 sj |
||
|
||
BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Apr 01 - 12:56 PM Hi there! Hmmm...gotta brush up on my HTML... I'll need it for the Ebay ads, anyway. Okay, then. Stay tuned for Bushwhacked-11, on the way soon, I'm sure. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 22 Apr 01 - 09:11 AM Dear Ebbie,
You had said early in "Nine"...
Mav, I'm with you on that subject: We need to compel ourselves to put in plumbing, however much it costs, that separates 'white', 'gray' and 'black' water. As it stands (or flows) now, our best water is going into the same sewage systems that treat our most polluted water.
If we had had the forethought, when indoor plumbing was first installed- not really so many years ago- to separate the systems, we would readily see the sense of it.
And it's not too late.
Here's an answer, this could be installed anywhere (especially cities).
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 21 Apr 01 - 10:29 PM Excellent MAV! (nice HTML, too, by the way) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 21 Apr 01 - 10:13 PM LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!
no comment.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 21 Apr 01 - 07:42 PM Well, Little Hawk, at least you didn't start a thread called "2 Reasons why psoriasis is better than Dubya". (*BG*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Apr 01 - 07:30 PM Good point, Alex. By the way, the thread I launched that compared George W. Bush to psoriasis ("2 Reasons why Dubya is better than psoriasis") may have unduly offended certain conservatives around here. If so, it's unfortunate, because the main purpose of that thread was NOT to go after George W. Bush...but to satirize 2 other threads which had appeared on that same day: Namely..."99 Reasons why guitars are better than girls" and a counterattack that was launched against it called "100 reasons why guitars are better than men". I could not stand by and allow such annoying threads to go by without satirizing them. Accordinly, I thought..."what can I do that will make fun of these threads in a totally ridiculous way?" I came up with a thread entitled: "12 reasons why camels are better than llamas". It turned out to be a lot of fun, and got a lot of contributions. Who needs 99 reasons, anyway? 12 are entirely enough. Then I came up with an even briefer concept: "2 Reasons why Dubya is better than psoriasis". Now, anyone who thinks that I was SERIOUSLY saying anthing about Dubya in launching that thread is missing the point. It was a satirical humorous attack on the men/girls/guitars nonsense, that's all. It was theatre of the absurd, and an obvious red flag to attract any liberal bull who might be pacing the arena at that moment, looking to make a wisecrack or 2. I could just as well have said "2 reasons why Bill Clinton is better than a nosebleed", and it would have served exactly the same purpose. The joke was not aimed at the politician, but at the thread concept. Okay? Ostracize me if you want to, but not over a mere silly joke... - LH p.s. And if I'm totally off the beam about this whole thing...well, it wouldn't be the first time that happened, I'm sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 21 Apr 01 - 12:36 AM In general I expect that eating whole foods is good for you, as well as exercising (within reason) and cutting down on empty calories. These things I'm willing to "buy into" because they don't need obtuse studies to make them plausible. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:39 PM It's true that there have been any number of flip-flops on these issues. I have heard over the years that chocolate, coffee, aspirin, and a host of other things are very... bad for me... or very... good for me... And I expect I will hear more such contradictions in short order, all backed up by the most reliable sources. We were supposed to get a BIG snowstorm here on Monday night too according to the weathermen. It never happened. No snow. Zip. Thank God! I am sick of snow at this point. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:06 PM Interesting points, MAV. And thanks for posting the URLs. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 20 Apr 01 - 10:11 PM Dear Carol, I wanted to be sure you understand that I don't absolutely deny the existance of global warming.
I'm not real convinced that we have anything to do with it though.
I believe it may have a political agenda, 31 years ago they were warning about a coming ice age.
I also have seen evidence that the government weather system can't predict out 5 days accurately (How about that foot of snow you were supposed to get last month in DC?) So, just like other "the sky is falling" issues, I have my doubts.
Here are some other examples, "salt is bad for you", "Eggs are bad for you", "sacharine will cause you to get cancer", "high fiber diets get rid of cholesterol".
