Friday, July 16, 2004
Big Day at Tour
Today was stage 12, a mostly flat stage, with two "climb category 1" climbs at the end. Of course Lance came out with the big surprise, he broke out and came in second in the stage. He did not take the overall lead (he's currently in second, 5:24 back), but most importantly he put distance between his main rivals in a big way:
Rider-Time Behind in Stage-Time Behind Overall
Jan Ullrich-2:30-3:39
Roberto Heras-2:57-5:00
Iban Mayo-1:03-6:42
Tyler Hamilton-3:27-4:22
Levi Leipeimer-1:59-3:26
Ivan Basso-0:00-1:09
Bobby Julich-2:28-3:47
Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano-2:30 -4:00
Yes a VERY good day for Lance, if he keeps this up he'll be in Yellow before the race reaches the Alps.
Update: Bush gave his opinion on the race, "He's going to win and I'm going to win," I would agree. So Bush supports Lance, you think Lance will support Bush too?
Rider-Time Behind in Stage-Time Behind Overall
Jan Ullrich-2:30-3:39
Roberto Heras-2:57-5:00
Iban Mayo-1:03-6:42
Tyler Hamilton-3:27-4:22
Levi Leipeimer-1:59-3:26
Ivan Basso-0:00-1:09
Bobby Julich-2:28-3:47
Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano-2:30 -4:00
Yes a VERY good day for Lance, if he keeps this up he'll be in Yellow before the race reaches the Alps.
Update: Bush gave his opinion on the race, "He's going to win and I'm going to win," I would agree. So Bush supports Lance, you think Lance will support Bush too?
Happy B-day
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Memorial to US Soldiers
A Toe Crusher Response
The Pirate's Note: I edited down the quotes from my previous post (which can be found here) to shorten this entry. I will respond sometime this weekend when I have more time, feel free to post any comments. Oh yeah some emphasis added 0=).
1. I know there are more ways than that to keep inflation under control. Just stated it’s one and that therefore tax rises can have their use.
“In a time of economic growth...low of non-existent. “
This is not correct. The population growth is only important on a long term scale. If there’s a shortage of workers now it doesn’t matter how many baby’s get born. And, as far as I know, that’s still the most important source of population growth. Therefore that argument isn’t valid…
“Higher taxes only...into a recession.”
The consequences you state are correct but the higher tax incomes can lead as well to a higher spendation of the state which can keep the economy going.
“…lowering taxes...increases demand…”
That’s true but you say it like there’s no downside. Your state debts might grow which will leave you with high constant costs for the sate in the future…
I don’t say higher taxes are always good but they’re usefull to keep the conjuncture differences (between high and low conjuncture) as small as possible. I don’t say that lower taxes are always bad because it indeed is a way to get the economy going. But there are other possibility’s for that as well. I think that I’m supporting high taxes more because the situation a couple of years ago was good. Despite the fact that we have, as far as I know, high taxes. I believe that extra state expenses are a better way to stimulate the economy than lowering taxes. Here inflation is quite an issue so the governament is trying to limit the wages in all sectors. I can go on about why I prefer higher taxes, that won’t change your view but I hope that I have convinced you that high taxes aren’t necessarily bad.
You say it yourself, poverty has increased. Bush should do/have done something about that. Here in Holland people who are made redundant get 70% of their last wage for a certain period (depends on how long you’ve worked). After that people always get the social minimum. (that’s 70% of the lowest allowed wage) That counts for people who finished school and can’t get a job too. That way people always have enough money to eat drink and have shelter (yes, they make sure there’s always a demand from their side). I know that that will cost your country very much money and I don’t say that Bush should copy our laws. As a matter of fact, right wing politicians are trying to cut the costs on social services as well. But what I want to say is that it’s Bush’ responsibility.
“But it has gone up due to...Sept. 11th.”
True but, so what? Fact is there are millions of people who are living in poverty and Bush isn’t doing what he should do to get them out of it. Since the law of demand and supply isn’t working when it comes to jobs and workers (since I’m sure that there’s something in your country as the minimal wage and if not I can give some other reasons as well…) there should be some social service, period.
I see your point on the Greece part. But I still don’t see why it should raise doubts about the poverty line. (btw. I re-read your comment in which you talked about Greece for the first time. Another flaw in that argument was when you stated that the lifestyle is an important issue. I disagree since that problem is the same in each country. Yet still it the USA there are (in percentages) more people who are living in poverty than in most other first world countries))
“Another common theme...(Goodwill or Salvation Army) for 3.00.” Here in Holland I can’t follow your elections well except on major speeches/debates and I sometimes see some of the propagandic (from both sides) commercials. So I can’t directly say something about that. What I can think of anyway is that people who live in poverty don’t know much about Goodwill and Salvation Army. I can’t state that with figures and stats but that seems logical. And yes, perhaps they might get some things at a decent price but the important thing is that they don’t have the money to get all their primary needs…
“but the best way...support themselves." I hope I have convinced you that there are better ways to do that. If I didn’t then I doubt I ever will since I know there are numerous people who agree with you and your theory. And you are right, it’s a way indeed but definatly not the most effective let alone the best for the people in my opinion. (don’t see this as “Ok, I give up, he’s winning” because I’m still convinced I’m right and I’m still willing to prove my points to you but it’s just that I don’t believe I’ll ever convince you on this point.”
2. “In terms of the US the war was legal, per the Constitution, because it was authorized by Congress.”
