KCRWs Left Right & Center show 1.30.09
We are in pledge drive now! our on-air listeners will only hear an edited version of this show -- but you get to hear the whole thing online and via podcast. Isn't that worth supporting? Come on -- you join us here every week -- it's free to you, but not to us. Please call 1-800-600-KCRW or pledge online at KCRW.com! You might win a trip to Australia!!!!
Slipping into Socialism or Sliding
into Protectionism? Obama says SHAME ON YOU to Wall
Street and really: what are they doing giving $2 billion in taxpayer dollars out
to their executives in the form of bonuses for failures? A very feisty
discussion follows, lots of interrupting each other, but ultimately, all three
agree, it’s irresponsible. Obama’s recovery plan has taken the bi out of
bi-partisan, and left a wide divide between the Dems and GOP. Did he subcontract
the plan to Nancy Pelosi? Were Republicans listened to at all? They voted NO in
lockstep. And Tony is upset with the language Obama used in talking about Muslim
nations on his Al Arabiya TV interview – says he’s gotten the history wrong.
Arianna’s in Davos and simply
couldn’t get away to join the show today. Apologies.
Here's that Slate piece Matt mentioned:
The Quitter Economy
Companies are liquidating; homeowners are mailing in the keys. Have we given up?
My Groups
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: 4 hours ago
-
the KCRW Music Library Updated: 4 hours ago
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 4 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
The biased reporting continues to fool the public for an agenda that can only be qualified as dishonest.
Ceasefire broken from day one
Eva Bartlett, The Electronic Intifada, 27
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10247.shtmlJanuary 2009
or,
Israel Violated Cease-fire 7 Times US Media Misreport Latest Gaza Violence
If Americans Knew
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/cfv.htmlJanuary 27, 2009
Someone (Tony?)
Of course, then Tony flogs his oil shale investments. What small minded shills.
The weirdest show yet.
Noticing your website name, I thought it might be informative to lookup "intifada" at encyclopedia.com:
"IntifadaIntifada [Arab.,=uprising, shaking off], the Palestinian uprising during the late 1980s and early 90s in the West Bank and Gaza Strip , areas that had been occupied by Israel since 1967. A vehicular accident that killed four Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in Dec., 1987, sparked immediate local protests that rapidly spread to the West Bank. The violence was marked by stone-throwing and the use of homemade explosive devices on behalf of the Arabs, and the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and home demolition by Israeli troops attempting to quell the popular resistance. The conflict led to an Israeli military crackdown and the stagnation of the Arab economies in the occupied territories, but with the gradual establishment of Palestinian self-rule, beginning with the accord between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993, the violence eased significantly.
The term "intifada" has also been used to describe the anti-Israeli uprising that began after the Sept. 20, 2000, visit of the right-wing Israeli politician Ariel Sharon to the Jerusalem holy site known as (to Jews) the Temple Mount or (to Arabs) the Haram esh-Sherif. Arising out of Palestinian frustration with the slow progress since the since 1993, the fighting has had the character more of a guerrilla war and has been marked by the use of suicide bomb attacks by Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and elements of the PLO and by Israeli attacks on official Palestinian installations and reoccupation of areas Israeli forces had left after 1993."
Rightguy, you bring up an interesting point and it gives me the opportunity to coin a new term: "The Magic But"...(alternative spelling of "but" not implied).
The Magic But rhetorically works like this:
"Admit to Really horrible or Bad thing"....but..."Really horrible thing magically disappears"!
Tony uses it alot but he has learned to omit the actual word "but" in order to not bring attention to it.
In this episode he essentially says, "The Wall Street guys did a horrible bad thing" but "we can't look backward when there are so many more important things to worry about."
In other words, admit to it, then rhetorically move on as it it's old news....
They literally use the structure of the sentence as a kind of rhetorical timeline. If they admit to something before the "but" then that is the past and not relevant anymore...at least that's what they want you to buy into.
I didn't invent the technique just the phrase identifying it (if anyone can tell me if this term has already been coined...please do so**).
The Magic But is the new strategy of the House Republicans.
I love the fact that the rightwing is rejecting the principle of "accountability." It simply shows they are totally bankrupt as a movement.
**it's certainly possible I have stolen this idea from someone else without realizing it.
Brock, let me put it in simpler terms, I expect to get screwed by the Wall Street bastards, it's their job, BUT (not magical) I don't want to get screwed by my elected officials as they claim to be rescuing me from the jaws of death. The latest thing, congress gave it members a $93,000 increase for petty cash, all the while condemning Wall Street for getting bonuses. Oh no, the Big Three CEOs took their corporate jets to Washington to ask for a loan...Why isn't Nancy Pelosi setting an example for them as she criticizes them and give up her government-paid for private jet? As the saying goes, "Don't 'piss on me and tell me it's raining."
You're using the magical but again. You are accusing the Wall Street bastards of doing really horrible things, but you are avoiding punishing them for it. In fact, you are chiding us for even talking about it ("Why are we so fixated...").
It's like if I got drunk and drove my car into your living room, all I need to do is admit it, maybe even apologize (which the execs haven't even done) and then I can just walk away. After all there are bigger criminals than me out there. Let's not get fixated on my reckless driving...important thing is that I've learned from my mistakes...
the point is so obvious, it's silly that anyone even has to explain it to you...
Publicly chasitizing the execs is a start but not an end...
and don't even get me started on the torture thing...
There's actually a new system for posting under the 1/30 date but looks like everyone is over here.
Everyone seems to agree that Obama is doing the same thing that Bush did in trying to pass the stimulis quickly, without either planning or determining accountability. People remember that the original program was to buy troubled assets. You may remember the This American Life feature on the economy which had the shocking conclusion that Congress had snuck a loophole in that the money could be used for anything having to do with recovery. In fact, it was never used for buying troubled assets, but for other tihngs, AIG, GM, capital infusions. This flexibility may have been a good thing given how little we knew about what was needed. However we know very little about where the money went except that the lavish lifestyle at the top of corporate America went on apace.
StanH
Look into my blog. You're feeling sleepy...very sleepy.
I understand the use of humor and also throwing around words like "conspiracy"...i do it myself sometimes.
It seems unless you use the tired "throw under the bus" terminology, conservatives can't understand what your'e talking about.
You can't escape the reality by verbally throwing Wall Street execs under the bus. You can't accuse them of gross malfeasance and then suppress all talk of consequences or accountability by the perpetrators.
Your hero Nixon had it right when he said that you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.
I guess i will join the ranks of MLK and Rod Blagoyavich on the list of great thinkers who are just misunderstood.
What I don't understand, seriously, is how the Illinois governor can be barred from holding public office for life because of his "actions" but Wall Street bandits can't be barred from working in the financial industry?
I don't buy the nonsense that they must be paid bonuses so we don't lose them to other countries...where are they going to go? Just because they created a grand conspiracy to rip us off through the Bush Bailout legislation doesn't mean they are geniuses. It just means they are sociopaths.