The proof of actual global warming is not beyond a reasonable doubt and based on computer models. Since I believe in looking at both sides of an issue, I will go to the sites provided by the others and see what they have to say.
I have a feeling that we may be in a slight temporary global warming trend which is caused by solar cycles. Within the last week we were blasted by a massive solar flare which is caused by cyclical sunspot activity.
I got some other urls here Carol for home water treatment. I'll put them up here but I haven't looked at them yet myself.
www.johnellis.com
www.waterwise.com
www.filterdirect.com
www.puritywater.com
Talk to you later.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Greg F. Date: 20 Apr 01 - 03:06 PM Primarily the former, Alex; the latter would depend on your definition of "reasonable" :-) You appear to be singularly favored, Carol. Enjoy it while you can! ;-) Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:41 PM I dunno, Greg. MAV has given me some thoughtful responses before. I bet he can do it again.
Thanks Skeptic and Greg for the addresses. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:32 PM Greg is this "preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Greg F. Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:30 PM Hullo, yourself, Carol- Skeptic's Site Address is: http://www.ipcc.ch/ I suspect "MAV" and "thoughtful" are mutually exclusive terms. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect it's the case. ;-) Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Skeptic Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:29 PM Carol, The url is: http://www.ipcc.ch/. This is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Another is: http://www.pnas.org/ which is the homepage fro the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A search on "Global Warning" will bring up a number of articles that deal with the issue, pro and con. One that I read argues the possibility that it is non-CO2 gases that are the real problem, for example, refelcting (sort of) what Mav has been saying. The difference being that the conclusions in the Proceedings are not nearly as dogmatic as Daly's. Still, the Greening Earth site makes interesting reading. Their concentration on the physical sea level measurements is interesting. I understand the IPCC (and NASA and others) have started using satellite based measurements. (Or maybe have been using it for a while) which may resolve that particular issue. The real issue is to come up with something to explain all the phenomena - the purported rising sea level, climate changes, glacier and snow pack data and all the rest. Saying it's normal climatic variation begs the question as it has a lot of the earmarks of a non-falsifiable claim. If the Greening people (and others) want to be taken seriously, they really need to do more than say "see, this piece doesn't fit, that means the whole thing is wrong". IMO anyway. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 20 Apr 01 - 12:09 PM Hi Skeptic. Thanks for posting the link. I can't get it to work, probably for the same reasons I couldn't get MAV's to work. (Old technology on my computer.)
Would you mind posting the URL for that site? Thanks. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Skeptic Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:55 AM Carol, You may also want to look Here for the alternate view from the 3000+ scientists who do believe in global warming. Is there a possibility that teh Greening Earth Society is right. Yes. IMO a minimal one. If they are it would seem to count as being a good guess versus good science. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:37 AM Hi Greg. I appreciate your input. Somehow, I have a feeling that my post will get a more thoughtful response from MAV than yours will. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect it's the case. And seeing as how a thoughtful response was what I was looking for (rather than a fight), I hope I'm right. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: GUEST,Greg F.- remote computer Date: 20 Apr 01 - 08:12 AM Oh, c'mon now, Carol! Its posted on the 'Net on someone's personal website(s). It must be true! And don't be too hard on the guy 'cause he got an arcane piece of scientific theory like gravity wrong. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 20 Apr 01 - 12:21 AM Thanks for the URLs MAV. I've read some of what's in them. There's a lot of stuff in there, so I probably won't be able to read all of it any time soon. I'm reluctant to take the information in those sites at face value at this time because I have quite a few concerns and questions that I would want to have addressed before I did. For instance, I notice that all three sites are authored by the same person. What is his background? What are his qualifications? Who is the driving force behind his organization? Is it a grassroots effort, or is there any coporate money involved anywhere along the line? How many scientists agree with his findings? What do other scientists have to say about his findings? Then there are questions about conflicting evidence. What sort of explanation does he have for the fact