition that the real change is only now coming.
Yeah, a change back to low educational standards, religious bigotry, and overt racism against anyone who isn't "representative of the majority".
That's why I'm against the TEA party. I don't attack, I let them self defeat.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2010
Limited govt, the basis of the tea party, is back in fashion after 200 years.
SH can joins with the statist establishment in his opposition of limited govt power.
Who said the majority is ever right?
bhiestand
5 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2010
The people should submit to their betters?

No, the people should defer to the experts on what the actual facts are. From there they should work (with politicians) to determine acceptable SOLUTIONS to known problems.

Unfortunately, this is impossible when there are morons, luddites, and industry shills peddling garbage and attempting to muddy the waters of information.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2010
It is amusing how you claim the people are the check against an overbearing govt and now attack those very same people. SH keeps demonstrating his statist/socialist support while claiming not to.
If I was demonstrating socialist or statist support, why would I encourage the vote? I always encourage the vote, in order to put people into office who are rational, and willing to listen to the experts and determine the best course of action through representation of their electorate.

You demonstrate the very checks I often speak of. This is a government by the people, and for the people. That's about as socialist a statement as you can ever get.

The funny thing is, you're the one who rails against the majority and against the government, and against basic civil values that make this country a country.

It is too bad we can't trust experts' facts anymore.
No, you're just too simple to understand them.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2010

The funny thing is I am the only one who advocates support for the Constitution and individual rights.
Unfortunately, you don't understand either one.
Those govt economic 'experts' have done a fine job with the economy. Is that why Larry Summers is escaping the real world for Harvard?
What are you talking about? Summers was the former president of Harvard and was forced out because he's a racist and a bigot. He's being forced out of government because, like you, he's a banking industry shill. He's a smart guy when it comes to economics, but he's socially retarded. Anyone comming with the backing of Kissinger shouldn't be allowed near government or education.
bhiestand
5 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2010
I state again, too bad we can't trust 'experts'.

I agree, too bad we can't trust experts who are industry shills and have been corrupted by money to influence them to maintain the status quo.

Oh, wait, SH just ripped your previous point to pieces and you tried to twist the facts yet again to make it look like you made a valid point. You didn't.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 03, 2010
I really don't know why you're arguing with marjon's economic views. His own past posts have proved himself to be a psychopath who wants to have the right to torture other people's children, brutally murder people who disagree with his religious views, and enslave those poorer than he for his own ends. I really doubt his economic views are going to be much more enlightening. Sadly, his free-market views are simply a parroting of poorly understood soundbites. Folk like marjon, but with better characters, are usually simply unaware of the extent and degree that free markets are fragile things, hard to start and hard to perpetuate, without nearly constant supervision and attention.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 04, 2010
Free markets are fragile? Says who? They existed long before govts.

Says everybody who knows virtually anything about them. Property rights imply a government. Without a government, "rights" are nothing more than idle talk and unachievable idealism. Markets are not fragile. They have existed since time immemorial, and will continue far past any of us. A market's natural state is determined from within by the wealthiest and most powerful individuals. These markets are not free because the wealthy can command them, whether they choose to or not. Free markets are incredibly fragile and fleeting, and require constant supervision to maintain. The power of the wealthy must be held in check and their every economic action must be subject to scrutiny to keep the market free from their possible control.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2010
The invisible hand of the free market also comes with the iron gauntlet of totalitarian corporatism. And that'll have to be my last commentary on the matter. For evidence to this point, simply examine the free markets of the world and tell me who's in charge in those nations, past and present.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2010
I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was able to force you to buy a product...like health insurance...
gunslingor1
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2010
I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was able to force you to buy a product...like health insurance...

-Don't know if your being sarcastic or serious, but you gave the perfect example. Unless your a millionair, you are forced to buy medical insurance, otherwise, you simply cannot afford treatment if something serious happens. It's not like there is a choice in the matter. If you kid gets sick, say cancer, and you don't have insurance, doctors will not be treating him unless he is dieing then and there. He will not be treated with chemo, without insurance.

Seriously, what better way to trap a consumer and force his/her choice than to hold the iron fist of death over his/her head.

Taking a capitalistic approach to modern medicine is impossible, it cost to much. So we need either issurance or goverment run tax funded healthcare. Putting life and death in the hands of capitalism has proven to be a bad idea, US is rank 38th in care quality and 1st in cost.
gunslingor1
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2010
Anyway, most of that is debatable. What I honestly feel s not debatable is that all citizens should be given the choice to either:
-go without insurance and suffer the consequences.
-get private insurance
-get government run insurance

Some of us want the governement to run our insurance, hence the public option. I do not understand why you people refuse to let us have this? Is it because you know it'll wipe out private insurance? Tough luck. I have my rights and we have the right to choose our healthcare provider; I want the government and you force me to choose a private company. I am not forcing you to choose government, go private if you want. So, you agenda is directly affecting me negatively and my agenda is only indirectly affecting you by making health care cheaper by taking out middle men and, eventually, making private insurance unpopular.
gunslingor1
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2010
marjon,

Not once in these many weeks have you said "I understand your point but..", or "your right about that but not this", or similar. You never give an once. Everytime your proven wrong, you change the subject. You have no credibility. Your on here to prove you are right, not to come to a consensus or determine the reality of any of the issues discussed. Your practicing arguing and being right at all cost (even reality), not arguing for resolution. Your not worth talking to.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2010
I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was able to force you to buy a product...like health insurance...

You don't have to buy health insurance. And if you don't you'll be taxed in order to cover the cost of your free emergency room use.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2010
US is rank 38th in care quality and 1st in cost.
Just a minor correction here guns. We're ranked number 38th in overall healthcare system quality, however, according to the quality standards and outcomes we're number 1. The problem is the other fields that go into the overall calculation. We're ranked very poorly in distribution, affordability, and the lack of a public option drops us down a few ranks as well.

The reason why we rank so poorly is the capitalist aspect of the healthcare system, while the reason for the high cost is the introduction of new technology and how bleeding edge some treatment regimens are. The cost of pharmaceuticals, which is greatly inflated in this country also is factored into cost.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2010
marjon: Is this a new record with 7 posts in a row - just ranting to the audience? Let me go back a few posts just to waste my time again trying to make a point with you (not that I really hope you will listen). You said: "I have not been proven wrong." Referring to the idea that you have never admitted you were wrong even though you have been given some facts that seemed to prove you wrong. Let me bring one up.

You have said that you believe the Earth is cooling not heating.

Even the most ardent AGW deniers admit the Earth is heating - they just are not ready to attribute it to human influence.

You base that conclusion on the fact that all sources of measurement on the Earth's temperature are wrong. You also are of the opinion that none of the scientific reporting agencies that are supposed to analyze global temperature measurements are trustworthy. So, You believe something completely wrong (the Earth is cooling) and believe it appears to be heating due to a conspiracy.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
Good point thermo. I could point to many times he has been undenyably wrong. But he is here to stir conflict, not to find common ground and a compromise resolution.

I have not been proven wrong.

Really? Not once? Are you never wrong about anything? Over a month on this thread and you haven't been wrong once, about anything?

Taking a capitalistic approach to modern medicine is impossible, i

Why does it cost so much? GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS!

You are totally wrong here marjon. Tell me, which regulations are responsible for the overinflation, please, go on. And don't say Obama care, this problem has been with us for 20 years.

Because the govt can't run a railroad or deliver mail cost effectively.

Well, Europe and Japan seems to manage their rails just fine. Japan has trains going 250mph, their fastest experimental maglev goes 400+. The fastest in the US is 78mph, and that's used for Coal. The reason our rails suck is the influence of big oil.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
Taking a capitalistic approach to modern medicine is impossible, i

Why does it cost so much? GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS!

LOL, oh marjon you moron. take a standard statin, used for heart attack victims. Most were developed 40-50 years ago. Today, they cost less than 1 penny to produce each, TOTAL, yet they charge $40+ a pill. Please, tell me, which regulation is forcing the producers to make ,000 profit. Go on marjon, explain.

q]Many here want to force doctors to work for free. That is called slavery.
-Really? So your a tellporting mindreader now? You've been watching to much FOX. My father and mother are both doctors, I discuss this with them regularly. If medicine is 100% socialized, doctors are expected to get a 20% salary reduction in 50 years. Your claims about the desires of socialized-ish medicine are completely false. Please, you say you haven't been proven wrong, okay, prove to me that "I want doctors to work for free" or admit you are wrong.
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
Why is it any dumber than a law called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which promised to cover more for less money?"
"The laws of economics have struck back.

You sure as hell don't seem to have the same problem with oil subsidies.

President Obama promised that under his scheme no one will have to change medical plans, but some 840,000 ..

Oh marjon, when will you stop presenting opinion as fact. STOP WATCHING FOX!
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2010
Conservatives are the problem with the government. They campaign on the idea that government is the problem, always and everywhere, that it enriches only the very corrupt and wealthy and is a burden to everybody else, and then when they are elected, they make it so, whether it was originally as they claimed or not. Then, when they have to get re-elected, they blame the malfunctioning government on "evil liberal" politicians from other districts and claim they have to be re-elected to fight against and dismantle the liberal's corrupt government. They completely ignore the fact that they and their ilk are mostly responsible for the corruption and failure that exists in government.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2010
Many here want to force doctors to work for free. That is called slavery.

No, many of us want doctors to not have to fill out mountains of paperwork to treat people, as the insurance companies require today for reimbursement. There's a reason why the majority of doctors were for a public option and soured on the bill when the compromise came down. A robust public option will free doctors to have larger amounts of free time to do as they wish. If you look at public option countries, many of their doctors volunteer for MSF or run local weekend clinics for the poor simply because they want to help people.

Your form of greed isn't the same as everyone elses'. We live in social communities that require the success of us in order to enable the liberty of each individual. With no success within a society, there are no individual liberties and freedoms. So why are you against freedom and liberty marjon?
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2010
So you say.