Might be so but they’ve broken international rules. Rules they’ve agreed with and signed. So it doesn’t matter what the Congress says it was illegal. Besides, in France after 1789 the totalitarian reign of the king was divided in different powers. The power that makes the laws, the power that executes laws and the juridical power. Currently it’s still that way though ofcourse the excecution and fabrication of laws come together. That doesn’t mean that the Congress is always right. I believe that Bush and the Congress were told that he was ignoring the constitution when he wanted to prohibit gay marriages (which by the way would be a very bad decision in the first place, I hope you agree with me that homosexual people (with that i mean both women as men since the ‘homo’ part comes from the ancient Greek language in which it means equal) have the right to get married). From that point alone you can deduce that the Congress isn’t always right when it comes to their rights.
“Also point 2b...use of force”
Very bad quoted here. It said that thát (your quote) was one of the reasons which would allow a war. It didn’t state that it was the case (I believe both the CIA as the british version of it (MI5 or 6, always mix them up) have stated afterwards that the threat wasn’t big and they knew it.).
“Also a fair argument...is Saddam didn't come clean.”
True, but you know that there are no (or hardly any) chemical or biological weapons found. You’ve (your country has) seen ghosts. There was no planned attack. And Saddam didn’t have the resources (which surprised me in the start as well since the US (!) supplied them more than they have used so far) to make an attack…
You state that there were found some chemical weapons. Perhaps, and perhaps the inspections weren’t perfect. But it’s stupid to say that the country with the largest amount of biological and chemical weapons has the right to attack a country which has some chemical weapons which they (the USA) supplied and which were not big enough to be any big threat to that country.
End of the story is that the USA accidentally has control of enormous amounts of oil and has many recovery jobs to do which gave your economy a boost. They didn’t have any rights to do it but the pleasures they expected to get from it (they didn’t think about the response of the Iraqi people) were to big…
3. Propaganda is NEVER a good thing. Not when the Nazi’s did it, not when Bush does it.
“Comparing the Nazis to America...but I don't see how).”
True, the Nazi’s made sure by removing opposing people that everybody did what they wanted. But that didn’t happen terribly much in Germany itself. It mainly happened in the conquered countries. What does make the difference is that, first of all, Hitler held great (meaning very powerful, I naturally do not support his ideals) speeches while Bush should hire better writers. I mean, it happens very often that when Bush sums things up he sums things up in two or four pieces while three is by far the most effective. Second thing, He makes numerous ‘Bushisms’ (translated: signs of stupidity) which make him look stupid and (see, summing up in three) finally, the situation in the USA isn’t as bad in Germany back then. Poor people follow people who promise them wealth. (and yes, there’s a lot of poverty in your country but because of Versailles it was worse in Germany)
So there are reasons that Bush doesn’t have as many followers as Hitler, but it’s not as if he’s not trying.
“If you hamper...the other.”
True, but only true if you are not the aggressor. Bush started the war, he was the agressor so the argument isn’t valid. And Orwell was undoubtedly talking about the same thing as me. The statement is right, if you are NOT the agressor.
The Sovjet version of Marxistic Communism isn’t Marxistic Communism. When I first got Marxism in history class the first thing the teacher said was that Marx is his ideas were far from those of the Sovjet ideas…
The way God is used by Bush, for instance by the sickening use of God bless America, makes people believe God blesses America. And Bush knows that. “We’re fighting for God and country.” Wrong, you’re fighting for oil and economy, God has nothing to do with it.
Yes, The USSR and North Korea aren’t examples of perfect countries. That doesn’t mean secularism is wrong…
4. It’s more than a hunch. Although it is not completely proven. And I agree, it’s better to research and develop better technology but as long as that’s not finished every country should try to limit their emissions as much as possible. Your country, your president, isn’t doing that.
5. What should happen is that there will come a truth as soon as possible. How do you do that? Not by seperating the country’s with a fence which irritates the palestinians. Not by supporting one side (a side which probably has chemical weapons by the way, in 2020 there will be an Israel war with your country as the agressor if you ask me…). It should be done by forming a peace contract in which both parties have faith. And what Bush does isn’t helping.
6. Your artistic taste isn’t a valid ground on saying something needs to get supported by the governament or not. I haven’t seen the piece so I don’t know what it should mean but what you described doesn’t sound that terrible to me. I like art and I am happy to give new art a chance, therefore I agree with funding. Although I guesss that in a period of economic depression/recession it might not be the best thing to spend your money on indeed.
“First its unfair to all those who do it legally and unfair to business who do not break labor laws.”
There are different ways. Demand from Walmart and whoever that they pay the same wages to immigrants as normal Americans. That way they don’t benefit from it anymore. http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=walmart (the rest of the site is funny and making sense (most of the time) as well)
1. I know there are more ways than that to keep inflation under control. Just stated it’s one and that therefore tax rises can have their use.
“In a time of economic growth...low of non-existent. “
This is not correct. The population growth is only important on a long term scale. If there’s a shortage of workers now it doesn’t matter how many baby’s get born. And, as far as I know, that’s still the most important source of population growth. Therefore that argument isn’t valid…
“Higher taxes only...into a recession.”
The consequences you state are correct but the higher tax incomes can lead as well to a higher spendation of the state which can keep the economy going.