Well, if it must be marshmallows over wieners, I must say they seem to lack ethics classes at business school or the ethics taught in there equate success with makin' profit margins over a good stable companies and the generous revenues produced by those companies were the result of all employees within the companies and not just the CEOs.
Ok, Rightguy, I want to change the topic since we soundly defeated you in this particular debate. (unlike on the show where Tony, unfortunately, cleaned Bob's clock and even got a hug out of him.)
I want to talk about the Arabs in Guantanomo Bay who are being tried for attacking our warship.
Is it fair to consider that an act of terrorism? It was a military attack on a military target.
That does not justify it. It was still a cowardly, illegal act of war against our brave sailors. But terrorism?
My understanding of terrorism is an intential military attacks on civilians in order to get a political attention.
I still believe in the American Dream, in regulated capitalism, in a free market and in democracy...but...if i have to choose between:
a) Socialism
b) Sociopathism, which seems to be our present system on Wall Street
Then, I'll take socialism.
If we are going to waste 800 billion on "stimulus" we might as well just hold a lottery and let 800,000 people win $100000 to spend tax free!
Where corruption is allowed to exist it will. The narrow self interest that is afflicting wall street is also afflicting our representatives both have been brought to power by their ability to generate money without regard to the greater social good.
We have a system on Wall Street where wealth is not based on real things but on abstractions, creating essentially elaborate ponzi schemes. I urge you to listen to or read David Korten on Democracy Now here
here is a quote: {The}Wall Street system, which is built around an illusion, the illusion that money is wealth… “Now, part of it’s coming to terms with the fact that we live on a finite planet. We’ve got finite resources. And the question is, what are our economic priorities? How do we allocate those resources? And it requires a fundamentally different approach to the economy: evaluating economic performance by the things that we really want, in terms of human and natural well-being, rather than a system that is purely designed to increase financial returns to the already very wealthy.”
We have a system in congress where being reelected is the overriding concern, so our representatives are forced to deal with whoever has money for them. Take a look at open secrets.org
it becomes obvious that the people with the most money to contribute get the most representation.
I think it is important that we just face these realities like rational human beings. We need to change a economic system that rewards the pushiest most ego-centered assholes among us and start rewarding people with the ideas that will benefit as many of us as possible while doing our best to understand and respect the ecosystems of our finite planet. We should prosecute the criminal behavior of the past while creating real accountability and oversight, knowing that corruption will grow in any available crack.
We need to reorganize our political system and allow our representatives to focus on governance rather then campaign war chests. I suggest signature gathering for eligibility to run for office and publicly sponsored campaigns using instant runoff voting.
We will have to face reality some day why not today?Once the conservative movement strayed from Reagen's axiom, "Trust but Verify", they were doomed to failure.
In 2008 the Democrats in congress spent $477,019,357 on elections and the republicans spent $433,541,119. In the Senate it was dems $212,439,419 and rep $197,455,703., and President Obama spent $873,677,183 whereas McCain spent $618,558,238. Do you really think it doesn’t take much time to raise this cash or that it does not have a significant impact on legislators decisions?
It is true that incumbents have their funding sources established so they don’t have reinvent them each time but they do have to concentrate on keeping their sources willing to fund. Which makes them beholding. Do you really disagree with this?
Here is a breakdown of the top 5 industries that Nancy Pelosi received campaign contributions from. Lawyers/Law Firms $213,400 Securities & Investment$159,200 Health Professionals$139,450 Real Estate$129,182 Insurance$119,500. How could she make decisions that adversely affected these industries and expect the funds to keep rolling in? Every representative you look at has a similar profile.
I am glad that we agree that there needs to be change in our Democracy. Your fixes sound like good ones but I believe it will take a fundamental push from the population to make anything really change.
Tony Blankly could sell umbrellas to eskimos...but you and Rightguy don't have that same deft turn of phrase...
...if you want to hear an intelligent discussion of all these issues, listen to Barney Frank (the liberal version of Tony Blankley) on This Week with George S this week. I would suggest Bob commit it to memory.
I appreciate that you admit when you've lost an argument, Rightguy.
Truth is there is a big difference from the mony the Republicans wasted on the Iraq War and Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and what the Democrats are going to spend money on.
The Democrat plan, though flawed, will directly impact the US economy in a positive way. It might not solve the problem completely. But it will do far more than TARP, the Iraq War and Wealthy tax cuts...
I think the American people agree with me in this set of priorities over yours...at least now that we got those condoms out of it...on the condom issue alone the rightwing has proven that Republican ideas are still relevant (sarcasm intended)
Unfortunately Conservatives continue to repeat their mantra putting much or most of the responsibility for the mortgage meltdown on Fannie Mae and less so Freddie Mac, mostly because of Fannie Mae's political connections with leading Democrats, ideological aversion to government involvement in the economy, and opposition to the policy of extending homeownership and mortgage loans to people who had traditionally been excluded from affording them.
If you want to blame Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, it can be for not writing mortgage agreements (used widely even in loans that weren't securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that prohibited more abusive practices. And of course they were latecomers to the bad loan bandwagon. But the leaders in inventing and securitizing bad loans were the private issue securitizations that did not involve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Sure leading Democrats from financial industry states were on the take, and of course Republicans were leaders in serving the rich, deregulating toremove limits to their power and cashing in on their ideological and fundraising largess, even punishing the industries that wanted to stay in good with both sides by finding both political parties.
So Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's contributions are relatively minor. And of course the bill to decrease the power of the two GSEs, which Barney Frank opposed and of which conservatives try to make much, was introduced when Republicans were in control of Congress and could have passed it. They didn't think it was all that important at the time and can't rewrite history now.
So the abusive mortgages that created the meltdown were mostly Wall Street's baby, a product of disfunctional incentives and protected by a disfunctional and weakened regulatory system. Wall Street produced and pushed bad loans when it could have produced good ones, but for less up front profit.
Mr. X and Dave are right to suggest that we need to get private funding of political campaigns and politically based creation of legislative districts out of the system if we want Democracy to work effectively. Unfortunately whoever the incumbents happen to be like the system the way it is, and other people don't understand the problems or agree on the best way to attain needed changes.
The only way to prevent corruption is to remove power from the government. Leave the people free to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on others' rights, and politicians won't have anything to sell.
Any controls on campaign contribution will be twisted, bent, and loopholed.
"Why isn't Nancy Pelosi setting an example for them as she criticizes them and give up her government-paid for private jet?"
Because it's not up to her.
Bill Livingood, who has been the House Sergeant at Arms for eleven years and is responsible for security, stated:
"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable"
"to Fannie and Freddie who made it possible for the banks to make these goofy loans"
Once again, the private-sector predatory lenders that wrote the vast overwhelming number of the "goofy loans" are UNREGULATED. They are not covered by the Community Reinvestment Act, are not subject to any government edicts or oversight, and are not subject to any parameters set by Fannie & Freddie.
The theory, from the NYT, 2/2/2009
"The idea is that, free from the burden of carrying these bad assets, banks would start lending again and bolster the faltering economy."