Indeed I do, because history shows that I am right. Mistrust of government is sensible when governmental power is held and passed on through private means, such as inheritance, as it was when our nation was born. But when governmental power is public, ruled by sound principles and policies of democracy and fair representation, it is foolish to mistrust governmental power for the same reasons that previous forms of government ought to be mistrusted. And advocating that governmental power ought to be removed to private individuals is to advocate a return to primitive tyrannies. The conservative position that government must always be an evil and that private options are to be preferred is a cynical ploy to make themselves monarchs, and do away with representative democracy.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2010
Marjon: You never cease to amaze me. You said: "The statists fear that free markets will demonstrate they don't need the state as Somalia proves." and then quoted a 2006 article from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (that famed center of learning). You are trying to make the point that local law (as enforced by the best armed militants)is superior to the legal system in the US. Somalia is the country where women are stoned to death for not wearing the proper clothes or running off with the wrong man. This is the country where pirates run rampant. This is the country with one of the worst human rights records on the planet. This is the country where warlords are constantly in pitched battles. This is the country where laws are so fragmented that hands are cut off, heads are cut off, and children and women are killed or mutilated as "witches" without trial. This is what you offer as proof central governments are bad? You have really shown what you are made of this time.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2010
Well that seals it. Marjon is no longer worth speaking with. Simply link this commentary every time he speaks.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
"Despite the lack of effective national governance, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, largely based on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications."
Then go live there. Use the free market of citizenship and show us your dedication to the ideal.

Or are you a simple contrarian, always fighting against things that upset your lack of ethics and ideals/
gunslingor1
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2010
Marjon, your insain buddy.

So you say.
Gunny, instead of attacking the messenger, defend socialized medicine.

Why? You refused to admit when you make a false statement. You say we all want doctors to work for free, then prove it. That's a pretty extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof; we have told you this is false, now just admit you were wrong. We all have mispoken once or twice during this discussion, and we proudly admit it.

You haven't noticed how most people act when they have power?

Again, he fails to acknowledge the same situation exists for corporate power. We AGREE marjon, power corrupts, now agree it corrupts regardless of the entity being a corporation or the gov. You think the free market will fix all corporate corruption, stupid.. That would be like us saying elections fix all gov corruption. Admit that I have a good point or tell me directly where my logic is flawed... I can't beleive I gotta teach this guy basic ethical debate
gunslingor1
3.3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2010
My closing remarks. I love to debate, I accept compromise because there are many ideas of which way to go (though some corrupt or dishonest) and its usually the only way to get things done, I love to learn which means I love to admit I don't know something or when I am wrong, I TRUELY LOVE to see the other side of the coin, even if its a propagandists coin.

This is where you differ from us marjon, it's why not a single one of your ratings got past 2/5, it's why you aren't learning anything; I think its fair to say everyone else in this discuss has gained new knowledge from this debate.

I rarely call out my enemies, I have few, but I also think its fair to say that, due to the above, you are the enemy. No resolution is possible with you, it's your way or the highway regardless of weather your right or wrong, fair or greedy, selfless or selfish, richeous or evil. You are not the "decider" for us. I wish you nothing more than to have your toungh severed from your mouth. Good Luck.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2010
Let's see if Marjon can swallow a bit of his own medicine.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" -Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America

Now, let's break this down a bit in the next post
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2010
"We the People of the United States" Who are these people? Well, since this document establishes the form of government, these people must pre-exist any classification determined by this government. So that means everybody that lives there. "In order to form a more perfect Union" leaving the obvious grammatical difficulties aside, it's clear this form of government is meant to be an improvement over the monarchies that ruled previously. "establish Justice" Interestingly, this implies that justice was not to be found in government prior to the form this Constitution lays out (cont)
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2010
"Insure domestic Tranquility" How they hell to you think they meant to do that without restricting what people could do and say to each other? "Provide for the common defense" Pretty self-explanatory. "Promote the general welfare" As in, take an active role in making everyone better off. And finally, "Secure the Blessings of Liberty." This means that liberty is not secure without this sort of government. Even the Founders agreed that liberty is not innate, not robust, and not capable of defending itself. It requires constant maintenance and vigilant defense for it to exist. This is true of economic freedom as much as it is for political freedom.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2010
Now,as for why it makes no sense to fear for freedom in a representative democracy for the same reasons one fears for it in a monarchy. As you should have learned in 3rd grade social studies, Representative democracies elect those that hold power. The people who's liberty is to be protected select their protectors. If one of them goes abusive, corrupt and power-hungry, there's always another election coming up where the people could (ideally) kick 'em out. With a monarchy, "god" or luck on the battlefield and inheritance determines the power-holders. If one of them gets abusive, corrupt and power-hungry, it requires a violent bloody revolution to get rid of them. Power is not the problem. Just like a nuclear fusion reaction is not a problem. Control of the power is the problem. And you can't control power by denying it. Power always exists for a reason, and the attempt to deny it just leaves a vacuum that will inevitably be filled by others less accountable.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 07, 2010
The Constitution was not about decentralizing power, go learn your history. The Constitution was about setting up Federal power in light of the failure of the decentralized Confederacy. And our government does follow the limits of the Constitution. Only an internet moron would think he knows more about Constitutional intent and history than the vast majority of Constitutional scholars and lawyers with whom he disagrees. Like Skeptic said, marjon, if you don't think there needs to be a strong representative and democratic government, go live in Somalia. Adolf Hitler was never elected by a majority of Germans, his party achieved a plurality once, before he turned Germany into a conservative utopia, a fascist dictatorship. And stop changing the subject when you cannot address the points made to you.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2010
Regarding corruption: Getting caught in bed with a hooker is not corruption. Getting arrested in a Minnesota bathroom for soliciting gay sex is not corruption. Leaving a young girl to die after a traffic accident you had because you were drunk is not corruption. Some of them are crimes, and when committed by a politician, all of them are hypocrisy. Corruption is when someone pays a politician to pass a law. Corruption is when a business "kicks back" a campaign contribution in return for being favored in government contracts. Corruption subverts the legislative process, and undermines the whole point of writing laws, outlined in the Preamble. But it is not necessarily a violation of any law. But then, as a conservative, you probably don't have a problem with the subversion of the legislative process. Anything to bring the government down, eh?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
You say we all want doctors to work for free, then prove it.
That is the inevitable result of a socialized medicine which gunny supports.
Show me one socialized medicine country where the doctors work for free.
I support decentralizing power, just as the authors of the Constitution did.
The authors of the Constitution didn't support decentralizing power, they supported the right to rule being granted by the ruled.
Consumers have the ultimate power in a free economy.
No, resource production agents do.
The most corrupt cities and states are all controlled by 'liberals'.
Lousiana is a solid red.
If anyone really wants to understand the Constitution, the first step is to read the federalist papers which are a collection of editorials describing the Constitution to the people to support its adoption.
Like the ones where Jefferson and Adams said that the US is not nor will it ever be a Christian nation?
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010

'Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment, which provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.' See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IV id. 140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§ 1907-1908.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
The power of Congress over interstate commerce "is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, 22 U. S. 196. That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or nonexercise of state power. Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., supra. Congress, following its own conception of public policy concerning the restrictions which may appropriately be imposed on interstate commerce, is free to exclude from the commerce articles whose use in the states for which they are destined it may conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals or welfare, even though the state has not sought to regulate their use. Reid v. Colorado, supra; Lottery Case, supra; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, supra; Hoke v. United States, supra.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
And marjon, just in case you didn't realize, those quotes above are from Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutionality, as decided in Marbury v Madison in 1803, not marjon or anybody else. You can disagree with those decisions all you want, but until the Supreme Court changes it's decisions, all these liberal laws you hate ARE Constitutional. So why do you hate the Constitution, marjon? Is it because it provides for real freedom, instead of your make-believe idealism?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
You can disagree with those decisions all you want, but until the Supreme Court changes it's decisions, all these liberal laws you hate ARE Constitutional. So why do you hate the Constitution, marjon? Is it because it provides for real freedom, instead of your make-believe idealism?
Perhaps he simply hates laws, which would show his true colors when he speaks with vitriol towards the Republic. Marjon, you are not a patriot, you are borderline treasonous.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 07, 2010
Finally, a couple of quotes from one of the Federalist Papers marjon's so fond of. From "The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union"
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, December 18, 1787.

"Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers."
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
And this last one's just for you, marjon, directly from our Founders. From the same paper as the quote above:

"And the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the convention ought to have confined themselves to showing, that the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of the people. They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers. The POWERS are not too extensive for the OBJECTS of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our NATIONAL INTERESTS; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess."
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2010
Thrasymachus really nows his $hit. Constitutional lawyer?

HOLLY HELL! He's getting pounded! great job... but will he openly admit a single one... marjon ... balls in your court. How about this one from skeptic:
Show me one socialized medicine country where the doctors work for free.

-well marjon? if doctors working for free is the inevitable result, show us where they work for free... socialize medicine has been around a long time, I think we are the only developed country that doesn't have it. or do your unthinkable and admit you are wrong. You really think I want my own mother and father not to make any money? Do you really think this is what I fight for? lol. My dad would die, he has heart desease.

Here, I'll start.

Wade Polk 100% beleives the world is flat.

Oh wait! The first 20 sources on google say the world is round. I must have been mistaken, I guess the world is round, but it sure looks flat from my perspective.

Your turn.

Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2010
I must admit that the quotes from Supreme Court decisions were not discovered by me, but were used in another article I had read rebutting recent Tea Party politicians asserting that the minimum wage law was unconstitutional. The federalist papers can be found at http://www.foundi...ndex.htm and any American citizen that doesn't know the Preamble by heart by the time they can vote ought to be ashamed.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 07, 2010
Neither was Bill Clinton.
You're right, because he wasn't the German President. He was elected by majorities of Americans in both elections, once corrected for spoilers. George Bush was the last American President elected without a majority of Americans in both election. It the first election, it was the widest discrepancy in American history.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2010
SCOTUS affirmed the right to own slaves.
When the SC ruled slavery Constitutional, it was. In fact, it required a Constitutional Amendment to make slavery unconstitutional.
Corruption is also an abuse of state power:
'Spitzer�s rough game was always about money and politics. A recent Washington Post report said, �Officials in Spitzer�s office have publicly warned Citigroup Inc. that civil or criminal charges remain a possibility if the firm does not agree to pay a large fine.� Pay up or else. Such extortion was enforced by vague but threatening press leaks. "
http://www.nation...reynolds
Jesse Jackson did the same thing.