“…lowering taxes...increases demand…”
That’s true but you say it like there’s no downside. Your state debts might grow which will leave you with high constant costs for the sate in the future…
I don’t say higher taxes are always good but they’re usefull to keep the conjuncture differences (between high and low conjuncture) as small as possible. I don’t say that lower taxes are always bad because it indeed is a way to get the economy going. But there are other possibility’s for that as well. I think that I’m supporting high taxes more because the situation a couple of years ago was good. Despite the fact that we have, as far as I know, high taxes. I believe that extra state expenses are a better way to stimulate the economy than lowering taxes. Here inflation is quite an issue so the governament is trying to limit the wages in all sectors. I can go on about why I prefer higher taxes, that won’t change your view but I hope that I have convinced you that high taxes aren’t necessarily bad.
You say it yourself, poverty has increased. Bush should do/have done something about that. Here in Holland people who are made redundant get 70% of their last wage for a certain period (depends on how long you’ve worked). After that people always get the social minimum. (that’s 70% of the lowest allowed wage) That counts for people who finished school and can’t get a job too. That way people always have enough money to eat drink and have shelter (yes, they make sure there’s always a demand from their side). I know that that will cost your country very much money and I don’t say that Bush should copy our laws. As a matter of fact, right wing politicians are trying to cut the costs on social services as well. But what I want to say is that it’s Bush’ responsibility.
“But it has gone up due to...Sept. 11th.”
True but, so what? Fact is there are millions of people who are living in poverty and Bush isn’t doing what he should do to get them out of it. Since the law of demand and supply isn’t working when it comes to jobs and workers (since I’m sure that there’s something in your country as the minimal wage and if not I can give some other reasons as well…) there should be some social service, period.
I see your point on the Greece part. But I still don’t see why it should raise doubts about the poverty line. (btw. I re-read your comment in which you talked about Greece for the first time. Another flaw in that argument was when you stated that the lifestyle is an important issue. I disagree since that problem is the same in each country. Yet still it the USA there are (in percentages) more people who are living in poverty than in most other first world countries))
“Another common theme...(Goodwill or Salvation Army) for 3.00.” Here in Holland I can’t follow your elections well except on major speeches/debates and I sometimes see some of the propagandic (from both sides) commercials. So I can’t directly say something about that. What I can think of anyway is that people who live in poverty don’t know much about Goodwill and Salvation Army. I can’t state that with figures and stats but that seems logical. And yes, perhaps they might get some things at a decent price but the important thing is that they don’t have the money to get all their primary needs…
“but the best way...support themselves." I hope I have convinced you that there are better ways to do that. If I didn’t then I doubt I ever will since I know there are numerous people who agree with you and your theory. And you are right, it’s a way indeed but definatly not the most effective let alone the best for the people in my opinion. (don’t see this as “Ok, I give up, he’s winning” because I’m still convinced I’m right and I’m still willing to prove my points to you but it’s just that I don’t believe I’ll ever convince you on this point.”
2. “In terms of the US the war was legal, per the Constitution, because it was authorized by Congress.”
Might be so but they’ve broken international rules. Rules they’ve agreed with and signed. So it doesn’t matter what the Congress says it was illegal. Besides, in France after 1789 the totalitarian reign of the king was divided in different powers. The power that makes the laws, the power that executes laws and the juridical power. Currently it’s still that way though ofcourse the excecution and fabrication of laws come together. That doesn’t mean that the Congress is always right. I believe that Bush and the Congress were told that he was ignoring the constitution when he wanted to prohibit gay marriages (which by the way would be a very bad decision in the first place, I hope you agree with me that homosexual people (with that i mean both women as men since the ‘homo’ part comes from the ancient Greek language in which it means equal) have the right to get married). From that point alone you can deduce that the Congress isn’t always right when it comes to their rights.
“Also point 2b...use of force”
Very bad quoted here. It said that thát (your quote) was one of the reasons which would allow a war. It didn’t state that it was the case (I believe both the CIA as the british version of it (MI5 or 6, always mix them up) have stated afterwards that the threat wasn’t big and they knew it.).
“Also a fair argument...is Saddam didn't come clean.”
True, but you know that there are no (or hardly any) chemical or biological weapons found. You’ve (your country has) seen ghosts. There was no planned attack. And Saddam didn’t have the resources (which surprised me in the start as well since the US (!) supplied them more than they have used so far) to make an attack…
You state that there were found some chemical weapons. Perhaps, and perhaps the inspections weren’t perfect. But it’s stupid to say that the country with the largest amount of biological and chemical weapons has the right to attack a country which has some chemical weapons which they (the USA) supplied and which were not big enough to be any big threat to that country.
End of the story is that the USA accidentally has control of enormous amounts of oil and has many recovery jobs to do which gave your economy a boost. They didn’t have any rights to do it but the pleasures they expected to get from it (they didn’t think about the response of the Iraqi people) were to big…
3. Propaganda is NEVER a good thing. Not when the Nazi’s did it, not when Bush does it.
“Comparing the Nazis to America...but I don't see how).”
True, the Nazi’s made sure by removing opposing people that everybody did what they wanted. But that didn’t happen terribly much in Germany itself. It mainly happened in the conquered countries. What does make the difference is that, first of all, Hitler held great (meaning very powerful, I naturally do not support his ideals) speeches while Bush should hire better writers. I mean, it happens very often that when Bush sums things up he sums things up in two or four pieces while three is by far the most effective. Second thing, He makes numerous ‘Bushisms’ (translated: signs of stupidity) which make him look stupid and (see, summing up in three) finally, the situation in the USA isn’t as bad in Germany back then. Poor people follow people who promise them wealth. (and yes, there’s a lot of poverty in your country but because of Versailles it was worse in Germany)
So there are reasons that Bush doesn’t have as many followers as Hitler, but it’s not as if he’s not trying.