The Proof that this is Nonsense:
(1) By definition, an asset is not a "burden." It has positive value. It's hard to know the value of "toxic assets" -- that's what makes them toxic -- but everyone agrees the value is greater than zero. Taking an asset away makes a bank poorer.
If the goal is to make the banks feel rich enough to start lending again, then a better strategy is to give them money and let them *keep* their assets.
In mathematical terms:
Bank assets = (Gov't cash) + ("bad" assets) >= (Gov't cash) - ("bad" assets).
In human terms:
Last year, you took out a big loan and bought yourself a vintage Bugatti. Now your out of a job, can't pay the loan, but you can't sell the Bugatti either because no one wants it. Which would you prefer: That I give you a large sum of cash? Or that I give you a large sum of cash but then take your Bugatti?
So, in conclusion, we are more likely to succeed if we just hand the banks money, and let them keep their assets.
(2) BUT: Henry Paulson already tried simply giving the banks money. It didn't work.
Therefore, the "buying toxic assets" plan is asinine.
Imagine it this way:
You buy a house for $200G, the bank requires you to put 25% down so you start with $50G in equity against a $150G loan. If you were required to keep that loan to equity ratio while dealing with "mark to market" rules, if your neigbor suddenly sold a similar house next door for $100G, then the bank might come along and tell you to pay them more money to get back to the ratio of equity to loan. (in this case, you would have to come get the loan down to around $66G so you would have to pay off $84G). I am glad Mortgages don't work that way.
Mark to market rules might make sense on a short term asset but on a mortgage, they should not be used. They caused the banks balance sheets to be all out of line which is what forced some to sell assets at firesale prices which is why TARP was supposed to buy these assets off the banks balance sheets.
I don't think Tony and Frank's sexuality should be an issue.
They are both gifted talkers. In this case, though, Frank has the luxury of being right.
It's silly to try and say who was most responsible for the economic meltdown, they all had their hand in it. People still debate the evolution of The Great Depression, why are you so gifted that you see who is responsible for our current crisis while we are still in the middle of the maelstrom?
And what's with the emphasis on "male escort" service. Is that worse than a "female escort" service? How about just "escort service"?
Besides, I don't think his sexuality affects his judgment on why the Democrats have selected superior spending priorities than the Republicans. The Republicans and their president spent our national treasury on The Iraq War, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and most recently TARP.
The new spending plan is not perfect. But it's superior.
Let's take President Clinton as an example. I originally didn't vote for the Clinton because of the ethics associated with his affair with Jennifer Flowers. Once in office, the man couldn't keep his hands off women. Many people forgave him his female indiscretions, because half the nation are engaged in such activities, although not with as much gusto. Other people felt that it was a republican witch hunt to tear down his presidency. I wasn't concerned about either, but I was concerned about our political leaders placing themselves in compromising positions that make them vulnerable to others, whether it is blackmail from their illicit partners or a witch hunt by their competitors. Reportedly, Mr. Clinton was keeping Yasser Arafat waiting in the hallway when he was playing cigar games with Monica. What did that do for middle-east negotiations when Mr. Arafat discovered why he was waiting. Ethics extends beyond single indiscretions and into the very fabric of our governing politicians, it tells us how far they will extend their indiscretions and how far they are exposed to influence by others. I would say that I want my politicians as impeccable as a priest, but we can't say that anymore, can we?
Now to your other shift of the discussion about Nancy Pelosi. Yes, I would be as angry about a male speaker who demanded a larger jet and at the same time condemns others for their extravagances. Our leaders should be setting examples, not placing themselves above their examples.
If there was ever a national referendum on term limits I bet it would pass handily but that won't ever happen.
The thing about gerrymandering is that Congress can't control how the states draw districts so some states have gotten some of the politics out of district drawing so I do hold some hope that more states will in the future.
I'd rather take Barney Frank as an example. He is 100 percent right about the Democrats' superior spending plan that the GOP waste and fraud in the Iraq War and Tax Cuts for the wealthy.
You're the one that keeps bringing up "you know what" so why don't you give it a rest and address what Frank said two days ago instead of what you say he did a decade ago.
I see that yesterday was not the day to face reality. I suspect today is not either. Apparently it is more entertaining to argue over politics while stepping over the enormous piles of elephant dung in the room.
I thought it might be interesting to discuss the notion that our financial system is basically a pyramid marketing scam that concentrates wealth at the top (0.1% of the worlds population owns 25% of the worlds wealth and 0.9% owns another 15% so 1% owns 40% of the worlds wealth) While our political system is set up to insure the wealthy get all the representation they can pay for.
Look at the military industry do we really think putting half of our tax dollars into the military while selling (and giving away) more weapons to the developing world then any other nation is a reasonable way to address poverty, terrorism, and over population? We know that warfare exacerbates all of these problems while destroying the ecosystems on which peoples lives depend. So do we continue down this road for ideological reasons or because military contractors can make huge profits from the system with very little oversight?
We fixate on creating nothing of sustainable value while watching our resources dwindle as the earth’s ecosystems change from the Holocene epoch that has made all of our luxury possible, to the enormous uncertainty of the Anthropcene.
If Barney Frank ran a brothel out of his house it would still be completely unimportant given the magnitude of the challenges we are facing.Of course Nancy Pelosi’s flying home for the weekends is a sign of her self-centered indulgence. If you want to discuss it as symbolic of the blind arrogance that is the basis of our economic/political/military system lets talk about it, but trying to pretend that there is something unique in it seems just silly.
It might actually help if they put in several full weeks (9-5 Mon-Fri) followed by a couple of weeks off to go back to their districts. Maybe more time together would do them some good.
Many years ago when I took US History in 10th grade, (early 80s) I recall the textbook mentioning that Congressmen were given a limited allowance for travel so they could only fly home a few times. Senators got to go back slightly more often then Congress. With airline travel being so cheap now, they all just fly home every weekend it seems.
Of course, there is an entire deck in the parking garage reserved for Congress, a little over 500 slots.
"she could have ended the practice of going home every Thrusday and coming back on Monday night."
You want to put that goal post you are carrying around DOWN now ?
"Besides, stopping halfway was never a 'security' issue..."
According to the House Sergeant at Arms, who is in charge of security, it most certainly IS a security issue.
Let's see now. Who do I trust on this matter, the House Sergeant at Arms, who is in charge of security, or YOU ?
That's a toughie.
"The current stimulus plan is the greatest piece of pork put on the barbecue in the history of Washington."
The economic recovery stimulus bill that passed the House does not contain any earmarks.
NOT ONE.
Furthermore, The Congressional Budget Office has scored H.R. 1:
"CBO ANTICIPATES THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF H.R. 1 WOULD HAVE A NOTICEABLE IMPACT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS"
"People still debate the evolution of The Great Depression..."
Only those that are ignorant of the facts.
"Nancy Pelosi put in a special request to get her own jet and a larger one at that."
No. She did not.
Bill Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms, has stated that HE made the request, and as has already been delineated, he made the request for security purposes.
"The soldiers did not embark on a private operation ... We will give them our full support."