What private benefit did Spitzer and Jackson get from such "shakedowns?" It's only corruption if there are otherwise unwarranted private gains. The fact that you disagree with them does not make them corrupt.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
Figures you would try to take on Marbury v Madison. That fact alone shows you are not worth listening to. The tripartite system of government we have only works when the Courts are the ultimate arbiters of Constitutionality. If you don't like it, move. It's the law of the land and has been for over 200 years now.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 07, 2010
So basically, you hate everything to do with how our government works and has worked for the past 200+ years. So get the f out. Nobody's stopping you. In fact, I might just start an internet campaign to ship your dumb ass to Somalia.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2010
What is wrong with demanding the US govt return to following the Constitution,
Well I don't consider black people to be property, and I think women should have the right to vote for starters.
not 9 people in black robes?
You mean the Constitutionally and legally binding decisions of the judicial branch of the United States government?
What we have now is relativistic govt, based upon no standard.
Based upon the rule of law. aka a Republic.

Marjon, when Hitler was elected, the first thing he did was undermine the rule of law, then he undermined the congress, then he assumed total control and turned Germany into a totalitarian state.

Are you advocating the first step in Hitler's plan?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2010
Well I don't consider black people to be property, {the SCOTUS did} and I think women should have the right to vote for starters.

See the 14th and 19th Amendments.
First, don't interject garbage when you quote me. If you want to make a point, do it yourself without perversion of my words.
Are you advocating the first step in Hitler's plan?

That is what modern liberals are doing.
Evidence necessary.
The 'liberal' congress passes bills they don't read which enables a liberal/socialist administration to write the regulations to implement vague 'law'.
The entire congress does this, and it is shameful.
The entire fiasco of Roe v Wade started with an imaginary federal right to privacy.
Not imaginary, your medical record privacy was codified state law in all 50 states at the time. Are you against state's rights as well?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2010
Not imaginary, your medical record privacy was codified state law in all 50 states at the time. Are you against state's rights as well?

Read the 10th amendment.
How about you read the court rulings that define the 10th amendment.
The law they passed is a shell of a law,Most of the rules have yet to be written.
You mean just like the Constitution prior to the addendum of amendments and legal rulings.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2010
You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another.
Still waiting for your example of a country that forces doctors to aid the sick without pay, Marjon. Basically, your bullshit machine of a mind is broken. You spew crap, then get called on it and now you're repeating the same crap you were called on before.

So you've been called on it again. This is trolling, and it's contrary to the TOS. We can only hope a Mod appears.
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2010
It certainly is trolling, and it's all marjon's ever done. Facts and evidence don't matter to him, they are mere tools to be manipulated and distorted, when not outright ignored, to gin up outrage and hatred. Conservatives have no real policy suggestions of their own, just to not do something or to tear something down. It's easy to hate, and that is all they are in the end. And now, as their agenda is laid more and more bare, their hatred spreads to those very ideals and institutions they purport to support.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2010
No, those are not policy suggestions because they are not policies, they are soundbites. "low" and "limited" are relative terms, low taxes compared to what? Our current tax rates for the wealthiest quarter of the population are lower than they've ever been in the history of the federal income tax. Specify the limitations of federal power you prefer precisely. The Constitution was never very specific about the limits of federal power, and indeed the text of the Commerce Clause gives them sweeping authority. And individual liberty as a policy suggestion? Don't make me laugh. What liberty would you recommend that we don't already have? Perhaps the liberty to die in poverty and squalor.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 08, 2010
You can't even get your facts right. The top federal income tax rate in 1913 was 7%. And while I limited my claim to the history of the federal income tax, I did not limit taxation to those rates alone, but mean to include all the taxes one pays, included real estate taxes, state and local income taxes, sales taxes, and tariffs and tolls. Include all the taxes that one has to pay, from the top on down, and the wealthy have never had it better. And you can claim Articles 1-8 are specific all you want. Reams of court cases defining the intent of those articles tend to disagree.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2010
Perhaps the liberty to die in poverty and squalor.


Like they do in countries with command economies?
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2010
Like they do in countries with command economies?

False dichotomy. Nowhere, in any of my comments, do you see me recommending any government, whether federal, state or local, ordering the production, distribution or consumption of any real resources. Rather, you see me recommending that the various governments regulate markets so that no private individual or entity may be able to command the markets either. I think that the individual mandate in HCR is sloppy and inefficient, but I acknowledge their authority in choosing that option. Far better to have a universal single-payer system, if you care about freedom in the health care market.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2010
So it's just a matter of degree with you then?

When pray tell does regulation become too much? Does it indeed EVER? If regulation works so well why not pile it on and have massively mammoth government instead of big government which by golly works so darn well?

I think that the individual mandate in HCR is sloppy and inefficient, but I acknowledge their authority in choosing that option. Far better to have a universal single-payer system, if you care about freedom in the health care market.


I guess that depends on how you define "freedom".
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2010
It's quite clear that neither marjon nor mystic can tell the difference between ends and means. The goal of economic regulation is freedom, fairness and good outcomes in the market. The means are the rules and regulations that best achieve those ends. Regulation does not exist for its own sake, and freedom cannot exist without protection. Conservatives deny this last fact, but they do so in order to leave those freedoms unprotected, so that they may be assailed more easily by themselves and those who would profit from it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2010
Marjon,

can you explain why it takes you three posts to answer to one of mine in the free market of ideas, called physorg?

I can. It's rather simple, as you are. It's the fact that I can construct a cogent argument in a single sentence, while you require several thousand charaters to even begin to creat a fallacious argument.

ie: Bullshit has a 3x overhead.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2010
Marjon: When have you ever presented evidence that free markets, a wholly ideal construction of the theories of Smith, Ricardo, and many others, are natural occurrences that do not require the protection of governments? What is propaganda is the idea that only good things can happen if we just get out of the way of thieves, plunderers and frauds. Smith himself warned that prudent government protection was necessary for the right functioning of free markets. Con-men, like conservatives, cannot abide the regulations that expose them for the criminals they are, and when their agents gain political influence for a time, throw down those rules that aid and shelter the people in their freedom, and set up new ones to conceal their mendacity.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2010
Bernie Madoff's political contributions:
http://www.newsme...=BERNARD
I don't see many conservatives on this list.
It's clsoe to a 50:50 split on that page, are you also illiterate, or do you presume that we are as such?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2010
Who are the conservatives?

Fields for Congress, Friends of Fields, Walker for Congress, Citizens for Gillmor, The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Fund, and The Billy Tauzin Congressional Committee.

Again, you didn't read your source. Strong recommendation: scroll down and check for the negative amounts as well.

Almost all democrat candidates and PACs returned Madoff's donations while the Republican candidates and PACs did not.
Skultch
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2010
Marjon:
Illegal drugs are traded without state protection.


That's a good example of what you claim is impossible. What is the result of most of those unregulated markets? Wealth moving from poor to rich, untold misery, rape, death, slavery, corruption, monopolies, war,..... need I go on? Legalization and regulation of those markets would CURE most, if not all, of the negative effects of that "free" market. A fact that certainly conflicts with some other part of your bankrupt worldview.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
The misery from illegal markets is the result of being illegal.
Illegal aliens are enslaved for similar reasons.
So, therefore, it is OVER regulation which causes this misery.
If the govt limited itself to protecting private property, there would be no such misery.

Right, because it would be the accepted standard, like your favorite country, Somalia.
Skultch
4.8 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
So, let's see if I have this right, Marjon.

Drug markets do well because of no "evil govt" regulation. But, somehow, the effects of this success is due to OVER regulation. ??? You don't want them to make drugs illegal, but you want the govt to protect private property. How, pray tell? Do you think a bunch of legal hard core addicts running around would make that job easier, or harder?

If heroin shouldn't be illegal, and you're a compassionate christian, I'll see you at the food bank. You better have your finest smack with you. They would suffer without it, ya know.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2010
Gang: I am all for baiting marjon since he has pointed out that he is in favor of torture, lawlessness, murder, rape, and the removal of restrictions on drugs (all in the name of God and more money). However, does anyone actually recall that the article is about sunspots? Don't get me wrong, I am following the thread with amazement since I really didn't know people like marjon were allowed to walk around without restraints and periodic lock-downs. However, I have learned a lot from watching this thread as a shining example of the First amendment at work. At this point I am going to unsubscribe just so I don't have nightmares that marjon might not be alone. Thanks for all the fish.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2010
Marjon,

If I wanted to read selected quotemining from poorly written blogs, I'd turn on Michael Savage and take a handful of pain killers.
So you disagree that if the govt limited itself to protecting private property there would be no such misery?
There is no formal govt in Somalia, however, an economy exists and in some areas, is growing.
Well yeah, the gun and ammunition trade always increases in an anarchial state.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
How about the cell phone business?
Almost non-existant. As fast as they build towers, someone blows them up or strips them of resources. Could you possibly be referring to satellite phones?
NatGeo recently presented a story of how European coastal neolithic hunter gatherers traded with those that were farming, 7000 years ago. How could they do that without govt regulations to direct them?
Can you point out where I said you need a government to have a market? Direct quote with link please.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2010
"The new Somali government, installed last year, has begun to try to tax the lucrative telecom businesses.

Read more: http://online.wsj...9"

What a surprise!

You mean the line based business? These are K-Radios.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2010
It's quite clear that neither marjon nor mystic can tell the difference between ends and means. The goal of economic regulation is freedom, fairness and good outcomes in the market. The means are the rules and regulations that best achieve those ends. Regulation does not exist for its own sake, and freedom cannot exist without protection. Conservatives deny this last fact, but they do so in order to leave those freedoms unprotected, so that they may be assailed more easily by themselves and those who would profit from it.


Well means and ends are pretty subjective in this context. One person's idea of a "good" regulation is another person's destruction of liberty.

Moreover the INTENT of a regulation has NOTHING to do at all with the actual outcome. Look a prohibition for one of many examples.
gunslingor1
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
One person's idea of a "good" regulation is another person's destruction of liberty.

I'm glad you finally understand the side of the gay marriage, gay military, pot smokers and abortion supporters.

Do we all agree at this point compromise will be required.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2010
One person's idea of a "good" regulation is another person's destruction of liberty.

I'm glad you finally understand the side of the gay marriage, gay military, pot smokers and abortion supporters.

Do we all agree at this point compromise will be required.


You're glad I "finally" see? Who do you think I am?

Do you think you know me?
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2010
Nowhere, have any of us, ever suggested that markets cannot exist without government regulation. My own position, and one I think may find some general agreement, is that free markets cannot exist except accidentally or fleetingly without collective vigilance. Whenever two people trade together, there is a market, and that market is free to the extent that it is free of ignorance, deception, fraud and coercion. The definition of these things in each case needs to be public, and backed by the authority of the people, or right and wrong, lies and truth, become a matter of force against force, and the enforcement of the rules about these things must again be public, and backed by the people, for the same reason.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
Those advocating for the invisible hand of the free market should understand this. Jobs left this country and fled to other countries through the free global market. The invisible hand, market will and value, thought it necessary to take jobs away from Americans. How can you be in support of American workers while allowing jobs to flee the country?
gunslingor1
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2010
What point?
Why is compromise so important to you?