that (according to what I heard), the polar ice caps are calving at much higher rates than previously? Also the fact that there are areas of bare ground in Antarctica where there previously been a thick layer of ice? Also the landmasses that are already disappearing, such as Smith Island in the Chesapeake bay, and possibly some of the Florida keys? And I had a problem with this bit... Since the tide follows the moon, the tides will be higher in those regions where the moon's orbital path periodically takes it "high" in the sky, and lower in those regions where the moon's orbit periodically takes it "lower" in the sky. I would think it would be the other way around. I would think that a closer proximity would cause a higher tide because the force of gravity would be greater. If I'm right, then I would probably have some serious questions about whether or not Mr. Daly is qualified to promote himself as an expert or even a scientist regarding these kinds of issues. I think I would want to hear Mr. Daly having an in depth discussion with several other people from various scientific disciplines, as well as knowing whether or not he or his backers (if he has any) have any kind of axe to grind, financial or otherwise, before I would base any decisions on his findings. Thanks for sharing that stuff with me. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: DougR Date: 19 Apr 01 - 10:34 PM Toad: No apology necessary at all. I would merely point out that the Clinton administation had seven years to do something about the problem, if one exists, but they didn't do anything about it until weeks before a new administration came to Washington. I stand by my belief that any new president (representing the views of either party) should be given the latitude to review last minute Executive Orders. I will read the article, however. Thanks for recommending it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 19 Apr 01 - 07:14 PM Toad, can you give us page number for that? I want to get a copy and with the page number I can make sure it's in the edition I have. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: toadfrog Date: 19 Apr 01 - 07:05 PM Doug R: The Wall Street Journal printed an article today on the Arsenic issue, which I recommend you read. The regulation which Mr. Bush cancelled was under consideration for seventeen years before being put into effect. "Dozens of studies" were conducted. The margin of safety for Arsenic (in federal regulations) "is lower than for virtually any other substance the EPA regulates." On the other hand, it is expensive to get rid of, so that very large outfits like ARCO (which runs Anaconda Copper) hired people to prove that Arsenic really isn't dangerous. And then suppressed the studies when the results showed that yes, it really was that dangerous. The article mentions three additional instances where scientists were misquoted, or bribery was attempted, in an effort to make it appear that Arsenic really wasn't all that bad. So with this background, our President now tells us, that Clinton made a decision "at the very last minute," which he, George W. Bush, "pulled back," "so that we can make a decision based on sound science." All this is in today's WSJ. I read it every day, and in my opinion the WSJ is not infected by any liberal bias. Sorry Doug R., but Mr. Bush does not impress me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:31 PM Bon appetit! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:28 PM Dear Carol, Sure, I'll put them here so you can copy/paste them.
1) www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm
2) www.john-daly.com/ross1841.htm
3) www.john-daly.com/evidence.htm
Going out for a seafood platter, best get moving. See you later
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 19 Apr 01 - 01:33 AM DougR, I think Bruce O. would just like someone to provide him with the verses to the song which, being by Mark Russell, were most probably a part of a comedy routine. Bruce O. probably found them amusing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: DougR Date: 19 Apr 01 - 01:20 AM Well, Guest Bruce O., maybe you haven't heard the latest, but I heard today that the Bush administration is revisiting the Arsenic in the water thingy. It is still not clear to me why anyone would be so surprised that a new administration would not look carefully, and yes, study, any last minute laws initiated as Executive Order by an outgoing President. Seems prudent to me. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 18 Apr 01 - 11:10 PM Hi MAV,
I had some trouble with your links. I'm using an old browser and it sometimes cause problems with links. Could you post the URLs for the sites you want me to look at? Thanks. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: GUEST,Bruce O. Date: 18 Apr 01 - 10:57 PM Anybody catch the Mark Russell special on PBS tonight at 8:00 PM? He closed with his song about arsenic in your water. I just got the heading typed up when I was told in no uncertain terms that it was time for dinner, and after dinner I couldn't remember the verses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 18 Apr 01 - 10:54 PM Dear Carol, Good to hear from you.