Rather ironic that the Israeli Defense Minister seems to have kinda sorta forgotten that the Nuremberg trials established the principle that following orders is NOT a defense for soldiers charged with war crimes atrocities.
Doesn't matter because I really don't care. Let her take the spare Air Force one for all I care. I only find it amusing that there is lots of outrage that cooperate execs take private jets but there is no outrage over similar waste by the Speaker. Should the Robert Byrd get a private Jet too, he's only one more heartbeat away from the Presidency then the Speaker of the House.
Hello Dave. I would take it as complement that your posts appear to have been all but ignored. Its way more fun to argue endlessly about trivialities than look for real solutions to our byzantine system. Whenever these posts go into this downward tailspin, Danny DaVito’s line pops into my Head: I’m right. You’re wrong. I’m big. You’re small. And there is nothing you can do about!
Be assured, there will be many people reading your comments and taking note. Thanks for the link to the excellent interview on Democracy now. Keep posting.
Besides, it's not like they are buying an Airbus. Boeing could use the business. Think of it as stimulus.
Isn't that nice. Rather than earmarking directly they spread those hundreds of billions around using arcane formulas that make sure everyone will be able to get their favorite projects funded.
Besides, Pork isn't just earmarks to pet projects but also money for pet programs.
Then they spread the pork around with money for "community building" for ACORN or millions to re sod the National Mall, Smoking deterrence, Amtrak, STD prevention, NEA, Global Warming Research, College Grants and so forth.
It's just political PORK.
Many voted for change and all they get is business as usual.
I'm also in the middle of MM's book about dead ideas. Both of these books will lighten your mood, a bit.
Know what you mean about the military. Somehow that spending is "good" but spending on health care is "bad." I mean, we've got 4k miles of water on sunset side of us, 3k on the sunrise side. Who's really going to attack us? If the Canadians get all rowdy, I guess we'll have to send the Boy Scouts to quiet them down.
I remember after 911 that not only did Dick start phoning in from an undisclosed location, but that the Speaker left town for a few days, too.
The term pork barrel politics refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contribution or votes.
"Pork barrel politics refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contribution or votes"
In other words Politics
A project is supposed to be for the benefit the constituents; i.e. the voter(s). You may feel our benefit is pork. I feel that it's a worthwhile program for my state.
Unless you can provide irrefutable proof that a specific politician will receive a kickback for a benefit he has obtained for his state, the discussion is futile and never ending.
"...money for 'community building' for ACORN or millions to re sod the National Mall, Smoking deterrence, Amtrak, STD prevention, NEA, Global Warming Research, College Grants and so forth."
All which create JOBS, which is the purpose of a stimulus bill.
"It's an imaginary security issue..."
Only in your mind.
"There are thousands of aircraft landings at airports daily without incident."
How many have the Speaker of the House, second in the line of succession to the presidency ?
"And no, I don't believe the Sargent at arms who reports to the speaker is the authority on this."
He says he is.
Once again, who do I trust on this matter, the House Sergeant at Arms, who is in charge of security, or YOU ?
"Doesn't matter because I really don't care."
So than why were you complaining about a fake story ?
Democracy seems to really annoy you, doesn't it? Senators are elected locally to go to Washington. It's up to their state's voters to decide if the Senator is spending too much time in Washington or too much time at home. What a silly discussion.
And yet talk of telling bailed out corporations they must limit exec pay and bonuses is "big government." Or worse, to hold people accountable for their misdeeds, abuses and neglect.
For how much longer is the right going to embrace a philosophy of convenience when it comes to their principles?
That said, you are right and that is a good argument for the aircraft and similar security to that of the President and VP. As I said before, why not the same for the President Pro tem and the Cabinet officers? How far down should it go? Perhaps only if they move up to 1st in line should the massive security be implemented.
I personally think they should go back to the line of succession that they used before 1947 with the cabinet officers in line before members of congress. This would eliminate the issue where you have members of opposing parties high up in the line of succession which could be an incentive to assassinate the President and VP in order cause the presidency to change parties.
I just made the comment that if they spent a little time together maybe they would like each other more and Rick Pointed out that they used to spend more time together socially when they didn't have much choice since they couldn't leave town to go home every weekend.
This forum has degenerated into leftrightandcenterKOS.
This would eliminate the issue where you have members of opposing parties high up in the line of succession which could be an incentive to assassinate the President and VP in order cause the presidency to change parties.
...degenerated, indeed. I said, indeed, sir!
p.s. Barney Frank is absolutely right and I haven't heard one argument against anything he said other than he's gay.
However, I don't see how beating up on the first woman SOtH is going to help them in the long run. The women around me at home and at work--from all political backgrounds--are either extremely offended by these attacks or incensed and outraged.
Some how screaming "Liberal" just doesn't have the same sting it did before being a Conservative became a discredited disaster.
Here is an idea I posted some time ago:
>>>>>
If this happens and a bank holds a "distressed" security, the mortgage payoffs would bring in money from lots of mortgage payoffs then the bank will have a good idea that whatever portion of that security that is not paid off has a high potential to be the bad dept. They still might loose money on the security but at least they would have a better idea of how much the losses would be. Right now, there is so much uncertainty about what these things are worth because nobody understands them.
<<<<<<<
I wish our government would forbid elected officials from engaging in "speaking fees" payola. These things are essentially delayed bribes. The fact Clinton could earn 150 million in speaking fees, much from middle-east countries, after his presidency or Reagan could be paid 1 million to speak to a Japanese company is disgraceful. (Please note, I being bipartisan on this) Again, I refer you all to watch Eddie Murphy's "The Distinguished Gentleman." There's a segment in the movie where he speaks for the poultry association that nails this point home.
Rightguy, you're speaking my language now. I couldn't agree with you more. Daschle wasn't a sexy pick to begin with, and it's truly a shame Obama's going to let him tarnish the president's image because of an "old boys network" mentality that I suppose is ok as long as it includes women and minorities...I guess it's a neuvo-rich network now...or an ivy school network. Whatever it is, it's dissappointing.
It probably doesn't do much to help him win over the Right, but that wasn't his aim. I'll bet he's winning big in the "center" and the undecideds.
Our elections have become more about what the other guy's done instead of what I plan to do. It's too easy for the outside party to sit back and criticize another's decisions but it's much harder to make those decisions. A few cases in point, Obama was down on Evil Bush's policies on wiretapping and rendition, yet he voted for FISA and announced yesterday that he will continue with rendition. Can you imagine what Obama must have heard in his presidential security briefings that compelled him to continue rendition? I allow a wide girth for presidential decision makers and assume (gullible?) they may have information that even our congress is not fully aware, and hope that we can trust those decisions are true. So I don't hold it against Obama that he spoke one way prior to being elected and another after election and am heartened by the fact that he has had the wherewithal to continue some of these unpopular policies for our benefit (I hope).
Hello Rick,
Thank you for the book recommendation. I read this interview with the authors. They make some good points, and some that I have trouble with.