What point? This 'point' in time. I mean, debate is pointless if one person is never convienced by the other. You certainly will never convience us with your opinionated arguements and we will never convience you because you fail to see our side of the coin. So, there comes a point when compromise is required; again, no one is going to live under your way or the highway law marjon unless you want us living in a civil war.

do you support following the US Constitution or following dictatorial judges (aka tyrants)?

We follow the constitution which clearly implies that the majority rules any decision but the rights of the minority must be maintained.

Your not going to be convienced, we are not going to be convienced, so why not be productive and determine the only solution that does not result in civil war and eventually a dictatorship. How ironic you call compromise a dictatorship, shows your ignorance.

gunslingor1
3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
Listen to yourself marjon. Your way off the deepend to the right, some are way off the deepend to the left, but most of us talking to you are right in the middle. Most on the left seem support abortion and freedom to marry whomever you like, yet they draw the line at 3rd trimesters and human marriages only only for the purposes of compromise.

There are 500M people in the world, each with a completely different view of the world. Tell me marjon, just how do you expect to get anything done at all without compromise and without a civil war? This is the essence of democracy, compromise between 500M people. You are not our dictator and, trust me, you do not know what is best for all of us regarding every issue. Sure debate may produce a unified view of the path forward, but it certainly has failed during this discussion, so we need to move on. You are obviously the minority here and we are doing our best to account for you, but you are not the decider, 500M people are.

gunslingor1
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
....free markets cannot exist except accidentally or fleetingly without collective vigilance.

-agreed. Free markets require growth, and growth in quantity is limited on this planet. We are creeping towards this limit already. Eventually, we'll have to switch to a growth in quality instead, hopefully. Our market is not a capitalistic free market, it cannot be when coorporations colude and fix prices and this is an inevitable result of the COMPLETE deregultation marjon desires. Hell, look at oil, prices are fixed and we have the regultation. Imagine if there was no regulation!

Because of capitalisms requirement for growth to be succesful, I agree, capitalism is always either going to be fleeting or will require vigilence to maintain market integrity. Fleeting implies a creep towards socialism, as most developed countries are doings, and vigilence implies regulation. For America, somewhere in the middle is probably best.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
How can you be in support of American workers while allowing jobs to flee the country?
It is called comparative advantage.
So tell us, what is the advantage of your system if it gives no means by which to become employed and offers no safety net to those who cannot become employed. Is the advantage "you'll die faster"?
These need to be defined by 'the public'?
Who would oyu have define them?
I was recently cheated by a Chinese company. I purchased the product with a credit card. The credit card company, a private company, is helping me collect my money. Why would they be interested in combating fraud and protecting their customers?
You can thank the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1982 for that. Prior to 82 you had no recourse but to sue the foreign company, in foreign court.

Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2010
Collective vigilance = government. That's all a democratic government is, collective action, regulated and institutionalized. And you notice how I said "defined in each case?" What counts as coercion, deception, fraud and such depends very much on the nature of the instance in which it occurs. Indeed, they are usually defined as a negation of an idea of fairness, and what counts as fair in each case is not at all easy to define. Imagine trying to come up with an idea of "fairness" in the game of Calvinball, for instance, which, as a game, is far more analogous to our economy than a game of monopoly, or baseball. At any rate, what is fair or not fair in a game is decided by the players. If some people think it's not fair, they won't play. And the same goes for an economy, but here the players are the People, and nobody gets a chance to opt out, so it's doubly important that fairness be rigorously and publicly defined and enforced.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
growth in quantity is limited on this planet.

Why?


God, everything you say, I can't tell if your kidding or not. You really think we can grow in numbers without bounds? Well, your wrong. We've calculated that if everyone on earth eats frankenfoods and has 1/2 acre to their name, the earth can sustain 12-14 billion people relatively indefinitely. But it would not be as good as Americans have it and everyone would be limited in nuber of kids, food consumable, carbon, everything would have to be controlled to keep a sustainable system. There is a limit to human growth on Earth, and we are fast approaching. Another calculation said if everyone on earth lived like the US, we would need 4 earths just to sustain the system. Resources and AREA on this planet are limited, you cannot deny it, even though it seems so big to your feable mind.

And to clarify earlier, there are about 500 million americans and 6 billion people. I was refering to US citizens.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2010
You are determined to misconstrue everything that is said to you. What is fair depends upon the situation, the activity that is undertaken, not on the people who undertake it. There is no moral relativism here, there is the problem of applying objective moral principles to individual circumstances, and that problem is by no means an easy one to solve or to foresee. And no one can opt out of an economy because every choice you make regarding trading with others is an economic choice. It's like saying you can opt out of respiration while you yet live.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
Chargeback is not enshrined in law like section 75, but is part of the Visa Scheme Rules, which participating banks subscribe to.

Chargebacks are for the company who has the mercandise to the creditor. Refunds work for the consumer. There is no chargeback mechanism for end result consumers.

If you had run a business you would know this. Chargebacks are so the card issuer can regain their money, not so they can pay that out to customers.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
My other recourse is to stop using charge cards and refuse to purchase merchandise on the internet. Now imagine if everyone decided to follow this example. Either the merchants and the banks would agree to satisfy customers, or, go out of business.
Or the rest fo the market will simply move on without you and you can find yourself coerced to join the "free" market.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2010
And the one where the people have the most liberty to choose is the one where liberty is constantly and collectively protected. The greatest danger to liberty is other men.

We do not have a choice to participate in an economy. So long as you require things from others and they require things from you for your mutual survival and luxury, you are participating in an economy, whether you engage in any particular trade or not, or even whether you engage in no trades at all.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2010
No one is suggesting the creation of a government that benefits only a few, rather than all. You suggest the complete dissolution of government, which certainly benefits only a few, to the detriment of all.

And please define property rights. How do you propose what can be owned, and what measure would you suggest be used to determine if it can be rightly possessed? Can I own the sky or the sun? Perhaps I can own a rock I find lying alone in the forest, but what it if were an heirloom, stolen from another and cast aside by the thief? Please, give us a means by which property rights can be known and agreed to by all, without collective agreement, action and enforcement.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2010
Or the rest fo the market will simply move on without you and you can find yourself coerced to join the "free" market.
How is that coercion?
How is it not?
We do have choices regarding the structure of the economy we choose to create.
Or to live in, you can always move away.
The best choice to satisfy the needs and wants of the the participants has been one where the most people have the most liberty to choose.
That is the most inefficient economy. To give the greatest number of choices one must create "everything" one can choose. You're against having multiple language government forms, this is yet another inconsistency in your stance.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
If this has been a Turring Test, marjon has failed. It is clear that it is not human. Whomever was trying to foist this, clearly, digital avatar on us has failed to show that it can respond as a human would respond. In some instances it came close. I was almost convinced until it got tripped up saying Somalia was the best government on the planet. Some of its past slip-ups became evident after that bombshell. For instance, looking at the graph of temperatures for the past 200 years and claiming the earth is cooling. A couple of others are the idea that markets can, and should, operate without controls and the idea that businesses are self controlled. I should have picked it up much earlier. I've seen expert systems that did a better job of responding in a more human way. Let's see if they modify the code and try the Turring Test again. Maybe they will call it marjon 2.0. :-)
otto1932
5 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
I think 'marjon' is actually a family computer on which various family members sit at and post here. Sometimes the senile old grandpa posts, sometimes the overstressed bible-thumping mother posts, and other times one of the many kids post. The pet monkey even fiddles with it.

This would explain the wide-ranging, often schizoid and conflicting postulations. We get to observe a crossection of a dysfunctional family at work- like when that guy from mutual of Omaha would divide a gopher hole with a pane of glass so we could watch them giving birth and stuff.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2010
To what extent do I own myself? Does my wife own herself? Does that mean that she has the right to abort her fetus days before it is born? If I own myself, can I engineer a virus, found on myself, of course, so that it can recognize my DNA, and respond virulently and lethally to all others, using only my own DNA as a template of course, and the release it to the wild? What does it mean that "I own myself?" Can I trade it to someone else? If I do, do I no longer own myself? What if my parents have traded me before I could make the choice myself? Do they own me before I own myself? If not, then who did I purchase myself from, and how much did it cost? Markets are best controlled by the participants, but not while they are participating. That would be like saying catchers and pitchers are the best judge of strikes.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2010
I am not certain anyone understands economics.

I am certain that Democrats and Republicans alike "sold us down the drain."

We are now "between a rock and a hard place" trying to get us out of a mess created by politicians who, like some scientists, sold to the highest bidder.

Hoping I'm wrong,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2010
Pickup games of baseball are played all the time when nothing is at stake if you win or lose. But as soon as there are stakes involved, the players of the game themselves insist on non-biased umpires. You'll never see a Major League Baseball game, and certainly not the World Series played without umpires. And you continue to throw around words like "freedom" and "infringement" and "moral character" as if there were no problem whatsoever in how to define them and apply them to the real world. You live in a fantasy world of a theory that never existed in scientific thought, even in the most fevered dreams of Ayn Rand or Friedman.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2010
SH: You asserted coercion. Prove it.
Prove otherwise.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2010
Under such a philosophy the mob can't gang up the few (govt).
The mob has never referred to the government. The mob is the people.
A system of inherent rights implies inherit responsibilities.
Such as the responsibility to self-educate, which you refuse to accept.
'Society' can't be blamed for their failure under such a system.
Society is the only thing that can be blamed in your world today. What makes you think that your ideal utopian (and totalitarian) government wouldn't blame society?

The people- "I can't afford to heat my house in this market"
You - "Then wear thick socks, it's your own fault, you and the rest of society. I got mine, so you can fuck yourself."