This is supposed to be a very accurate way of measuring changes in sea level. If my memory serves me correctly, they said they have detected a rise in sea level since they started measuring using this method. Has anyone else heard anything about this?
Here is a little reading material which relies on a very low tech method of measuring the level of the ocean.
Falling sea level rock, Part one
Falling sea level rock, Part two
There are also reports on volcanic activity under the ice cap and many other natural phenomenon that are causing "symptoms".
I also have read that satellite data has been embarassingly unsupportive of the global warming theory.
I'll see if I have any information on that.
Talk to you later,
mav out PS. By the way, when they start getting accurate weather forcasts 5 days out, maybe I'll start paying attention to their 50 year predictions.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 18 Apr 01 - 10:16 PM Hey Mouse,
It never made sense to me.
I guess I feel the same about coca leaves and poppies, but not the refined concentrated products.
I also would differentiate between adults and kids having the right to possess.
We have a "medical marijuana" law here.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Apr 01 - 09:41 AM MAV - If you are saying that you are NOT in favour of regarding a naturally growing plant (MJ) as an illicit substance, and that you are not in favour of treating people who grow it and personally use it as criminals... Then we are in agreement on this one. I have no interest in smoking MJ, by the way, I just don't think other people should be prosecuted for so doing in the privacy of their own homes. I don't smoke, period...tobacco or marijuana. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: CarolC Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:49 AM About the question of rising sea levels. A year or so ago I read or heard somewhere that scientists are now using a technology that is similar to what surveyors use to measure distance, in order to determine whether or not the sea level is rising. Apparently, they are bouncing signals from satelites off of the ocean surface and measuring the amount of time it takes them to get back to the satelite. It's kind of like bouncing a beam from a theodolite off of a surveyor's rod and measuring the time it takes to get back to the theodolite. This is supposed to be a very accurate way of measuring changes in sea level. If my memory serves me correctly, they said they have detected a rise in sea level since they started measuring using this method. Has anyone else heard anything about this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: GUEST,MAV Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:18 AM Hey, MAV, here's something we can argue about......How can a "conservative" defend the unconstitutional "war on drugs"?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 04:40 PM Oh, LH, there's no end to coming up with handy theories about WHY the Governuisness wanted MJ illegal. The question is why they did it unconstitutionally, and why we continue to let them get away with it, and why anybody who can roll such terms as "enemies of the constitution" off their tongue like they were kissing their wife can put up with it. Don't forget the power of DuPont (hemp rope cut into their nylon rope market) and Hearst (hemp fiber paper cut into his wood fiber paper market). Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:43 PM Alex - Here is a possible reason why the powers that be decided to make marijuana an illegal substance, despite its pretty innocuous characteristics compared to numerous legal drugs... The ordinary public can grow, harvest, and package it with absolute ease! In their own backyards! This means it is effectively outside of the control of the money machine, unlike coffee, alcoholic beverages, heroin, refined sugar, and all manufactured pharmaceuticals. All of those require a degree of expertise to manufacture that is far beyond what is required in the case of marijuana...thus they are fairly much out of reach of the ordinary public to manufacture...thus they can support a lucrative official business structure which will provide them (at a HIGH price) to an addicted public. Believe me, a complete idiot can grow and harvest marijuana and roll it into joints and smoke it. I knew any number of complete idiots in the early to mid-70's who did. They couldn't cook, they couldn't clean the house, they couldn't hold down a job, but by golly they could grow and package marijuana! All you need is earth, water, sunshine, some plastic baggies, and a few rolling papers! No way the System is gonna allow something like that, when they can't control (meaning: monopolize) the source or the marketing!!! Better to waste the time and resources of a lot of highly trained police personnel, and keep them dollars rolling in...for the legal manufactured drugs. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:26 PM "And you're sick of all this repetition..." - Bob Dylan ...must've hit the Submit button twice, I guess. Sorry. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:42 PM Ah yes, particularly when the whole society is geared to drug use and addiction as a way of life, and a means of sustaining the economy. I'm talking about nicotine, caffeine, refined sugar, alcohol, uppers, downers, addictive over-the-counter medicines and prescriptions, TV watching, shopping addiction (the most over-consumptive civilization in history heads out dutifully each day to the mall...while the 3rd World starves), sex addiction (encouraged in almost every form of commercial advertising), fashion addiction, automobile addiction (resulting in horrors like Los Angeles freeways), gambling addiction (coming soon to your town, courtesy of the Mob), Internet addiction... Internet addiction???? ACCCKKK!!! They got me. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:42 PM Ah yes, particularly when the whole society is geared to drug use and addiction as a way of life, and a means of sustaining the economy. I'm talking about nicotine, caffeine, refined sugar, alcohol, uppers, downers, addictive over-the-counter medicines and prescriptions, TV watching, shopping addiction (the most over-consumptive civilization in history heads out dutifully each day to the mall...while the 3rd World starves), sex addiction (encouraged in almost every form of commercial advertising), fashion addiction, automobile addiction (resulting in horrors like Los Angeles freeways), gambling addiction (coming soon to your town, courtesy of the Mob), Internet addiction... Internet addiction???? ACCCKKK!!! They got me. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:30 PM Hey, MAV, here's something we can argue about -- who is more of an enemy of the constitution than people who support the extremely unconstitutional federal ban on growing or possessing marijuana? When they wanted to make alcohol illegal, they realized they needed to amend the constitution, because the 10th amendment took away that right from the feds. But when Big Business wanted marijuana made illegal, it was done without even glancing at the Constitution. How can a "conservative" defend the unconstitutional "war on drugs"? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Kim C Date: 16 Apr 01 - 05:38 PM Hmmmm.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Apr 01 - 04:39 PM You seem to have gotten stuck on the italics key, John... There was a statement a while back to the effect that American conservatives see "all forms of authoritarianism as the domain of the left"...that is, fascism, Stalinism, communism, etc... Well, I know that's how they see it. I lived in Skaneateles, New York once, after all, and I personally knew otherwise rational people who thought the US government had been taken over from within by communist operatives. However, because American conservatives see it that way doesn't make it so. Why wouldn't they think so? That's what they've been taught from birth. I remember my "social studies" classes in Skaneateles, New York. I was encouraged every day to hate communists with all my heart and soul, and to hate anything "leftist". Communist conservatives suffer from a similar fallacy. They think that all forms of authoritarianism and oppression emanate from the right. Why wouldn't they think so? That's what they've been taught from birth. Same story...different version. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. The fact is, authoritarianism can function with equal effect either under a right-wing or a left-wing power structure. In a right-wing power structure, rich men and their bought politicians (also rich men) used hired thugs, police, and soldiers to beat up and kill striking workers...from the 1800's right through till the mid-20th century. That was during the long and bloody formation of workers' unions in the developed world. Those unions secured basic human rights that we now all take for granted. In a left-wing structure, monolithic governments have repeatedly used soldiers and police (official thugs) to do exactly the same thing. They have both done it with equal gusto and similar effect. What difference does it make if the thug's paycheck was signed by Joe Walton or Joe Stalin...to the striking worker who is shot and carted away to the graveyard? Authoritarianism thrives on both the right and the left. In both cases it does so at the behest of the privileged few who control...the system, the money, the resources, and the firepower. If someone beats me up and kills me for no good reason but to feather his own nest at my expense, what do I care if he is funded privately or by the state? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: Skeptic Date: 16 Apr 01 - 02:41 PM MAV Dude? DUDE? God, they're freaking everywhere. SIGH :-) (Sorry. We all have oure limits). Notice we aren't using the post office to communicate this information. We could, but for some reason we aren't. Or FedEx either, come to that. How about the whacked out, overpaid ,"going postal" workers? Overpaid? By what standards? The post office is a government monopoly. If you don't believe it's still federal, try crossing a postal inspector and see what the consequences are. No. It is a quasi-private corporation. Sort of the worst of both worlds. The inspectors enjoy a fairly unique atatus. No, they can't account for millions if not billions of money (I forgot the actual figure). They can't even give the same answer to the same tax question twice. I thought it was the Dept of Interior that had lost track of billions in the Tribal Trust. Or is this something else? As to the IRS not giving the same answer twice, I once had the fun of getting two different answers in the same phone call. Neither totally right, it turned out. On the other hand , I once worked for a company that wrote software for banks and had a 40% market share. Very complex software, at that. One of our clients once calle4d the help desk four different times during a 10 day period. Asked 4 different people the exact same question about the software we wrote and got four wring answers. And the company was (and remains) an industry leader. (SURPRISE; It's not Microsoft) I don't know