First I think it is absolutely true that we have the means to inspire people and the need to do it. This is really what the push among scientists to change epochs is about. If we accept that we are in the Anthroprocene then we also accept the challenge of living sustainably, or we continue to just burn up our resources until they are gone and our environment is no longer conducive to a quality human life. It is about humans taking responsibility for our actions. I think this a necessary first step and really what is behind the “sins of our past” notion that the authors speak of as being important to environmentalists.
We should start a stimulus package by funding research and development of the ideas that are already incubating but have been starved for funds. These funds should come from the military budget. Peace and security will be greatly enhanced by inexpensive solar panels, windmills, water pumps and devices that provide save drinking water. Building decent lives for the people of the world has got to be a much better security investment then cluster bombs or depleted uranium weapons etc….
Sustainability is defined as:” Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. I think you could get almost everyone to agree with this in principle.
I also agree that separating ourselves behind conservative and liberal lines is unproductive and unnecessary and these lines almost always fall apart when people are asked practical questions. Take a look at the polling work done by world public opinion polls.
Here is my idea for a list of principles that I think we may be able a pretty wide space of common ground that we can co-exist on.. (I am interested in peoples input on this list.)
Warfare and weapons should not be the way we solve our political and economic differences. Violence must be our last resort and entered into only with broad international support. We should never encourage the use of violence for our own economic or political gain.
All humans have the same inherent human rights and the same basic needs.
Human life is dependent on the earth's ecosystems therefore a healthy relationship with the environment must be the primary concern in human actions.
Effective Democracy is founded on the actions and collective will of the people being governed.
Societies have a responsibility to take care of each other, particularly their children, disabled and elderly.
We are in a position of global interdependence and must work with the nations of the world to set and follow international law and support the institutions that create and protect it.
What to you think?
Hello Brock,
I was not picking on Speaker Pelosi in particularly (I think I said that flying home on the weekends in a her own jet was a sign of her self-centered indulgence) I was pointing to a culture of arrogance in America and among our representatives in general. Actually the closest example I have of this is my own congressmen Rick Larson who talks about his kids getting pictures with three or four presidents (meaning he expects to stay where he is for life) and after a long and winding speech that really just covered democratic talking points he said he would stay a little longer to answer questions and hear input from the people that showed up for his “town meeting” but that we owed him lunch for it.
I could go on and on and on about human arrogance and probably end up sounding pretty arrogant about it all.-Sarah, bloginatrix
Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility
by Michael Shellenberger; Ted Nordhaus.
BTW, the entire books pivots on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs--those who have not fulfilled their basic needs cannot be expected to hold opinions or belief at the high level required by Maslow's upper states of the hierarchy.
This book has profoundly altered my way of looking at so much of the political/environmental debate, a radical departure from traditional environmentalism. I'm still absorbing the book's lessons and arguments, but here's a quick outline.
There is a lot more and, as I said, I'm still digesting it.
"Breaking windows creates jobs too."
At least it doesn't lose jobs like tax rate cuts do.
"The fact Clinton could earn 150 million in speaking fees, much from middle-east countries, after his presidency or Reagan could be paid 1 million to speak to a Japanese company is disgraceful. (Please note, I being bipartisan on this)"
No, you're not.
You failed to mention that when Reagan went to Japan to collect his $2 million, America was in economic conflict with the companies who hosted him, for their trade dumping into our market and costing us a lot of jobs. There was a context at the time to why there was such outrage at Reagan.
What's GW? as in "7. None of the groups you mentioned below are at all open to Adaption as the first step because they see it as giving in to GW and it doesn't fit into their narrow paradigm of 1 & 2 above. They fail to appreciate that Preparedness for GW is the first step to buying-in to more radical action. "
"8. The average Chinese uses only 15% of the energy of the average American. It would be not only impossible but also immoral to deny developing countries an opportunity to develop. " So how do we deal with this if there aren't enough resources to support even Americans in the state to which we have become accustomed. And what about all the africans?
Is a sustainable peacetime economy possible?
Hard to argue with the desirability of what Dave says. But we're nowhere near having it be actually what motivates those with hands on the levers of power, any more than the Sermon on the Mount is.
This is a better discussion than ragging on Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank though.
There is a lot of untapped energy out there. The USA has lots of Coal and there is still a lot of Gas and Oil to be had. Nuclear power plants are great for base loads since they run at 100% all the time. As Solar tech gets better it can provide some peaking load but it's anybody's guess when it will cost similar to other power sources without government support. More wind is possible but there is a limit to how much a grid can support because of the nature of electricity (it is consumed the instant it is generated so if the wind suddenly dies you have to quickly crank up other sources (Gas turbines are usually kept on standby for this but they are inefficient).
There is a lot of energy available, we just haven't tapped it.
Notice how the conservatives are reacting to Obama’s victory, much as they did Clinton’s.
Rush Limbaugh declares resistance from the right, rallying the troops (much as Dole did on Clinton’s election night.)
Conservatives begin deluging “public voice” blogs, websites, talk shows and opinion columns, denouncing Obama as a socialist, big government, corrupt Chicago politician, with Pelosi and Reid as surrogates. They blame Barney Frank and the Democrats for the Wall Street meltdown, and unions for the economic downturn.
Conservative Representatives close ranks in opposition to the stimulus package, claiming it is pork for Democrats, and accusing Democrats (Reid and Pelosi) of betraying bipartisanship. If they want anything it’s no government, more tax cuts. Meanwhile there has been to date as little openness about the stimulus, where it will be going and what it is supposed to accomplish, as there was under Bush and Paulson.
Republicans pick off various nominees, mostly for tax issues which represent the disconnect between Washington high life and the mainstream of the country (as well as the incomprehensibility of the tax code, which virtually anyone could violate.). Do you wonder what kinds of tax violations you would find in the private sector, whose tax records do not become public? Anyway Obama, who has generally gone for insiders with experience, gets his image tarnished and highly capable people are removed from positions of accomplishing something.
The next step may be for conservatives to defeat Obama’s big initiative, the economic recovery, much as they defeated health care reform under Clinton, turning his term into a political free for all.
Observations about this are
1: Conservatives still have a powerful hold on the media.
2. Democrats have not really figured out how a President and Congress should govern together.
3. Obama may know how to inspire hope, but now what is called for is selling confidence that he knows what he is doing.
4. If Obama is not personally selling his program, there is “dead air” in the media that conservatives are filling. The Democrats in Congress are not doing it.
5. It is of course possible that no one knows how to deal with this economy that is global, poisoned with “toxic assets” that no one has figured out how to handle, has a war already in full swing, and perhaps is hard to deal with given the power of the financial sector to withdraw its money and let employment and consumer spending collapse.
6. Conservatives figure that Obama needs them more than they need him. And like Limbaugh they are happy for him to fail, and not happy if succeeds at their expense. Who else is there to turn to?
"The USA has lots of Coal and there is still a lot of Gas and Oil to be had."
* Coal is an old dig & burn technology that produces massive levels of dangerous CO2.
* We don't have a lot of oil. We consume 26% of the world's oil production, but we only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. You can't get there from there.
* Interestingly, Iran has RIDICULOUS amounts of natural gas, but the American RightWing screwed that up royally.