Really Christian of you Marjon.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 13, 2010
Why do I have a problem defining them? Probably because so many people have trouble applying these concepts to the real world. You insist that other people (individuals) cannot use force or coercion or deception in their dealings with other people, they are constrained to merely persuade, but that the government must always do so. What constrains the individual in your mind,I cannot tell, nor can I tell how you assert such freedom to our government. You assert that government's use of force is always immoral or unjust, but that the individual is free to use force to defend or protect themselves and their property. But how far does defense go, can it be preemptive? And you still haven't told me how I can know whether something is my property. You're not being consistent, unless you're using the word "government" to just mean "evil" without any reference to what a government is, how it is composed, and what it does.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2010
Children do not understand what is their property and what is not. That's why they squabble over it all the time. The most often heard exclamation from a 3 year old is "Mine!" And you certainly do have a problem applying these concepts, as evidenced by the fact that you have not answered any of my questions about how I can tell. If it's so easy, then tell me the answer. And if you think people constrain themselves from the use of violence against others just because they are "civilized" whatever that means, then you are more naive than any child I have met. Government is not force, but claims a monopoly on force so that it may not be used unjustly according to the whims of individuals. If you despise a monopoly on force, it can only be because you want force privatized, which is a state of barbarism.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2010
Who controls the money in the USA? The govt.


Not when the discount rate is at 0%. I have a hard time accepting that we (govt) borrow from China at, what, 4.5%, then give it to banks for nothing, then we (people) have to borrow it from banks at another 4-6%. Every time you get a mortgage or car loan, you are effectively paying at least 9-11% directly and indirectly.

I don't care about blame or past ifs. How do we fix this NOW?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2010
Who created the market?
Which one?
The government controls the market.
Nope, the corporations do, the government merely regulates the market.
Obama just drove off major oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico with is drilling ban.
I don't have a problem with this.
How will that affect the price of oil?
Very little for the US, greatly for non-US consumers.

Who controls the money in the USA? The govt.
Nope, the federal reserve, a private bank.
You wanted all the regulations, take responsibility for their destruction of the economy.
I never asked for the CRA, or the multitude of the banking codes. Or the Bush tax cuts. Your preferred ideologues did.
BTW SH, don't you drive a high end BMW?
Mid range chevy impala actually. Looking into the Lexus hybrids and audi a4 as a next vehicle.
I guess you got yours.
I did, and now I share the excess. The US gov and all state govts accept donations I give to the Gates foundation and RDF.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2010
Why? Privatized force has been and is quite effective now. No barbarism.
No, it's the single leading reason why we have problems in the middle east, and is the primary reason why 51% of US casualties are friendly fire in nature.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2010
If you want a pat answer to what to do now, I'm inclined to suggest getting money out of politics altogether. Make 'em do a signature drive to get on the ballot, and grant equal campaign expense accounts to everybody that makes it on. Penalize fraudulent or deceptive political speech made by anybody between the filing deadline and election day, making it equivalent to obstruction of justice or perjury.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2010
As far as I'm aware, the only person appointed by the government to the Federal Reserve is the Chairman. Everybody else on the board is appointed by the banks that the FR oversees.

And yes, private forces on both sides in the Middle East are a large part of the problem. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are private forces. Private American security forces have been implicated in innumerable civil rights violations. Private force is the state of nature, prior to any government. This state of nature is inherently unjust, and the reason philosophers like Hobbes and Locke claim man forms governments in the first place, and grant it a sole monopoly on force.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2010
Why do they need independent observers if all the players are naturally inclined to follow the rules anyway, as you claim? Baseball needs umpires, so they hire them. The individual players don't always want or need umpires, and what you suggest amounts to having the players hire their own individual umpires. The People need police, defense and infrastructure, and so they hire these things in the form of government. If I were to hire my own private police force, then what's to prevent me from moving into my neighbor's house when he's gone, claiming that it's now mine, and using my police to enforce my claim? What if my neighbor can't his own force strong enough to counter mine? What if our other neighbors don't care or are too remote to be affected by our squabbles over property?
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2010
MLB is a private entity (with special anti-trust privileges) that hire the umpires. So a private company hires observers to control the game. Very free market.


HaHa. You set yourself up with almost every post. MLB...The very same free enterprise that looked the other way while nearly all of their employees cheated for at least 15 yrs. All in the name of $$$ paid by homerun-horny women.

Don't you see? Free corps will do anything and everything for $$$. Don't you see how this is the default situation from which humans have finally began to wrestle control to protect ourselves? No, I'm sure you don't. Sad.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2010
@Marjon regarding the recent Thras post:

Isn't what Thras' describes almost exactly feudalism in the Dark Ages? It seems marjon would prefer to undo the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2010
I think neither Hobbes nor Locke was completely right. I've seen people be completely vicious to other people for no reason whatsoever, and I've also seen people be so compassionate and generous to others that they didn't have to that it deserves praise as high as we give any saint. But I also know that people are short-sighted, and can be stubborn and refuse to see when someone else has a valid claim against them. Good people are not always good and bad people are not always bad. Idealistic systems work well only in ideal realms. Real people are messy and complicated, both transcendentally divine and horribly evil. Dealing with them in the real world is far more complex than your simpleness can comprehend.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2010
Oh, and I almost forgot. MLB is not a private business, it is a monopoly granted by the US Congress. One of the few monopolies ever sanctioned by Federal action. It is as public as the USPS, the Federal Reserve system, Social Security/Medicare, or the Parks system. It's just not funded by tax money, unless you count tax cuts in cities where they settle and the stadiums built at taxpayer expense, rather like the USPS.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2010
Private security forces are the cause of problems in the middle east? 51% of US military forces? They are not private.
I said 51% of US casualties, not US military casualties.
But all those who run the banks are appointed by the govt. How private is that?
No, they're not. Only the secretary to the treasury is appointed, and he doesn't work for the reserve.
Why do you say that? I advocate Locke, free markets and the US Constitution. Do you?
If you advocated Locke, or had even read Locke, you wouldn't disagree with abortion.
Because they won't want you to do that to them. It is called the Golden Rule.
No, that would be the aggression principle.

You done embarassing yourself yet?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2010
"The Federal Reserve Act provides that the president of a Federal Reserve Bank shall be the chief executive officer of the Bank, appointed by the board of directors of the Bank,
Appointed by the board of directors of the bank.
with the approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for a term of five years.
Approval of the board of governors.

The Board of Governors are all appointed by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.
Your source doesn't state this, it is a claim you're making. Good thing for you, this claim is correct, however, the board of govenors is not the board of directors.
The Federal Reserve is quite dependent upon upon political patronage and controlled by politicians, not free market principles.
Also not claimed or stated by your source. The Federal Reserve is equivalent to a federal contractor. There is congressional oversight, but no congressional control persay.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
If you advocated Locke, or had even read Locke, you wouldn't disagree with abortion.

Why not?
"No body can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it."
"All men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another,and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind."
Locke was a physician.
Because Locke's central principle was ownership of self. If a woman owns her body, you cannot tell her what to do with it.
If his stance on the ownership of self isn't enough to cement this for you then we'll address his stance on the common good. For the common good, one must not become a burden upon others and impinge upon their ownership of self. To bring a child into the world that is unloved, unfed, unclothed, and unwanted creates a burden upon society as well as subdues the mother to forced labor (no pun intended).
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
Those advocating for the invisible hand of the free market should understand this. Jobs left this country and fled to other countries through the free global market. The invisible hand, market will and value, thought it necessary to take jobs away from Americans. How can you be in support of American workers while allowing jobs to flee the country?


Good. If they can do it cheaper and better. Who says those are "American" jobs? You know less about economics than you do manners.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
Nowhere, have any of us, ever suggested that markets cannot exist without government regulation. My own position, and one I think may find some general agreement, is that free markets cannot exist except accidentally or fleetingly without collective vigilance. Whenever two people trade together, there is a market, and that market is free to the extent that it is free of ignorance, deception, fraud and coercion. The definition of these things in each case needs to be public, and backed by the authority of the people, or right and wrong, lies and truth, become a matter of force against force, and the enforcement of the rules about these things must again be public, and backed by the people, for the same reason.


You didn't say a single thing in that whole paragraph.

OK we agree we need government...that doesn't mean we need a boot on our necks. Go fish.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
Because Locke's central principle was ownership of self. If a woman owns her body, you cannot tell her what to do with it.


If a woman stole a diamond and swallowed it does she own it?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
If a woman stole a diamond and swallowed it does she own it?
No, because she stole it and didn't build it from scratch in her uterus. Very poor attempt at analogy from you. Up your game.
Good. If they can do it cheaper and better.
But they don't.
Who says those are "American" jobs?
People like yourself.
You know less about economics than you do manners.
I would assume so. Manners are a relatively simple construct while economics is rather complex. I claim expertise in neither but have apt ability to point out fallacy in both. What's your excuse?
he has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use than its bare possession calls for it.
Very selective quote mining.
Here's the preceding line in full. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions."
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2010
Actually, mystic you're the one adding virtually nothing to the debate. My point with marjon has been very simple and very clear. We need the government to make and maintain free markets, because without oversight and regulation markets cannot be reliably free. Marjon denies this, and indeed denies any right function of government at all. He does not understand why we have a government, nor why free and moral people allow it to persist, he does not even see it as a necessary evil, but as just evil. All those who have been arguing with him have been merely trying to show him 1.)that government is necessary, and 2.) that government is not necessarily evil. Of course, trying to get him to see that is like trying to get a child to eat their Brussels sprouts.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
She didn't build a child "from scratch" either.

Tell you what. I'll play the BS game that "the mother owns her body and therefore has the right to kill anything growing inside it" if you'll agree that any father that doesn't want anything to do with an unborn child that's his shouldn't have to pay support for it. He can get a "legal abortion" and therefore avoid the responsibility like the mother arbitrarily can. Can't have your cake and eat it too...

Do we have a deal?

As to the rest of what you said, you HONESTLY are going to tell me that American products are of higher quality and CHEAPER than foreign ones? We buy stuff from China, Japan, etc...just BECAUSE? Pffft...

And don't put words in my mouth, you can barely handle your own. There is no such thing as an "American job".
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
Actually, mystic you're the one adding virtually nothing to the debate. My point with marjon has been very simple and very clear. We need the government to make and maintain free markets, because without oversight and regulation markets cannot be reliably free.


Not the case at all. I asked you a SIMPLE question and you evaded the answer.

We need geographical legal monopolies on the use of PHYSICAL FORCE to protect us from criminals (those who break legs and pick pockets). We don't need them to provide health care, or "save us" from smoking plants.

The government's tool is a gun, not a stethoscope, a Bible or anything else for that matter.