why anyone would let another entity either government or business be in charge their own retirement account. I'll take a 401K or IRA (either type) any day. I agree about 401k or IRA. Sadly, a lot of companies don't like them. But I was referring to the abuses and fraud by the businesses themselves. There is a federal program to insure private pensions. A number of companies seemed to use that as an "excuse" to essentially raid their employee's pension plans to fund various endeavors, expansions, acquisitions and so on. The problem is that when the investments go south, they never bother to refurbish the plans (much like social security). As Raoul Duke commented "But the pension plan was just sitting there". Yes, it's illegal. But the company can always file bankruptcy and the individual's responsible can hide behind the corporate shield. (Which always struck me as a form of privatized sovereign immunity. Be interested in hearing any Libertarians explain and reconcile the idea of individual responsibility with the reality of the corporation as a legal entity). They are doing that. It makes no sense to retire some of that debt, it would cost more to pay it off early than to let it mature as planned. Some of the debt is savings bonds which would require people holding them to take them in and lose interest. Savings Bonds are a minimal share.(A couple of hundred billion, I think) I'm talking about the 3 trillion plus in T-bills. Essentially revolving a credit account. Plus the hidden deficit of the underfunded social security and medicare funds. There should be no connection. The tax burden is way too high, the government needs to be reduced in size and make do with less bureaucracy. Yes. First we need to approach the matter fiscally, not ideologically. I can (IMHO) make a better argument for social welfare programs than for corporate welfare. So far, the cuts have addressed the former. Consider the ergonomic program. The reality is that, systemically and fiscally, the proposed conversions (10 years in the making) would cost less than the cost of the injuries that would happen without then. The problem is that the cost of the claims is a shared risk. An insurance pool of sorts that spreads the cost of claims across all businesses, whether ergonomics has anything to do with them or not. Had the regulation stood, those types of businesses whose work generated the problems, would have borne the costs. A sort of cost of doing business. Which is now shared unequally. It should be his right to decide how to dispose of their income, not the government's. What happened to freedom? Freedom isn't absolute. And one of the essential functions of any government is some sort of redistribution of resources. The issue remains, for me, one of individual morality and ethics. Though not practicing, I was raised a Christian with a strong belief in duty and the dignity and well being of the individual. Of all individuals. Like John Dunne, I believe that no man is an island. I am troubled when the right to make a profit is proclaimed, acted on and legislated as a higher moral/ethical value than our common duty to one another. End of Sermom. That's not true. I have seen the crowds of clergy gearing up for the FBI deployment. They range from the Nation of Islam to the LDS and Catholics. Scientology? Pagans. Wiccans? Buddhists? Time will tell. And no doubt the law suits. Actually I would say 1000s of times more column inches and air time (including a concerted effort by climatologist) have been devoted to promote the concept of global warming than to dispute it. But then, there are many more column inches devoted to debunking perpetual motion than proclaiming it's existence. The latest bomb to fall on the global warming crowd is the release of information that most changes have been noticed at sea and the temperature samples were being taken by sailors from the water, assuming water and air temperatures would be the same. Seems that assumption was not valid and the water temperatures were in fact higher than the air temps. skewing the whole study's findings artificially high. Not exactly "artificially". A methodological error. (Maybe) It was the first hard evidence I've seen. Before we start the celebration, lets recall that what they may have found is not that global warming isn't happening. But that the rate of increase is less than originally proposed. Other evidence, like the rock indicator you mention are anomolies. Scientist have no great obligation to explain an anomaly. Rather, those who propound the anomaly need to also discount all (or almost all) of the other evidence (the preponderance of evidence) documented. Global warning explains it. They must show why it doesn't and offer an alternate explanation. Debunking a set of facts is half the equation. Providing an alternate to the fact sis the other. But of course, you're my favorite liberal Liberal? Moi? Probably not. Liberl or conservative tend to be top down (Ideologies mandating behaviors and beliefs). I prefer building from the bottom (from basic values) up. Thanks for the discussion. Any thoughts on the plan to cut funds so the Dept of Interior can't enforce court orders related to the Endangered Species Act? Other than it's certainly cynical enough? Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 16 Apr 01 - 11:01 AM In a political thread? Horrors! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: RichM Date: 14 Apr 01 - 10:29 PM So, does anybody here want to talk about *music* ? You know, do-re-mi etc? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 14 Apr 01 - 10:27 PM Thanks for the offer.