"Nuclear power plants are great for base loads since they run at 100% all the time."
Nuclear (fission) is a non-starter.
"As Solar tech gets better it can provide some peaking load but it's anybody's guess when it will cost similar to other power sources without government support."
But we give HUGE subsidies to oil and gas, why wouldn't we subsidize solar ?
While recess appointments are legal, in the past they'd been used during the long breaks when congress was out of session. Bush was famous for making appointments over two or three day recesses, specifically to circumvent (mostly) his own party.
http://tinyurl.com/dj5qkh
Many of Bush's recess failures had similar tax or conflict of interest problems.
Our first best fuel is energy efficiency. Fuel, particularly fossil, is a precious commodity that needs to be husbanded, not wasted. Much of the President's plan has to do with jobs to begin to make ourselves more energy efficient.
As the Breakthrough guys say, Sierra, NWF, et. al. need to stop thinking of economic development in 3rd world countries as "not my job." If these people are not raised above subsistence level--the basic level of needs, according to Maslow--they will never be able to move to the level where they have the luxury of being concerned about environmental issues.
Second, as Friedman points out in Flat, Hot & Crowded, when Chinese challenge him about the west getting rich burning fossil fuels but we want to deny them that same opportunity, he tells them: you're wrong. I want you to build all the dirty plants you can. Choke you're people on the smog. Pollute your rivers and drinking water. While you're doing that, we're going to be back in America building the next generation of clean technology, and then when you're sick and tired of what you've done, we're gonna get rich selling it to you.
In other words, it's all about how far one looks out to the horizon.
A second use for wind is hydrogen generation. Using traditional electricity, one burns more BTUs than the hydrogen will yield when used in a car. But wind (solar, tide) actually makes hydrogen production economical at scale.
I think they should pass an amendment be passed which sets a time limit on all Presidential nominees (60 days or 180, whatever is reasonable). If the Senate doesn't hold a vote then the nominee is automatically confirmed.
This would put a stop to abuse of recess appointments by the President as well as prevent the Senate from causing endless delays.
Could you check the link? I get a 404 (page not found)error at Brookings.edu.
First off I would note that any type of electricity could be stored the same way. (coal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.). Secondly, large scale storage would also add greatly to the cost of wind energy (not an issue with other sources). That said, we are a very long way away from being able to store electricity on a scale we need.
Here is a pdf from the Texas Policy Association about wind power in Texas.
I wasn't as much concerned with energy storage since it is so far off but how do deal with sudden stops in the wind (or high wind for that matter) which cause the need to crank up alternatives (one day storage might be able to deal with this). Single stage Natural gas generators are usually "peaking" plants. They are basically gas fired jet engines bolted to the ground. They are the most inefficient type of gas plant but they can be cranked up in an instant unlike two stage gas boilers or coal boilers. Even with some storage capability, if the wind dies or gets to high, you gotta have gas plants to crank up so any large scale investment in wind will have to see an increase in Gas capacity too.
Nuclear has the advantage that it is running at 100% all the time for weeks on end. Even though about 10% of our grid is Nuclear it produces nearly 20% of our electricity. It would take way more than twice (probibly three times) the capacity of Wind to get the same output we get from Nuclear. (it's worth noting that Nuclear power overall produces 91% of it's installed base per year while Wind is lucky to get to 30%).
The fact is, the only way to make your carbon footprint zero is to not be born. No matter how much you conserve, the world population continues to grow and will outstrip any energy conservation. Environmentalism is a luxury, much like that SUV those fatcats drive, it's something we can engage in because we have the luxury of consuming much more energy than any other country. Starvation trumps environmentalism, so as the energy reserves dwindle, people will be going offshore to drill, they will strip the land of coal, they will flatten our forests, and they will wage war on their neighbors.
Wow, can I be fatalistic. But don't worry, I have faith that our ecosystem will have a way of working things out. There will be famine, a plague, or a war that will reduce our numbers to a level more feasible for the survival of the species and the Earth will regenerate. We are animals no different from other animals in the world and are subject to the same supply and demand rules of the smallest mice whose numbers outgrew their cheese supply. We have evolved an intellect, and perhaps we will learn to not act on our guilt and condemn others, but make a difference in this world. Dave, stop posting on your computer and go to Africa and teach them the virtue of population control...hect you don't even have to make the trip, just go down to the nearest junior high and teach the next generation that maybe they shouldn't have more than one child per couple. Maybe then we will have a chance of an alternative green energy source meeting the demand of a reduced population.
Virginia is producing and then having to store and protect from terrorists 4 tons of nuclear waste per year--times 26 years so far. But our real fight is uranium mining, which is an incredibly dirty process.
True, but the point is that we need to jump start a lot of research into a lot of technologies to find long term solutions. Certainly the utilities are not going to do it, being monopolies--for the most part--they're perfectly happy with the status quo.
According to Friedman, in Hot, Flat, & Crowded (again), the national corporate average for R&D is 8% of net profits. However, for all utilities combined, that number is 0.15%. Purina invests more in dog food R&D each year than all US public utilities combined.
Rick
I think it is great for all of us to question our assumptions or just try to figure out what they are. Here is the interview Break Through I read with the authors of I forgot to link it last time. I had so many points of view on your list that I reprinted it with my thoughts stuck on. I put my responses in Italic just to be confusing.
1.saying there is a single, enduring, monolithic "NATURE" from which humans have fallen from grace is a fallacy, nature is constantly evolving. This requires much to long of a response even for me.
2. humans are part of nature, not separate from it. (we're gettin' Zen here, kiddo)
I don’t think this is Zen I think it is indisputable fact. Where else would we have come from?We are a animal species part of the family of primates.
3. the world is constantly evolving and humans, as part of the ecology of the world, are shaping it--for good and for bad.
We can reflect on and evaluate our behavior and learn from our past therefore we have a responsibility and an opportunity that as far as we know no other species has had.
4. there have been 5 mass extinctions over the eons, there is no reason not to expect more, but the earth will endure.
I have been making this point for years now, because I get much comfort from it. The difference with this extinction event is that it seems to be driven by us and is happening much more rapidly then any of the others. see (therefore, "saving the Earth" is the dumbest idea of all. The Earth will endure. What we need to do is rescue humanity.) A friend of mine said that when she means saving the earth she thinks about the face of the planet that she has grown up in the remarkable diversity of life and health all around us. Yes there has been five big extinction events here on earth but they were not any fun at all they lasted a really long time and were ugly for the few species that did survive. However they were also a great opportunity for evolution to really happen. Because species that have mastered a relatively consistent environments don’t change much, but species faced with major environmental change either come up with a mutation (random chance) or they die. An interesting book that describes the natural history of the Earth Is called Out of thin Air
5. there is every indication that if we humans stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, we're still in for decades of global warming. Which will be much worse if we do not stop emitting green house gasses.
6. therefore, our actions should first be focused on preparedness for and adaption to the coming changes. We will have to adapt to the new realities. Wealthy people can do this relatively easily but poorer people can not This is where the notion of sustainable development will really get tested.