So...how much is too much? Can there be too much? Bet you evade it again.
Thrasymachus
1.5 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2010
How much is too much and how much is not enough is a matter for the people who are governed to work out for themselves. Once you've admitted the necessity of police, then you've got the problem of the kinds of behavior they police. Theoretically, we can say that we are justified in policing behavior that can have a negative or unfair effect on others. Deciding what what negative effects and what unfairness justify police intervention is a matter for the People, not you or marjon.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
She didn't build a child "from scratch" either.
So she bought baby parts and assembled them? Did she use superglue and toothpicks or was it more like construction paper and paste?
Tell you what. I'll play the BS game that "the mother owns her body and therefore has the right to kill anything growing inside it" if you'll agree that any father that doesn't want anything to do with an unborn child that's his shouldn't have to pay support for it.

Do we have a deal?
If he has legal grounds and evidence to substantiate his view that he didn't plan to have children and took necessary precautions, yes I agree with you. I think the prevalence of male demonization in paternity cases is ridiculous.
And don't put words in my mouth, you can barely handle your own. There is no such thing as an "American job".
Then don't complain about unemployment under the current market conditions if you're advocating for greater levels of unemployment.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
So if a significant majority of the People in CA, or other states, define marriage in their Constitution as between one man and one woman that is quite acceptable to you?
No, it's contrary to the equality provisions within the US Constitution and Federal law.

We know you're anti-gay rights, Marjon, and we do hold it against you. Especially since your common stomp and shout is about personal and civil liberty. Don't worry though, any time you change your mind I'll be happy to defend your right to take a shank in the ass. Just don't ask me to "get behind you" in the action.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
Homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex.
No, they have the same right to marry any human being they so choose.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2010
Actually, I don't think the government should be in the business of endorsing or condemning any kind of long-term sexual partnership. And while I would certainly disagree with any movement that would attempt to change the Constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman, if that movement managed to do so, then that would be the law.

And I answered your question directly, mystic. How much regulation is too much is a matter for the people to decide. I don't know, in every case, what the regulations are or ought to be, and I daresay neither do you.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2010
Now you want to limit the number of spouses people can have? On what basis?
Do you see a limiting clause in my statement or are you having your delusions again?
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2010
Sure they might have an interest in making sure enough children are born to carry on into the future. But it's far from obvious that "traditional marriage" is the best way to do that, and anyway, we're not running a child shortage, so it would be quite stupid to encourage more of something we already have plenty of. And if the government decides to grant special privileges to certain kinds of legal partnerships, they have to have a reason for making the distinctions between some kinds and not others that don't also violate earlier or more sweeping laws, such as for example, the laws and Constitutional Amendments against nondiscrimination.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2010
If they violate more fundamental commitments in the law, they are not allowed. We have some parts of the law that we have made harder to change or do away with through what you would call "mob rule." But then, since you view democracy and republicanism as "whatever 50% +1 says, goes" such subtlety would likely be lost on you.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
The govt should have no interest in increasing the number of people to control and regulate?
I agree, the govt has no role in defining marriage, unless it decides to grant special privileges to those who are married.
SH: You did imply one: 'any human being'.
The only limitation within my statement was any human being. This excludes animals, plants, inanimate objects. It does not speak to quantity.
I can support a Constitutional republic limiting the power of 'the People' to control the minority.
At that time it ceases to be constitutional or a republic and becomes oligarchy, you know, like they had in Soviet Russia.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2010
But it doesn't limit the power of the People. Not really. All it does is put a much higher bar before they can do things like repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments, or put back Prohibition. There is no ultimate limit to the power of the People through government. They simply sometimes choose to restrain themselves in the use of that power because they recognize that sometimes they make bad decisions. But the right of the People to make bad decisions with their government does not remove the legitimacy of government nor the People. Socrates understood this when he voluntarily drank the hemlock after the people of Athens condemned him to death.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2010
Deciding what what negative effects and what unfairness justify police intervention is a matter for the People, not you or marjon.


Uh no it isn't. The government is what it is, not what people WISH it were. Just like creationists wish science would tell them the Earth was created in seven days, that's not the role of science. Government has a role and it's determined by the NATURE of government, not by the wishes of the populace. YOU, me, and marjon included.

It's an institution that's been sorely abused and made to fit situations it's not capable of handling. Notice I didn't say "not GOOD at handling correctly" I said not CAPABLE of handling correctly.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
So she bought baby parts and assembled them? Did she use superglue and toothpicks or was it more like construction paper and paste?


No but she did need some genetic material from someone else.

If he has legal grounds and evidence to substantiate his view that he didn't plan to have children and took necessary precautions...


OK I'd agree with that as long as we can substantiate that the mother took precautions to avoid getting pregnant before she can legally have an abortion.

It's gotta be equal on both sides.

Then don't complain about unemployment under the current market conditions if you're advocating for greater levels of unemployment.


I'll complain about unemployment, because I'm not so simplistic in my economic theory that I don't think "unemployment" is caused by one factor.

And to be clear we're talking about AMERICAN unemployment, not unemployment in general. Again if you're going to talk about globalization you might want to think in those terms.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
No but she did need some genetic material from someone else.
Which I'm sure many of us would probably donate pro bono.
OK I'd agree with that as long as we can substantiate that the mother took precautions to avoid getting pregnant before she can legally have an abortion.
Eh no. She can do what she wants. It's her uterus. Just like she can't force you to have sex with her, you can't force her to carry a child to term. The only limit to this, in my opinion only, is after the first trimester where the former "clump of cells" now has a functional nervous system, including brain activity.
if you're going to talk about globalization you might want to think in those terms.
I always do. You, however, think that we can bucket up the coountry and control a "free market" with no regulations. The global economy is a free market. There is no international government controlling it and lately it has been very deleterious to the American economy.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
Which I'm sure many of us would probably donate pro bono.


Maybe you're a desperate needy man...not me. Moreover it's irrelevant to the point.

Eh no. She can do what she wants. It's her uterus. Just like she can't force you to have sex with her, you can't force her to carry a child to term.


Well then a man can do what he wants too and damn the consequences. She can say no if she can't deal with the financial consequences of raising a child alone. She's an adult, not a seven year old. Why does one have a responsibility to insure precautions are taken and the other does not?

I always do. You, however, think that we can bucket up the coountry[sic] and control a "free market" with no regulations. The global economy is a free market. There is no international government controlling it and lately it has been very deleterious to the American economy.


You're still talking about globalization and the "American economy" in one breath. You're clueless.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Maybe you're a desperate needy man...not me. Moreover it's irrelevant to the point.
I don't see how giving the gift of my genetic legacy would make me a needy or desperate person. Are you referring to sex? One can produce viable genetic material without having sex.
Well then a man can do what he wants too and damn the consequences.
With anything he creates inside his body, yes, yes he can, (and typically does).
You're still talking about globalization and the "American economy" in one breath. You're clueless.
If you think they're not inexorably linked, you're the one lacking a clue.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2010
I don't see how giving the gift of my genetic legacy would make me a needy or desperate person. Are you referring to sex? One can produce viable genetic material without having sex.


Oh, not needy, just...clinical? I don't know which is worse.

With anything he creates inside his body, yes, yes he can, (and typically does).


Yes and as a willing receptacle a woman has an equal share of responsibility in what grows inside her body...period. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say it's all the man's responsibility to insure contraception is used and absolve the woman while saying that it's HIS responsibility to pay for something for 18 years because it's "her body". That she might need to exercise some control over it isn't unreasonable in my view.

If you think they're not inexorably linked, you're the one lacking a clue.


They're linked, but there are no "SHOULDS" here. They aren't the SAME thing. How YOU think things SHOULD be is irrelevant.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Yes and as a willing receptacle a woman has an equal share of responsibility in what grows inside her body...period. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say it's all the man's responsibility to insure contraception is used and absolve the woman while saying that it's HIS responsibility to pay for something for 18 years because it's "her body". That she might need to exercise some control over it isn't unreasonable in my view.
Then follow your Christian imperative and only have sex after marriage. If you're unwilling to follow the track of the conversation, again, then this will be pointless.

I already established that contraception is a responsibility of both parties.

If you don't like the fact that women control reproduction, get mad at your "creator".

In the meantime, us human beings will ridicule you animals for suppressing 50% of the population as your personal playthings and baby ovens.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010

I already established that contraception is a responsibility of both parties.


I missed that one.

If you don't like the fact that women control reproduction, get mad at your "creator".


Women don't control reproduction. Our laws have made that the case, so I'll get mad at congress and the supreme court.

It takes two parties to reproduce, therefore both parties EQUALLY share responsibility. That I think that women aren't large children that need a man to take care of their irresponsibility in these matters doesn't mean I'm repressing 50% of the population (I can't help but think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail "help help I'm being repressed"). It means I respect 100% of the population and assume 100% of the adults can act like it and assume responsibility for their respective actions or in-actions.

If you wanna play the "her body" card then fine...HER RESPONSIBILITY too. ALL of it.

Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 15, 2010
It's in the NATURE of Government? WTF is that? A government is just a bunch of people who get together for some mutual purpose, and combine the force that they all naturally possess to enforce those purposes. There's nothing essential about it's form, or it's goals. The only thing essential about it is that it's made of people.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
If you wanna play the "her body" card then fine...HER RESPONSIBILITY too. ALL of it.
Just goes to show you, misology goes hand in hand with misogyny.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
If you wanna play the "her body" card then fine...HER RESPONSIBILITY too. ALL of it.
Just goes to show you, misology goes hand in hand with misogyny.


Indeed, why should someone who wants the government to take care of him cradle to grave expect an adult female to be capable of taking care of the responsibilities implied in taking care of "her body".

I don't think holding someone responsible for their actions is disrespectful...quite the opposite.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
It's in the NATURE of Government? WTF is that?


As YOU said a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. I agree.

A government is just a bunch of people who get together for some mutual purpose, and combine the force that they all naturally possess to enforce those purposes. There's nothing essential about it's form, or it's goals. The only thing essential about it is that it's made of people.


Try having a government that doesn't claim a geographical monopoly on the use of physical force and see how long it lasts...

That's it's essential nature. Anything else about it is completely arbitrary. That's why there is "good" government and "bad" government. Your problem is that you're confusing the arbitrary with the essential...on at least two levels.

Democracy doesn't EQUAL government...it's a FORM of government. The same applies with theocracy, dictatorship, a republic, etc.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2010
Now you're making no sense at all. Of course democracy is a form of government, and of course all governments claim a monopoly on force. Few governments actually restrict that claim to geographical boundaries, but all of that is beside the point. All that a monopoly on force means is that what the government says, goes, on pain of force being used against you. Just what do you think you're adding to the debate here? The addition of "legal" to the monopoly is doubly strange. It's the claim of monopoly on force that defines legality.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2010
Of course democracy is a form of government, and of course all governments claim a monopoly on force.