“If you hamper...the other.”
True, but only true if you are not the aggressor. Bush started the war, he was the agressor so the argument isn’t valid. And Orwell was undoubtedly talking about the same thing as me. The statement is right, if you are NOT the agressor.
The Sovjet version of Marxistic Communism isn’t Marxistic Communism. When I first got Marxism in history class the first thing the teacher said was that Marx is his ideas were far from those of the Sovjet ideas…
The way God is used by Bush, for instance by the sickening use of God bless America, makes people believe God blesses America. And Bush knows that. “We’re fighting for God and country.” Wrong, you’re fighting for oil and economy, God has nothing to do with it.
Yes, The USSR and North Korea aren’t examples of perfect countries. That doesn’t mean secularism is wrong…
4. It’s more than a hunch. Although it is not completely proven. And I agree, it’s better to research and develop better technology but as long as that’s not finished every country should try to limit their emissions as much as possible. Your country, your president, isn’t doing that.
5. What should happen is that there will come a truth as soon as possible. How do you do that? Not by seperating the country’s with a fence which irritates the palestinians. Not by supporting one side (a side which probably has chemical weapons by the way, in 2020 there will be an Israel war with your country as the agressor if you ask me…). It should be done by forming a peace contract in which both parties have faith. And what Bush does isn’t helping.
6. Your artistic taste isn’t a valid ground on saying something needs to get supported by the governament or not. I haven’t seen the piece so I don’t know what it should mean but what you described doesn’t sound that terrible to me. I like art and I am happy to give new art a chance, therefore I agree with funding. Although I guesss that in a period of economic depression/recession it might not be the best thing to spend your money on indeed.
“First its unfair to all those who do it legally and unfair to business who do not break labor laws.”
There are different ways. Demand from Walmart and whoever that they pay the same wages to immigrants as normal Americans. That way they don’t benefit from it anymore. http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=walmart (the rest of the site is funny and making sense (most of the time) as well)
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
More On Beckham's Shot
In further evidence that American Culture spreads to the world, the man who caught David Beckham's futile attempt at a penalty shot has put it up for sale on the internet. At least he was the only person to catch the ball as to avoid the same debacle that surrounded Bonds' [steroid aided] Home Run Ball.
but the money quote of the story is:
Sometimes its the small things that make me laugh
but the money quote of the story is:
"The most incredible thing was that the ball got as far as our seats and we were very far away from the goal," said Pablo Carral, a 25-year-old from Galicia, who caught the ball.
Sometimes its the small things that make me laugh
Pot Rots your Brain, again
When the Olympic torch is being run through your marijuana plantation, it's either time to whip out the zigzags or head for the hills.
Must Read
The Tour
Note to OLN, stop calling it "The Cyclysm" its a lame title call it the "Tour De France" its a name that doesn't need to be changed because anyone with half a brain knows what it means and what the even involves. I have also kept from blogging on the Tour up to this point because other than the Team Time Trial (with its lame anti-US Postal rule changes) isn't all that interesting, but finally we are getting into the mountains tomorrow, where the race will get interesting and the real contenders will move to the top of the General Classification.
End Overpopulation, Expand Canadian Health Care
Hat Tip to QandO.
The question whyt is it people still want to replace our system with the Canadian system?
I will admit that the US system is not the best, but what do you gain by replacing it with something that performs worse? Just another case were left-logic just doesn't make and sense.
The question whyt is it people still want to replace our system with the Canadian system?
On average, a patient in Canada must wait 17.7 weeks before receiving hospital treatment. In 1999, that meant that, in a single year, 192 patients who needed heart bypass operations either dies, or became too sick to have the surgery--which, of course, means they died in due course as well--by the time their spot on the waiting list rolled around.
And this lenghty waiting is standard in Canada. 21% of hospital administrators in Canada said that the waiting time for breast cancer biopsies was more than three weeks. That compares to 1% of US administrators. Hip replacement surgery for the elderly? 50% of Canadian administrators say the wait averages 6 months. In the US, 86% say the wait is less than 3 weeks.
I will admit that the US system is not the best, but what do you gain by replacing it with something that performs worse? Just another case were left-logic just doesn't make and sense.
Hmm Bob Mulholland, Wrong Again
So much for Bob's claim that North Carolina is back in play.
Response to Toe Crusher Part Deux
The material for this post from Toe Crusher can be found here.
1. There are other ways to control inflation, of which decreasing demand is one. Rather than type out all of the theories see a cliff-notes version here. It does reference how the US controls inflation through the Federal Reserve Board, mainly through controlling the money and adjusting interest rates. In a time of economic growth there will only be a shortage of workers if the population growth rate of the country is too low of non-existent. Which is not a problem that is effecting the United States, its more of a issue on your side of the world. In the States, when there are jobs there is someone there to take them. So when the economy is growing you can increase tax revenues, without increasing taxes due to the growing economy. Higher taxes only lead to less disposable income and decrease the demand for goods and services, this will eventually slow down the economy and possibly force it into a recession. When the economy is down, lowering taxes then gives people more disposable income, which provides people with the opportunity to buy more goods and services. That increases demand which requires a supply of workers to create that good or service. I would prefer a consumption based tax system where you get taxed on what you used or purchased, rather than being taxed on the work you produce (income tax), however since income tax won't go away a rate between 20-30% would be fair.