7. None of the groups you mentioned below are at all open to Adaption as the first step because they see it as giving in to GW and it doesn't fit into their narrow paradigm of 1 & 2 above. They fail to appreciate that Preparedness for GW is the first step to buying-in to more radical action. What groups?
8. The average Chinese uses only 15% of the energy of the average American. It would be not only impossible but also immoral to deny developing countries an opportunity to develop. But wouldn’t it be in the Chinese interest to learn from our experience and develop an infrastructure now that does not contain all of the problems that need fixing in ours? It seems like the big advantage to communism is you can force solutions on people. But the disadvantage seems to be that it does not promte much creativity. Jared Diamond lays out the environmental problems and potential of China in his book Collapse. The problems are horrendous.
9. Care about environmental concerns is a very high level function on Maslow's Hierarchy and impossible to obtain or even contemplate until individuals have met their most basic needs of food, water, employment and security. Most subsidence farmers recognize the need to care for their farms so they can continue to exist. Care about the environment falls off once people move into survival mode, or when the environment is an abstraction like it is for city dwellers.
10. Therefore, what is needed is a broadening of the focus of environmental groups. Instead of focusing on our "fall from Nature" they should be undertaking endeavors such as poverty, economic development, and security. Because until those needs are met, there is little hope for the environment. In other words, a rising tide... I do not agree with this assessment of environmental groups thinking. I mostly hear Greenpeace or the Sierra club etc talk about actual things that are happening outside of a moral framework. Surly it is beneficial to discuss how acid rain is affecting mountain lakes or the estimated 100million tons of plastic floating in the pacific Gyre may be a problem for sea life. The first step is always identifying a problem and then you have to convince people that it really is a problem so you end up getting really focused on the problem rather then the solution. I think many groups have linked poverty and economic development. That said, the nature of activism has required people to specialize I think it is the wrong approach, but how can one work for a practical cause on every front at once?
TheUN’s millinum development goals are all about specifically addressing these issues. As usual everyone has promised to fund and nobody meets there promises. Obama has promised to put 65 billion into it but who knows what will actually happen.
11. In the corporate world, say the automotive sector, we need to look at their problems and help fix them in exchange for what we want. Did you know BO, as a senator, actually proposed a Health Care for Hybrid and Mileage swap with the Big 3? We have a remarkable opportunity to remake our industrial infrastructure since the tax payers are essentially buying allot of it. So far we have used none of this leverage instead we like to talk about why people who have been breed to be fat cats continue to act like fat cats. Why don’t we retool our factories to make mass transit systems, plug in hybrids, windmills and a bunch of other stuff that smarter people then me could think up if given a chance.
Whew!!
Wow. If you guys are writing a book, I'd like to get a chapter.
p.s. I agree with the article as summarized by Rick "Liesure Suit Larry" Kennerly. Well, there goes my liberal street cred out the window.
In fact Friedman, FHC--again, again and again!--points out that China's biggest problem is similar to the dilemma Sandra Bullock finds herself in in the movie Speed. If the Chinese "stop the bus" to retool for greener more sustainable power, their nation will explode. So the leadership is left trying to--impossibly--pull the engine of the old economy at 60 mph while shoehorning in a new sustainable model.
Already, displaced Chinese are returning to rural areas unhappy but having had a taste of what could be. Unlike other times, though, they are returning to rural China plugged-in; cellphones, laptops, and a knowledge of how to build new social networks. The Chinese government is scared to death of this new class of workers. (as an aside, I've noted many times that it would be nice if our country were as afraid of us as the French, Chinese and Scandanavian governments are of their populous. American's are just big talking, diluded sheeple.)
About Diamond, I preferred Guns, Germs & Steel. Collapse took way too much imagining outside of any historical context for many of the cultures he highlight, particularly on Easter Island and Central Mexico.
You mention communism being able to force solutions on people. When it comes to environmental concerns, the communist government can choose to not spend resources on such things in favor go taking the faster, cheaper route. If you build a highway in the USA you have to spend years on environmental red tape, in the communist country, they couldn't care less what endangered species they pave over. Environmental protesters would be carted off to jail.
China does have a long term problem, they are the mining coal so fast that they will go through their reserves in 50 years.
Being captive clients of GE doesn't speak highly of our national utilities. After all, why should GE change? It's also selling locomotives to coal companies to haul the fuel, making replacement scrubbers for smoke stakes, and medical imaging equipment to diagnose the diseases the coal fired plants create. That's a corporate win-win-win-win.
There are other that most people may never have heard of. GE is the first one I thought of. There are not a lot of Nuclear reactor makers just because it's a specialized industrial product. There are others that make Steam Boilers for coal or oil, as well as combined cycle Gas fired generators or the combustion gas turbines. By no means are they "captive" to GE or Westinghouse or Siemens, etc.
Still, I should point out the forward looking utilities: PG&E ranks at the top. They're putting in a demonstration project of 1,500 MW of utility scale concentrated solar power out on the high Mojave Desert.
It's an attractive solution for utilities. First of all, they know exactly what their fuel costs will be for decades to come--zero. And the cycle of the sun on the site mirrors the demand--electrical demand ebbing and falling as the sun rises and sets. With underground storage of the fluid in salt mines, they're getting 18 hours of generation per day.
Estimates are 100 sq miles [total, not all in one place] could supply 100% of the US daily needs. If we only had the smart grid to deliver it.
The only one I could find that they had planned was 550MW but I didn't look too hard. At any rate, the one I found was going to be installed by another company Solel. So there is another example of power companies buying their generators from others.
My bad.
The one I found was a 550MW facility to be built by PG&E to be built by Solel.
The one I found was a 550MW facility to be built for PG&E by Solel.
It seems like a worthy discussion...but has this board turned into Leisuresuit, Rainman and Center? I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Get a room. Seriously, 2000-word point-by-point counterpoints??
I did enjoy the summary of the environment book, I do admit. But can we get back to squabbling about petty politics?
Sierra, NWF; the bigger players mostly. It's actually been the newer foundations [ silicon valley entrepreneurs ] and some church groups that have taken on economic development as a path to their environmental efforts. You know, the groups buying up elephant or gorilla habitat and then creating eco-tourism employment opportunities for the locals as well as paying farmers for damage done by the elephants.
(if you're not starting your day with a coffee and a TED Talk, you're really missing the best things in life.)
The freedom to become all that you can be, all that you dream...unless, of course, you, your spouse, or your child is ill (we all will be), there is an accident (the odds are good), or you're laid off or fired (read the papers).
Can an American be truly Free if he is chained to a health care system that is tied to an employer?
Can an American possessed of the entrepreneur spirit really afford the risk of creating the next great thing to catapult America back to the forefront of innovation, if she is a single mom with an asthmatic child adrift in the mire of inadequate small business health insurance?
How much more nimble would great American businesses be if their employees were not so afraid of change because change means risk and risk means that they might lose their health insurance?
How much more competitive would American businesses be in the global market if they were not yoked with employee health insurance costs that their global competitors are not?
Can America be truly free when it is enthralled by a system that delivers over priced, under good non-portable necessities like health care?