But not all governments make you buy medical insurance. That's not a proper function of government.

A government as you said bases itself on the use of physical force to mediate between, or to impose it's will upon it's citizens. When you recognize what the NATURE of all government is then it's easy to see that it's proper function is protecting you from criminals or foreign invaders...and that's ALL.

Just what do you think you're adding to the debate here?


Explaining the proper use of government based on its basic nature.

The addition of "legal" to the monopoly is doubly strange. It's the claim of monopoly on force that defines legality.


Monopolies on services generally aren't considered "legitimate" or "legal". I add it there because the government must have a special dispensation in this case. As to defining legality that's a whole other can of worms.

Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2010
When you recognize what the NATURE of all government is then it's easy to see that it's proper function is protecting you from criminals or foreign invaders...and that's ALL.

Who are criminals is a matter for public debate. And further, who the hell are you to limit the function of government in that way? Right in the Preamble to the Constitution it says that one of the reasons for this government's existence is to "Promote the Common Welfare." And please tell me how the Commerce Clause bears directly on either protecting us from foreign invaders or on policing criminals? The People pool their force to achieve a common end. There are no natural limits to what those ends can be.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2010
Who are criminals is a matter for public debate.


No it isn't. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Criminals are those who harm other human beings either by physically assaulting them, theft, or fraud. There are no victimless crimes.

And further, who the hell are you to limit the function of government in that way?


No sir, who the hell are YOU to arbitrarily and endlessly expand the scope of government to force me to buy what goods and services you want me to? I'm putting no obligation on you, but you'd cut my proverbial throat and watch me bleed out to serve your social agenda. That would fall under the objective definition of a criminal.

Cont.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2010
Right in the Preamble to the Constitution it says that one of the reasons for this government's existence is to "Promote the Common Welfare."


Have you heard me quote the constitution in this debate? You think America "has it right"? I sure as hell don't. This is a philosophical discussion...just in case that escaped you.

However, "Promoting the common welfare" to me means making sure people like you can't steal from people like me arbitrarily and call it "taxes". It has nothing to do with unemployment insurance, Social security (a pyramid scheme), Medicare, Medicaid or whatever other pet program tickles your aggrieved "conscience"...none which wasn't even thought of at the time.

Lastly the preamble is NOT part of the LEGAL machinery set up by the constitution, it's flowery wording before a legal document, it isn't law it's a verba flourish before describing what the law is.

Sell your bull**** somewhere else, we're not buying.

Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2010
And please tell me how the Commerce Clause bears directly on either protecting us from foreign invaders or on policing criminals? The People pool their force to achieve a common end.


Again, as I said before the constitution isn't my Bible on government. If it's yours then that's entirely your problem. I think mistakes were made and the interstate commerce clause, slavery, and how we dealt with women were the worst.

The interstate commerce clause is something WORSE than nothing at all. It isn't about protecting us from criminals, it's about manufacturing criminals out of law abiding citizens.

I have no problem with some regulation but as it stands the clause is FAR too over broad.

There are no natural limits to what those ends can be.


Sounds like an advert. for every tin-plated dictator in the world. Pretty f****** scary. Moreover, if there are no "natural limits" why not pass a law giving every citizen a billion dollars and six cars?
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2010
If you want to talk about this philosophically, then pick a philosophy. You're the one arrogant enough to think you know better than the ideological founders of not only this country but many other constitutional democracies and republics around the world. You want to claim that government only exists to protect us against violence, fine. But you've still got a hell of a problem defining violence. Requiring people to buy health insurance is no different than requiring them to pay taxes, and in this case, such a requirement is a disincentive for insurance companies to engage in fraud, which they have indisputably been doing. Given the existing structure of how we pay for health care, it was the only feasible means of combating this fraud, which was almost never truly intentional fraud, but a result of the nature of private insurance.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2010
Further, I would argue that insurance is precisely the job of government, and no other. The main function of both the police and the armed forces is not to fight crime, but to prevent it, in most cases by their very presence. They act as insurance against criminality. Further, paying for education and infrastructure is a kind of insurance to protect and promote future prosperity. Finally, perhaps the most successful government program in history, judged by both its longevity and profitability both to government and society, Social Security, simply is insurance. This, in my mind, is the legitimate function of a government, to insure those social activities as are required to promote social stability and prosperity.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2010
The Constitution clearly gives the government the power to mandate health insurance, both through the Commerce Clause and through their right to levy taxes. The fraud of which I speak is not statutory fraud, but moral fraud. The fraud of writing fine print to excuse dropping coverage when sickness finally occurs. Moreover, it is impossible to police this area because it overlaps with the ability of insurance companies to prevent fraud to themselves. The fraud is structural, and not the result of any individual intending to defraud someone.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2010
Social Security is not bankrupt, and won't be bankrupt for another 50 years, and that's only if they don't index the payroll tax cap to inflation, as they should have done from the beginning. Social Security has brought in more money than it's paid out in benefits every year except this last one, where it had to use some of it's savings to pay its obligations, and that was because of Bush's recession. But it's got more than enough savings in the form of T-bills to last for a very long time, at least until I retire in 30 years. But then, that's really why Republicans want to dismantle it. They can't stand the idea of all that money not under private control.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2010
Having the government manage social programs or economic policy beyond protection from fraud or pyramid schemes like social security is like having the military trying to teach kindergarten.

And if you're HONESTLY trying to extol the benefits of blatantly idiotic programs like social security then I might as well be debating with someone over the color of the blue sky.

Lastly nice try on the argument from authority fallacy re: the founding fathers. Yeah they did a lot of good things but they didn't have it all right. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc etc...

Oh and as an aside, if you're going to insist on whining about the constitution in a philosophical discussion on the role of government in a general sense; then if the government is going to do a direct tax like mandate health coverage they better make sure it's apportioned...because it isn't now. Otherwise it's clearly unconstitutional...even in socialist land.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2010
Personally with the ABYSMAL track record the government has had with social security, medicare, medicaid, and trying to manage the economy in general I think that anyone who's still trying to argue for the old model is a lost cause.

I'm to the point where these discussions are exactly like we're still arguing over whether Soviet communism was a viable economic model. Personally I'd rather do something more constructive...like doodle little squiggles on a sheet of paper.

New Deal liberals who want a program or regulation for every sector of the economy and your personal life are worse than a waste of breath because just by debating with them you give them a little credibility rather than relegating them to the idiot pile with Young Earth Creationists, Apollo Landing conspiracy theorists, and flat Earthers.

Good luck with the socialism though, let me know how all that turns out for you in 20-30 years...as for me I plan on moving elsewhere before then.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2010
Yeah they did a lot of good things but they didn't have it all right. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc etc...

Of course they had it right. Had passage of the US Constitution depended upon ending slavery, womens' suffrage, etc. the Constitution would not have been passed.
Given the Constitution's amendment process and how that process eliminated slavery from the Constitution and that voting rights have been revised, they did the best they could at the time and enabled future generations to change what they could not.


No they DIDN'T have it right, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to amend it.

Maybe what you meant to say was we finally GOT it right?

My point is that some of the founding fathers were slavers and thought women didn't have the intellectual capacity to be trusted to vote...therefore pretending they were some kind of political Gods is idiotic, fallacious, and dishonest.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2010
No they DIDN'T have it right, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to amend it.

Maybe what you meant to say was we finally GOT it right?

No, that is not what I meant to say.


Oh OK my bad, slavery and disenfranchised women is right. Got it. *rolls eyes*
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2010
It seems that even the right wing trolls can't agree. You can hate on SSI all you like, call it all the names you want, it won't change the fact that it works as it was intended, and has been working since long before any of us posting here were born to worry about it. Its success is indisputable by any measure. It's profitability has meant the government didn't need to raise taxes from other areas. Millions of Americans have been able to retire in relative comfort after a lifetime of work because of it. And because of it's success and longevity, too many people forget that before it was in place, the vast majority of the elderly died in poverty unimaginable today, or worked themselves into the grave. Only conservatives hate Social Security, because they cannot stand the idea of people being made better off without someone else making an obscene profit off it.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2010
Like I said, you can bitch and moan about it all you like. It just shows how little you understand about what it does and how well it works. Of course the T-bills SS buys with it's surplus have to be paid back. But in an economy that experiences any amount of inflation, it will be cheaper to pay those T-bills back in the future when they're due than to raise the equivalent amount in taxes now. I understand perfectly well about profit, but in this case, it is the people who pay into SSI and get benefits when they retire who profit, not the administrators. And whether or not the people of Galveston are better off for having opted out of SS is a matter for debate. Many argue, and have good evidence, that the opt-out was worse for the poor and middle class of that city.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 18, 2010
I don't think you do.
Obviously marjon, you don't think at all. You're simply a sound-bite quote-mine parrot who's angry at everybody because you fail, and you somehow think that's the government's fault.
The administrators of SS are the politicians and they have profited quite handsomely by stealing the payroll tax funds and buying your vote. Looks like the socialists have done a good job of indoctrination on you.

The Commissioner of SS is Michael Astrue, a lawyer who has worked with several private law firms. That position is an appointed one, not an elected one, which means by definition that he's not a politician. And go ahead and find out how much he gets paid in that job. Wanna make a bet that less than 50% of the average CEO pay in this country?
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2010
People only lose once the ponzi scheme ends. If it never ends (SSI), and their's no one stealing the money, no one loses.

If it wasn't for SSI, my mother would be working 3 jobs instead of 2 for my disabled brother and millions of elderly would be starving.

Marjon would force us to risk our safety net to the stock market; a corrupt casino.

The poor need at least one low risk safety net or they'll be a burden on everyone else.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
If it wasn't for SSI, my mother would be working 3 jobs instead of 2 for my disabled brother and millions of elderly would be starving.


The soviets had a bureau to make sure people had shoes. At any one time in Soviet Russia there were about seven million people without shoes. We never had that and we never had seven million people in the states without shoes.

Just because the government mandates a retirement plan doesn't mean people would starve without it. Quite the contrary. The market has a better record than pyramid schemes historically. Were she able to take the money she had taken from her for social security and had it invested in the market she may not have to work ANY jobs at this point.