As far as poverty, yes it has gone up. But it has gone up due to the fact we were in a recession that was made worse by the attacks on Sept. 11th. During the recession people loose jobs which obviously hampers their ability to earn money. As the economy recovers more people will cross the poverty line out of poverty. Actually the reference to Greece wasn't to say Greece is worse (in fact I could reference any country). It was to illustrate that the poverty line is location based. In fact even here in the states the poverty line changes, in a city like Los Angeles a income of 30,000 a year you will just get by renting a 1-bedroom apartment, but if you make 30,000 a year living in Greensboro, Arkansas you're making really good money. Ironically the problem with poverty in the States isn't starving masses, its obesity. In those people who live below the poverty line obesity is far more common than those who are not, it is because the cheapest food isn't the best for you and people gain weight. Another common theme in this election is the girl who goes to bed cold because she doesn't own a jacket, well for 8.99 you can get on at Walmart and pick one up at the local thrift store (Goodwill or Salvation Army) for 3.00. Obviously no one should live in poverty, but the best way to eliminate poverty is to create jobs so people can work an support themselves. With that people need to learn to live with in their means, I know on my salary I can't afford the best of a given item, but I can purchase what gets the job done for less.
2. In terms of the US the war was legal, per the Constitution, because it was authorized by Congress. Also a policy to promote regime change in Iraq was signed by Clinton in 1998 (Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). Also point 2b from here which states "an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than the use of force, which is alluded to with intel given to the United States by Putin. Also a fair argument can be made that UN Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force is Saddam didn't come clean. As far as Blix, aside form the fact he comes from a nation that where many are proud that they did not fight the Nazis in WW2 because it wasn't their business, proved his inspections were quite inept being that chemical weapons have been found in Iraq that were never declared to or found by his inspection team that had been there since before the First Gulf War.
3. Because I didn't link before the site can be found here, although from reading most of it, you'll realize it exists in the Pacifica Radio Fever Swamp Land. For a decent review of Nazism see here and for capitalism is see here. As for the ideas that are similar well two people can have the same idea but different means to the end. Both Bush and Kerry want to create jobs, Bush wants to do it by cutting taxes and making it easier for small business (on a side relating to poverty, the biggest means by which someone in the lower classes moves up is by running their own business) to keep more money they make, while Kerry thinks that higher taxes and more regulation on business will create more jobs. Same idea, different means. But a brief notes on some of the sites similar ideas:
Individualism over Collectivism - He cities the change in the Army motto, in fact they are still the same, every person plays a important role in making the system work. They aren't just filler there to be there, but they are each important parts of the whole Army. Collectivism is inherently anti-individual rights and that the goals of the group are the goals of the individual. Comparing the Nazis to America in WW2 the entire nation was drafted into conquering Europe, in America those who want to support liberating Iraq work to do that, those who do not hold protests (and from being around a few of them here in LA, not bathing seems to be part of the protest, but I don't see how).
Merit Over Equality - This comes to a question of do you want equal opportunity or equal results? Because they cannot exist together, to level the playing field for opportunities, the results will no be equal because some work harder, get luckier etc. If you want to achieve equal results, you have to discriminate against who gets the opportunities or punish (ie heavily tax) those who are succeeding.
Competition over Cooperation - Competition leads to innovation and economic growth. If there is a incentive to make something better or cheaper it will be done, to the benefit of those who purchase the product or live in the area. Yes we are taught to win, winning feels good, but you also learn you can't always win, but the lesson is to get up and try again. In fact recent surveys has shown the average millionaire in America has declared bankruptcy 2.5 times in their life time, and upwards of 70% of millionaires are made all their money in their own lifetimes. In competition there is incentive to work hard, in cooperation (ie collectivism) no matter what you do you get the same, so why try?
Power Politics and Militarism over Pacifism - Deferring to Orwell: " Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me," & " We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." I would also state that his view of the Sandinistas is viewed through "rose colored glasses" where he conveniently ignores the bad of the Sandinistas or here.
Capitalism over Marxism - Being that the Socialist/Communist implementation for Marxist Ideas have lead to the largest mass murders and worst environmental polluters of the past century, its a good thing to see communism disappearing around the world.
Religion over Secularism - Hitler and bin Laden used God as justification, which is different than asking God for protection and guidance (ie. FDR & Churchill). Secularism, has shown far worse however, with the greatest secular nation of the past century being the Soviet Union, which proceeded to kill tens of millions of their own people, you can also include North Korea which intentionally starves its own people and tests chemical weapons on them.
4. I agree we should be careful with the environment, but Kyoto is not the method. In fact even the nation who have signed on to Kyoto have done nothing to meet it, with exception to nations of the former Soviet Union who achieved it through total collapse of their economies. We do influence climate, but we can't be sure how and is a hunch worth plunging billions more into poverty by cutting back the worlds economies? The key is not crippling nations economies, but in the research and development in better technology and emissions controls.