Is any American truly free chained to their employer?
http://cleantech.com/news/1845/ausra-fpl-pg-e-heat-up-solar-thermal
But this article says Ausra is having trouble finding investment capital these days:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10152459-54.html
So, they've scaled back.
It must be nice to have twenty minutes to listen to TED every morning. Some of us have jobs and don't have time to surf the internet for that period. And in a world where anyone who has a job has to feel fortunate given how many don't, I'm not sure that being unemployed and having time to spend with TED and other interstesting things is an alternative. Retirement as our parents generation experienced it is probably going the way of witch doctors and blacksmiths, given how businesses have been allowed to underfund retirement plans and then switch to 401(k)s, the equivalent of giving everyone a tank of air and let them swim across the ocean as far as they can get..
I am somehwat distrusting of slick, fast talking and ego centered presenters like TED, (if he's right he can slow down and let us lesser intellects absorb it) but maybe his science is right. Interesting stuff.
Obviously what we care about is having an earth that is a decent place to live for us and generations that follows. Whether the earth we have now is one given all the starvation and disease that takes place is one question. But really radical climate change, say flooding the seacoasts, destroying farm land and turning boreal forests into potential breadbaskets once quality soils develop, would be pretty horrible for people to experience (perhaps a world reminiscent of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road") even if some things survive biologically. The world that lets us thrive and survive is highly interdependent ecologically. While some things survived mass extinctions and others did not, having one come about that might leave us without things we need to survive but didn't think of, would not be a good thing.
Things like fossil fuels are essentially wealth left for us from the past. This wealth is limited, it is not clear that without it we can get enough in the present from the sun, oceans, the earth's interior and other places, to power a human society, nor to get rid of the biproducts.
And don't assume. Like you, I will soon have to leave to go drag the plow in my employer's muddy field.
Don't blame the presenters, that's the TED [Technology, Entertainment, Design] format - 20 minutes per. They also have several tracks running at the same time. That way, if you attend, you can get a precis of the workings and research the most forward thinking minds from every field. John Doer and the other high end venture capitalists haunt TED, looking for the next new thing.
Since the TED audience spends several $k to hear these presentations in person, I'm grateful to the TED folks (and Rolex) for eventually putting them on the internet for the rest of us. There's some dross, but generally they really are Ideas Worth Spreading.
Well, said. I'm hanging onto that one.
Do you believe healthcare costs nothing, that if we have a government healthcare system it will magically be free? You believe corporations will not be paying for healthcare?
Let me give you some news, healthcare, like everything in life, has a cost. It doesn't magically appear from the clouds. Someone will pay for it whether it's a corporation paying an employee benefit or the corporation being taxed to pay the government to pay the healthcare. Since when does a third party work more efficiently that a single party. The sentiment that healthcare is free comes from our government promoting HMOs and Manage Care as solutions for healthcare costs. HMOs give the appearance of having no costs to patient because they give free and easy well-care, so people walk out of a daycare happy they paid nothing to have her runny nose wiped or the leave the hospital happy they paid nothing for the gall bladder surgery. Because they don't understand the risks imposed upon them by their HMO for cutting corners behind the scene, they never realize that a complication could have been avoided. Sure HMOs are free, but their freedom comes as an unseen cost to the patients. Read Robin Cook's "Fatal Cure."
Government is not the answer to run any business, let alone a complicated personal business such as healthcare...so far they have only created a massive bureaucracy causing costs to skyrocket. Government should act as a regulator and impose changes on the healthcare insurance providers, such as you recommend, portability, no exclusion, price equality between solo and group policies, and total catastrophic coverage. Why burn down the forest to eradicate the weeds? Why eliminate the entire structure and fabric of our healthcare system and rebuild it from the ground up? Why not go into the forest and pull out the weeds to let the trees grow taller and stronger?
If you find that magical land where nobody works, nothing has any expense, and everything is free, please let me know. Right now the only place where this occurs is in Government-sponsored retirement programs that are bankrupting the country.
Some people don't like responsibility I guess, if you underfund your retirement or invest poorly, you can only blame yourself but if your company's pension is underfunded, poorly invested and the company folds, you get to blame someone else for your woes.
Sure there are down markets like we have now but if you are within 5-10 years of retirement you should have your balance shifted away from stock funds and into stable funds. There are even funds that do that automatically. And don't forget that pension funds are invested in the market too so they can become underfunded because of incompeting managment (which you have no control over in a pension).
I used to have a 401K (rolled into and IRA now) but now I work somewhere that forces me into a pension (no choice). When the company I worked for was going down the tubes, the 401K match went away but I always knew my balance was safe from the company so when I left I could roll it into the plan at my next job.
The pension I have now thought is pretty lame. Since it pays horrible interest if I leave and withdraw my "balance" to roll into another company (And the manager of the thing doesn't just put the money into bonds so it took a hit in the market too). The longer you stay the more you are chained to your job.
If I worked for a company that gave a choice between participating in a pension plan or participating in a 401K, I would probably be in the 401K.
Let's take this to the new site.
Dear Mr. Rightguy and Mr. X,
We get it. You all are doing just fine thank you very much and if any of your neighbors or fellow citizens are not, it’s their own darn fault. You want all your taxes going to defense and maybe the post office. Lets do away with government all together which means throwing out the constitution and all that bogus nonsense. Government by the people and for the people? Uh uh.
You consistently ignore that fact countries outside of ours have good healthcare and education systems and maintain a high standard of living at the same time. So what is your real issue?
You are among the fortunate, but you think that everything you have is because you have worked for it. No luck involved there. No lucky sperm club. No feelings of there but for the grace of god go I when you look at a homeless person.
What you don’t get is that you are a part of our society. None of us gets any where without the help of others – not even you.
Screw the post office!!! If people can't afford Fed EX then they can go to hell!
That's crazy talk, how would I exploit the lower classes. I gotta get the government to take poor peoples money so I can use it t wrap my cigars.
/sarcasm off.
I think you are wrong about some issues. You seem to think me and RightGuy are bad.
First of all, I agree completely with Charly.
Secondly, your response was pretty funny.
I find that Conservatives, though, have a sense of humor that only cuts one way.
First, declare any weak bank insolvent and put it into receivership with the FDIC making the insolvency call. Sound like WaMu, Fannie, Freddie, and IndyMac? Because that's what happened there and should with Citi, BofA, and the line starts there. Second, write down the value of the banks' assets (all 100% of them) to sub-ero levels so private and public investors (your 401k/pension and mine, and our gov't) can KNOW they won't be written down. again. Third, recapitalize the banks by changing debt to equity and forcing those who made bad investments/decisions to pay for them. That means we won't stick 200 million taxpayers who didn't make those decisions with the bill. If anything, we through our givernment can top off the tank. Put those banks back on the market immediately, so the government is not in the business of running them (i.e., forcing the banks the gov't owns to make politically incentivized and financially stupid loans or determining what is and isn't appropriate for people to get paid. We've tried halfway measures. They don't work. So it's time to just step up and do the correct thing.