It's amusing how naive people can be and how dependent in their thinking. Do you think that if we put the government in charge of milk production and then all the sudden the program collapsed there'd be no milk in the country?
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2010
History shows the exact opposite of what you assert. Prior to the advent of this social safety net you wingers all despise, the majority of Americans never retired. When they became too broken down to work any longer, they became the wards of some church or charity if they were lucky. If not, they died begging in the streets. That's the history of the market. Now that we have SSI, people retire at 65 if they wish, and get reasonably good care until the end of their lives without having to break themselves working into their 80s and 90s. (cont)
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2010
The "market" might have a better record than "pyramid schemes," but SSI is not a pyramid scheme, and its record is better than the market in the metrics that matter: i.e. being able to make it's payments every year. When it comes to retirement, surety and stability are more important than absolute growth rates. It's more important that your retirement fund exist as you expect and plan them to than that they have a chance to be 10x bigger (which also include a chance that they won't exist at all). Only a conservative would have the hubris to suggest putting all our retirement eggs in the stock market basket mere months after the second worst market collapse in American history.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2010
Well, there ya go marjon, you've proved my point for me. Pensions and retirement plans were innovated in the 1880s, and it took them 50 years to improve the majority of American's retirement from dying in poverty and squalor to...dying in poverty and squalor and making money off it for insurance companies' stockholders. Good job private industry. I'd take SSI any day over any of the common pensions and 401k schemes prevalent in private industry today. And most people prefer Medicare as their medical insurance when they retire and go so far as to switch from their private insurance on retirement. If private insurance is so much better, why do people abandon it when a public option is available?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
We never had that and we never had seven million people in the states without shoes.
You may want to read up on the great depression, the civil war, the revolutionary war. History is important.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
The "market" might have a better record than "pyramid schemes," but SSI is not a pyramid scheme, and its record is better than the market


I refuse to argue about whether the market has better returns than SSI...the sky is blue...

Only a conservative would have the hubris to suggest putting all our retirement eggs in the stock market basket mere months after the second worst market collapse in American history.


If the market/American economy collapsed you can kiss your precious SSI payments goodbye buddy. Only a leftist moron would have the hubris to think that a government parasite scheme could make payments without the market economy it leaches off. Your precious social programs are ONLY as stable as the market that makes the wealth to feed them.

No evil profits, no parasitical socialist programs. I understand the axioms of my philosophy, you on the other hand obviously do not.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
Yes, read up how the government created the Great Depression.
By listening to the invisible hand of the free market. Where the market collapses and the government watches. Lack of credit regulation followed by market collapse. Sound familiar?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2010
We never had that and we never had seven million people in the states without shoes.
You may want to read up on the great depression, the civil war, the revolutionary war. History is important.


YOU are going to lecture me on history...that's funny.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
YOU are going to lecture me on history...that's funny.
No, that wouldn't do any good. I'm going to call you on it when you're wrong about history, as you usually are.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 19, 2010
Of course you refuse to argue, and are reduced to calling names. You can understand your own axioms all you like, but that does not make them sound. There's this unpleasant thing called the real world that puts the lie to your axioms when they are put in practice. So far, all you've done is call SS names, and assert that it's a failure, without any evidence, and without addressing the counter-arguments presented. Marjon, of course, just changes the subject, but I expect such flippancy from him. But you're going to have to do better than calling Social Security a "pyramid scheme" without any reason, and dismiss its longevity and success at its mission with a hypothetical private market investment plan that completely misses the point.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2010
YOU are going to lecture me on history...that's funny.
No, that wouldn't do any good. I'm going to call you on it when you're wrong about history, as you usually are.


I know you like to think you're right and "calling me out" and you often do. It's your little world, and you get to live in it SH. *gives SH a lollipop and pats him on the head*
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
I know you like to think you're right and "calling me out" and you often do. It's your little world, and you get to live in it SH. *gives SH a lollipop and pats him on the head*
MM, how about less noise and more content. I thought you were trying to formulate an eruditic response. I'm disappointed.
Thrasymachus
1.5 / 5 (13) Oct 19, 2010
And still you wallow in calling names when your bald-faced lies and unsupported assertions are exposed. It's no more than I've come to expect from conservatives, who really don't care about the truth, or prosperity, but are terrified of living in a world where other people matter and are valued as much as they are, and seek desperate validation for their fear. It is this motivating attitude of terror that turns me off of modern conservatism more than any policy of theirs, though lately, there is no policy or even set of policies that they can own.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
It's no more than I've come to expect from conservatives, who really don't care about the truth, or prosperity, but are terrified of living in a world where other people matter and are valued as much as they are, and seek desperate validation for their fear.
Don't counter generalize now. Not all conservatives or conservative minded people are the same. This is merely the loudest minority, like the wahabists of Islam or the PETA type environmentalists.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2010
Of course you refuse to argue, and are reduced to calling names. You can understand your own axioms all you like, but that does not make them sound. There's this unpleasant thing called the real world that puts the lie to your axioms when they are put in practice. So far, all you've done is call SS names, and assert that it's a failure, without any evidence, and without addressing the counter-arguments presented.


So where does SSI revenue come from? The tooth fairy? It's only as stable as the system that feeds it.

That you don't think I've addressed your arguments is totally irrelevant to me, as is this whole discussion really. There's no convincing you, and there's no convincing me...

SSI IS a pyramid scheme, it is only as stable as the economy that supports it (as are all parasitical programs) and therefore when you ridicule that economy you're ridiculing SSI and socialism in general.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2010
The big steel beam that runs the length of many houses, and on which rest the joists for the floor is supported by the foundation walls. But those walls in turn are supported by the beam and floor, which help prevent it from bowing in and failing. The beam could not be supported without the foundation wall, but the foundation wall risks failure without the beam. The fact that SSI relies on wages to exist does not speak to the fact that it also strengthens and stabilizes that part of the economy which supports wages. All good insurance does this, and like reinforcement in construction, it does it best when it is tied together and made a unified system. This implies the sort of centralization and coordination only possible and affordable through government. So I say again, you've said nothing, and merely called names.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 19, 2010
Don't counter generalize now. Not all conservatives or conservative minded people are the same. This is merely the loudest minority, like the wahabists of Islam or the PETA type environmentalists.
I generalize groups of people who themselves identify with a certain moniker according to what they do. I will grant that in past decades, there were some few conservatives who had important and valid opinions, some of which were overlooked at the time. William F. Buckley and Goldwater come to mind. I'm not even entirely critical of Nixon. But conservatives today stand for none of this, as evidenced by their actions. Maybe they think the rest of us will forget about the previous decades of conservative political dominance.
otto1932
2 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2010
It's no more than I've come to expect from conservatives, who really don't care about the truth, or prosperity, but are terrified of living in a world where other people matter and are valued as much as they are
And yet youre the kind of guy who doesnt care if those people are born with half a brain because their soulless mothers abused them in the womb??
It is this motivating attitude of terror that turns me off
Yeah like anyone would be if they saw a pregnant woman standing at a bar doing shots, with a cigarette in her hand.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2010
Pregnant women who smoke and do shots are either ignorant or brainwashed or have serious emotional or physical problems, they are not soulless. I am not afraid of them, nor of what they are doing, but I do pity them and have compassion enough to wish that they would be educated or treated and so become healthy. Those who are beyond treatment, I would pity even more, and mourn the tragedy if their children should suffer from it as well, but I would not deny them life, or the chance to better themselves, even as they wallow in the lowest depths, as you would.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
as you would.
Which shows us that you read into posts whatever you want. And 'soulless' is a metaphor as I know souls do not exist. Hard to entertain the metaphysical without the concept though, isnt it?
I would pity even more, and mourn the tragedy if their children should suffer from it as well
-You mean 'do' instead of 'would', as future lives are being ruined at this very moment.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 19, 2010
I typically write what I mean. No future is certain, so at best you can say that possible future lives are probably being ruined. And to that I say, if and when they are, then I would have pity and mourn them. For hypothetical tragedy, I shed only hypothetical tears. And your infantile strawman of Western science and philosophy does no favors to the tattered appearance of intellect you occasionally display.
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2010
And your infantile strawman of Western science and philosophy does no favors to the tattered appearance of intellect you occasionally display.
As does your compulsion to bitchslapping ad hominum which, when you strip away the strained pretension you think you get from your philo crap, is only just bitchslapping.

"Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of intellectual disability in the Western world. In the United States and Europe the FAS prevalence rate is estimated to be nearly one in every 100 live births."

-Lives ARE being ruined. You would let drunks drive because, by your logic, they havent KILLED anybody yet. Of course, running kids on bicycles down in the street isnt really the same thing, is it? At least on the street they have a CHANCE, dont they?
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 19, 2010
Just so everyone knows, both those links go to the Cato Institute, despite the socialsecurity.org domain name in the first. Second, social security has never operated on a ratio of more than about 4 full time incomes per individual payout. In the 1950's there were more people paying in per retiree, but more of those jobs were very low wage and part time. And the ratio has never been more than about 7 to 1 in any rate. We might have some trouble getting through the baby boomer bulge, but right after that is profitability again, because the demographics are shifting younger as the baby boomers die off.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Oct 19, 2010
And I'm sure you'll still be saying that on your deathbed, when it is still around.
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
Returning to sunspots,

Changes in solar inertial motion (SIM) shift the position of the compact, energetic neutron core inside the Sun and induce cycles of sunspots, in the same way that . . .

He---He collisions shift the position of the compact, positive (+) nucleus inside neutral He atoms and induce an electric dipole ["Electric dipole moments of He atoms excited by He---He collisions", Physics Letters A, vol. 175 (1993) 314-321].

That is consistent with the idea that the internal structure of the Sun is like that of an atom, where almost all of the mass is in an infinitesimal fraction of the total volume.

Abstract of 1993 paper: "By investigating the intensity of He I spectral lines emitted after excitation by 10–25 keV He---He collisions as a function of an axial electric field, electric dipole moments of the impact-excited n = 4 states were determined. Though neutral projectiles were used, large dipole moments were measured."

Oliver K. Manuel
otto1932
not rated yet Oct 20, 2010
Hey margroin
"I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." The public, he says, doesn't support unregulated, winner-take-all capitalism and so he doesn't support the public making decisions."
-Hyper-libertarian Facebook billionaire Peter Thiel
http://www.slate....2271265/
-Reminded me of you-

Personally I dont support the public making decisions (they dont anyway) but I also dont support guys like Thiel making them either (they dont- they only think they do)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.