5. They way I look at the Israeli Security Fence is this: You live in Israel, and Palestinian Terrorists keeps coming over and blowing up your fellow residents of Israel. So Israel builds a fence to help protect their people from being blown up. Now the world court comes in and says you have no right to protect your citizens from being blown up. The fact is the fence has worked, they have stopped dozens of suicide bombers and saved lives, it would be nice if they didn't need a fence but as long as Arafat continues to support the suicide bombers Israel should be allowed to protect their citizens. The problem with working towards a diplomatic solution is Arafat's goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and will not accept any other solution. As far as who to support, I'm glad Bush supports the side that is most willing to have a two state solution that also happens to be the freest, democratic, inclusive, and socially liberal society.
6. I view government fund art as unnecessary spend, and if you see the crap these artist put out (ie. smearing menstrual blood on a canvas and calling it art) its quite depressing.
Bush is doing a "guest worker program" which is almost amnesty. A nice change would actually enforcing immigration laws. First its unfair to all those who do it legally and unfair to business who do not break labor laws. Second its a drain on social services (in fact many hospitals on the border are going bankrupt because of all the illegals they treat) because they get a service but don't pay in to the system nearly what they get. Also in Mexico the #1 source of income is Oil, #2 is money (last I checked it was approx 13 billion dollars a year) sent back to Mexico by legal and illegal immigrants, & #3 is Tourism. I'm of the school of thought, if you break the law you should be punished not rewarded.
1. There are other ways to control inflation, of which decreasing demand is one. Rather than type out all of the theories see a cliff-notes version here. It does reference how the US controls inflation through the Federal Reserve Board, mainly through controlling the money and adjusting interest rates. In a time of economic growth there will only be a shortage of workers if the population growth rate of the country is too low of non-existent. Which is not a problem that is effecting the United States, its more of a issue on your side of the world. In the States, when there are jobs there is someone there to take them. So when the economy is growing you can increase tax revenues, without increasing taxes due to the growing economy. Higher taxes only lead to less disposable income and decrease the demand for goods and services, this will eventually slow down the economy and possibly force it into a recession. When the economy is down, lowering taxes then gives people more disposable income, which provides people with the opportunity to buy more goods and services. That increases demand which requires a supply of workers to create that good or service. I would prefer a consumption based tax system where you get taxed on what you used or purchased, rather than being taxed on the work you produce (income tax), however since income tax won't go away a rate between 20-30% would be fair.
As far as poverty, yes it has gone up. But it has gone up due to the fact we were in a recession that was made worse by the attacks on Sept. 11th. During the recession people loose jobs which obviously hampers their ability to earn money. As the economy recovers more people will cross the poverty line out of poverty. Actually the reference to Greece wasn't to say Greece is worse (in fact I could reference any country). It was to illustrate that the poverty line is location based. In fact even here in the states the poverty line changes, in a city like Los Angeles a income of 30,000 a year you will just get by renting a 1-bedroom apartment, but if you make 30,000 a year living in Greensboro, Arkansas you're making really good money. Ironically the problem with poverty in the States isn't starving masses, its obesity. In those people who live below the poverty line obesity is far more common than those who are not, it is because the cheapest food isn't the best for you and people gain weight. Another common theme in this election is the girl who goes to bed cold because she doesn't own a jacket, well for 8.99 you can get on at Walmart and pick one up at the local thrift store (Goodwill or Salvation Army) for 3.00. Obviously no one should live in poverty, but the best way to eliminate poverty is to create jobs so people can work an support themselves. With that people need to learn to live with in their means, I know on my salary I can't afford the best of a given item, but I can purchase what gets the job done for less.
2. In terms of the US the war was legal, per the Constitution, because it was authorized by Congress. Also a policy to promote regime change in Iraq was signed by Clinton in 1998 (Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). Also point 2b from here which states "an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than the use of force, which is alluded to with intel given to the United States by Putin. Also a fair argument can be made that UN Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force is Saddam didn't come clean. As far as Blix, aside form the fact he comes from a nation that where many are proud that they did not fight the Nazis in WW2 because it wasn't their business, proved his inspections were quite inept being that chemical weapons have been found in Iraq that were never declared to or found by his inspection team that had been there since before the First Gulf War.
3. Because I didn't link before the site can be found here, although from reading most of it, you'll realize it exists in the Pacifica Radio Fever Swamp Land. For a decent review of Nazism see here and for capitalism is see here. As for the ideas that are similar well two people can have the same idea but different means to the end. Both Bush and Kerry want to create jobs, Bush wants to do it by cutting taxes and making it easier for small business (on a side relating to poverty, the biggest means by which someone in the lower classes moves up is by running their own business) to keep more money they make, while Kerry thinks that higher taxes and more regulation on business will create more jobs. Same idea, different means. But a brief notes on some of the sites similar ideas:
Individualism over Collectivism - He cities the change in the Army motto, in fact they are still the same, every person plays a important role in making the system work. They aren't just filler there to be there, but they are each important parts of the whole Army. Collectivism is inherently anti-individual rights and that the goals of the group are the goals of the individual. Comparing the Nazis to America in WW2 the entire nation was drafted into conquering Europe, in America those who want to support liberating Iraq work to do that, those who do not hold protests (and from being around a few of them here in LA, not bathing seems to be part of the protest, but I don't see how).
Merit Over Equality - This comes to a question of do you want equal opportunity or equal results? Because they cannot exist together, to level the playing field for opportunities, the results will no be equal because some work harder, get luckier etc. If you want to achieve equal results, you have to discriminate against who gets the opportunities or punish (ie heavily tax) those who are succeeding.