I like to cook Chinese, Thai and Indian. I also can do more normal stuff like Italian and Mexican.
We have 85 cookbooks and two killer spiceracks.
I just don't like to cook for myself.
My wife, however, really can throw down the Cajun. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 14 Apr 01 - 09:38 PM PS are you really unable to cook, or just not feeling like it tonight? I can give you some quick-and-easy ideas for supper that might help you avoid eating popcorn when your wife is away, if you're interested. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 14 Apr 01 - 09:37 PM I don't know if we will be friends, but we don't need to be enemies! Perhaps. I wouldn't hope for too much until you're willing to apologize for calling my grandfather a thug. Enough is Too Much!!! Ah, something we agree on. Will you stop, then? You say you will. But you've said that before, and you didn't. As I said earlier, I'm not holding my breath. The only reason I'm discussing this with you at all is that you had a civil discussion in the previous thread with somebody (I forget now who) about water treatment. Which showed me a side of you I'd never seen before, and I thought "hey -- maybe this guy *IS* capable of civil discourse." It was short lived, alas, but you say you're going to be civil now, and I'm willing to let you try. But not willing to hold my breath. I will forego the apology on the mind-reading thing, if you can come up with one for my grandfather. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: mousethief Date: 14 Apr 01 - 09:24 PM All I ask is a simple apology, and an end to your nastiness. Until you end the nastiness, I will continue to point it out. If that's flaming, so be it. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BUSHWHACKED-TEN! From: MAV Date: 14 Apr 01 - 09:20 PM Mousethief, I wonder if the Republicans would ever win a national election
There isn't such a thing.
Ad hominem" is short for "argumentum ad hominem." It is a logical fallacy, brought about when one disputant, in the course of refuting his opponent's argument, instead attacks the opponent
Yes, that's what I said......"Of course..to the man. Usually refers to a personal attack, something you do a lot"
Personal attacks which are not part of an argument, i.e. which are not intended to "win" an argument, are not "ad hominems." There is another name for them, but they are not ad hominems.
I will go on using the current usage as practiced on cable news programs.
"something you do a lot"
Funny, I feel exactly the same way about you
What can fix this impasse?
Stop the name calling and ridicule, and stop accusing me of it.
I've tried to be very generous in my last several posts but you keep attacking me, presumably out of this notion that I haven't "earned" the right to not be attacked yet. Which as I said speaks volumes about you
Enough is Too Much!!!See last posts on "A Little Credit Please".
I wouldn't read this stuff if I was a casual observer, the level of discourse has deteriorated too far.
I'm declaring an uneasy truce and hoping it will hold.
I plan to continue debating and share an occasional smart-@$$ remark but not at your expense.
I don't know if we will be friends, but we don't need to be enemies!
Wife not home...popcorn for dinner.
mav out
|