Competition over Cooperation - Competition leads to innovation and economic growth. If there is a incentive to make something better or cheaper it will be done, to the benefit of those who purchase the product or live in the area. Yes we are taught to win, winning feels good, but you also learn you can't always win, but the lesson is to get up and try again. In fact recent surveys has shown the average millionaire in America has declared bankruptcy 2.5 times in their life time, and upwards of 70% of millionaires are made all their money in their own lifetimes. In competition there is incentive to work hard, in cooperation (ie collectivism) no matter what you do you get the same, so why try?
Power Politics and Militarism over Pacifism - Deferring to Orwell: " Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me," & " We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." I would also state that his view of the Sandinistas is viewed through "rose colored glasses" where he conveniently ignores the bad of the Sandinistas or here.
Capitalism over Marxism - Being that the Socialist/Communist implementation for Marxist Ideas have lead to the largest mass murders and worst environmental polluters of the past century, its a good thing to see communism disappearing around the world.
Religion over Secularism - Hitler and bin Laden used God as justification, which is different than asking God for protection and guidance (ie. FDR & Churchill). Secularism, has shown far worse however, with the greatest secular nation of the past century being the Soviet Union, which proceeded to kill tens of millions of their own people, you can also include North Korea which intentionally starves its own people and tests chemical weapons on them.
4. I agree we should be careful with the environment, but Kyoto is not the method. In fact even the nation who have signed on to Kyoto have done nothing to meet it, with exception to nations of the former Soviet Union who achieved it through total collapse of their economies. We do influence climate, but we can't be sure how and is a hunch worth plunging billions more into poverty by cutting back the worlds economies? The key is not crippling nations economies, but in the research and development in better technology and emissions controls.
5. They way I look at the Israeli Security Fence is this: You live in Israel, and Palestinian Terrorists keeps coming over and blowing up your fellow residents of Israel. So Israel builds a fence to help protect their people from being blown up. Now the world court comes in and says you have no right to protect your citizens from being blown up. The fact is the fence has worked, they have stopped dozens of suicide bombers and saved lives, it would be nice if they didn't need a fence but as long as Arafat continues to support the suicide bombers Israel should be allowed to protect their citizens. The problem with working towards a diplomatic solution is Arafat's goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and will not accept any other solution. As far as who to support, I'm glad Bush supports the side that is most willing to have a two state solution that also happens to be the freest, democratic, inclusive, and socially liberal society.
6. I view government fund art as unnecessary spend, and if you see the crap these artist put out (ie. smearing menstrual blood on a canvas and calling it art) its quite depressing.
Bush is doing a "guest worker program" which is almost amnesty. A nice change would actually enforcing immigration laws. First its unfair to all those who do it legally and unfair to business who do not break labor laws. Second its a drain on social services (in fact many hospitals on the border are going bankrupt because of all the illegals they treat) because they get a service but don't pay in to the system nearly what they get. Also in Mexico the #1 source of income is Oil, #2 is money (last I checked it was approx 13 billion dollars a year) sent back to Mexico by legal and illegal immigrants, & #3 is Tourism. I'm of the school of thought, if you break the law you should be punished not rewarded.
Monday, July 12, 2004
GM Food For Thought
Cheap Vaccines by growing them into edible food. Its just one of the many possibilities of GM foods, the hardest part of this research will be keeping the EU Nanny-States and the enviro-wackos from their continued efforts to block the technology or destroy the research.
Humor, for a change
This made me laugh: Bush v. Kerry in this Land is Our Land.
Yee need a reason cast thou vote for Bush?
Here be 40.
The Toe Crusher response:
Here is Toe Crusher's detailed response to this post. I will respond to this later, when I have a tad more time to sit and write it out, although anyone is welcome to respond in the comments or can email me a response which I will post on my blog.
1. You state that the high taxes where a bad thing that was bad for the economy. I don’t know enough about the American economical history to say something specific about that but in general it isn't true that higher taxes are bad. There is something called conjuncture. In a period of economic growth there will be a time when there is a shortage of workers. Wages will rise and inflation will rise as well. Higher taxes will prevent this. How? People have less money to buy products (they consume less), therefore the demand will decrease, the production will decrease etc. You get in a negative spiral, that’s true, but that’s necessary to keep the inflation controlled. Ofcourse you have to break the cycle somehwere but higher taxes aren’t always bad for the economy.
For the second consecutive year, the poverty rate and the number of Americans living in poverty both rose from the prior years. Since 2000, the number of poor Americans has grown by 3 million. The official poverty rate in 2002 (the most current year for which figures are available) was 12.1 percent, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. Total Americans below the official poverty thresholds numbered 34.6 million, a figure 1.7 million higher than the 32.9 million in poverty in 2001. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)
Perhaps you’re right about the lifestyle of some but I don’t believe that you’re talking about the lifestyle of 34.6 million people. Besides, leave Greece out. We’re only talking about your country here. Greece isn’t perfect too, I agree, but it’s not an argument to say that it’s worse somewhere else…
Inflation indeed clears some debts. But it ruins, as you are well aware, the competiton position (I don’t know if that’s a correct economical term, some dutch terms aren’t translated by the dictionary) of your country.
2. I typed Iraq + war + illegal in google just now and the first hits said that Blix (weaponsinspector) and some major guy from the pentagon claim the war was illegal.
I can’t find the exact interantional laws about war right now but from Middle East Info I did find this: ‘many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law.’ Indeed it isn’t clear who the experts are but the source of this article comes from reuters so I think it’s fair to say that the article has a decent funding.
I also found on Global Policy.org a decent article, it’s the second link called ‘Legality Of Use Of Force Against Iraq (september 10, 2002). Again, this is not the exact law but the explanation of the law in this situation. (no need to read the entire article, it’s summarised in a few notes at the start)
3. “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
That’s the thing you saw. But that’s just the start. In points 1-10 there are 2 points about propaganda. Besides that you definatly should read the part ‘the boy who cried wolfgang’. There Bush’s remarks are compared to Hitler’s remarks. And Bush’s (administration’s) idea’s compared with those of Hitler.
4. You’re right. We don’t have much data to compare with during history. And it’s also true that there have been colder and warmer periods. But what’s also true is that we, mankind, have our influence on climatological changes. So no matter what the past learns us, we should be very careful with what we do with our environment and we should definatly not ignore Kyoto.
5. You might be right about the fact that he joins the right side. But joining somebody isn’t going to help. Besides, he is giving his blind support while there are some things happening (besides the murdering) that are wrong like the building of that wall/fence. He could better be independant (or act that way) and try to work out a peaceful, diplomatic solution. What he’s doing now isn’t helping at all.
6. * Arts shouldn’t be privatly funded. But that’s just my (unh-argumented) opinion.
* I also am against the extreme hard policy’s to remove illegal immigrants. Here in Holland our minister on that point is planning to deport them in a way (and it’s not just me calling it that way). I don’t know what Bush is doing about them but there are limits to what you can and cannot do.
Some last remark: from the white house website I got: “Makin America Safer With Decicive Action To Win The War On Terror”
That remark by Bush made me wonder if he has read the book 1984 by Orwell. Have you?
Update: I will probably respond tomorrow, after a long work day, not too energized to sit and think that much right now.
1. You state that the high taxes where a bad thing that was bad for the economy. I don’t know enough about the American economical history to say something specific about that but in general it isn't true that higher taxes are bad. There is something called conjuncture. In a period of economic growth there will be a time when there is a shortage of workers. Wages will rise and inflation will rise as well. Higher taxes will prevent this. How? People have less money to buy products (they consume less), therefore the demand will decrease, the production will decrease etc. You get in a negative spiral, that’s true, but that’s necessary to keep the inflation controlled. Ofcourse you have to break the cycle somehwere but higher taxes aren’t always bad for the economy.
For the second consecutive year, the poverty rate and the number of Americans living in poverty both rose from the prior years. Since 2000, the number of poor Americans has grown by 3 million. The official poverty rate in 2002 (the most current year for which figures are available) was 12.1 percent, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. Total Americans below the official poverty thresholds numbered 34.6 million, a figure 1.7 million higher than the 32.9 million in poverty in 2001. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)
Perhaps you’re right about the lifestyle of some but I don’t believe that you’re talking about the lifestyle of 34.6 million people. Besides, leave Greece out. We’re only talking about your country here. Greece isn’t perfect too, I agree, but it’s not an argument to say that it’s worse somewhere else…
Inflation indeed clears some debts. But it ruins, as you are well aware, the competiton position (I don’t know if that’s a correct economical term, some dutch terms aren’t translated by the dictionary) of your country.
2. I typed Iraq + war + illegal in google just now and the first hits said that Blix (weaponsinspector) and some major guy from the pentagon claim the war was illegal.
I can’t find the exact interantional laws about war right now but from Middle East Info I did find this: ‘many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law.’ Indeed it isn’t clear who the experts are but the source of this article comes from reuters so I think it’s fair to say that the article has a decent funding.
I also found on Global Policy.org a decent article, it’s the second link called ‘Legality Of Use Of Force Against Iraq (september 10, 2002). Again, this is not the exact law but the explanation of the law in this situation. (no need to read the entire article, it’s summarised in a few notes at the start)
3. “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."
"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
That’s the thing you saw. But that’s just the start. In points 1-10 there are 2 points about propaganda. Besides that you definatly should read the part ‘the boy who cried wolfgang’. There Bush’s remarks are compared to Hitler’s remarks. And Bush’s (administration’s) idea’s compared with those of Hitler.
4. You’re right. We don’t have much data to compare with during history. And it’s also true that there have been colder and warmer periods. But what’s also true is that we, mankind, have our influence on climatological changes. So no matter what the past learns us, we should be very careful with what we do with our environment and we should definatly not ignore Kyoto.
5. You might be right about the fact that he joins the right side. But joining somebody isn’t going to help. Besides, he is giving his blind support while there are some things happening (besides the murdering) that are wrong like the building of that wall/fence. He could better be independant (or act that way) and try to work out a peaceful, diplomatic solution. What he’s doing now isn’t helping at all.
6. * Arts shouldn’t be privatly funded. But that’s just my (unh-argumented) opinion.
* I also am against the extreme hard policy’s to remove illegal immigrants. Here in Holland our minister on that point is planning to deport them in a way (and it’s not just me calling it that way). I don’t know what Bush is doing about them but there are limits to what you can and cannot do.
Some last remark: from the white house website I got: “Makin America Safer With Decicive Action To Win The War On Terror”
That remark by Bush made me wonder if he has read the book 1984 by Orwell. Have you?
Update: I will probably respond tomorrow, after a long work day, not too energized to sit and think that much right now.
