[subego]

So claims a new book. Can't say I blame him.

Here's a link, but it's not going to tell you much more than I have. Last paragraph.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/bu...-fox.html?_r=0

[Patrick]

Here an article on it that describes a bit more, and includes a couple quotes from a dinner conversation Jobs had with Rupert Murdoch:

Steve Jobs ordered Apple ads off Fox News

Oddly enough, it seems Steve had faith in Murdoch's potential to use his network in a constructive manner. But it seems Fox was one reality distortion field he couldn't manipulate, so IMHO he was right to yank the ads.

[ebuddy]

Look, I liked the idea guy too, but let's not kid ourselves here over a man that had compromised an awful lot of principles for the dollar. Suing the shit out of a 19 year old blogger for accurately outing the mac mini, child labor and sweat shops in China, berating and belittling employees, denying paternity of his daughter, etc... all adds up to taking Jobs' idea of "destructive" with a grain of salt. He built a company, a hell of a company yes; not unlike Fox News in becoming among the most popular in the markets they serve.

I'd be more willing to bet Steve was simply pissed off that he couldn't advertise on Fox News without losing leftist street cred and would rather attempt to shape media (hmm... I wonder if this was a business practice) than work with it. After all, there is nothing more evil than a media outlet that would feature conservative pundits or stories no one would else would talk about like perhaps only the largest government cover-ups of our time such as Fast & Furious or Benghazi, but pay no attention to the number of lives Jobs has trampled over to get where he is.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... the largest government cover-ups of our time such as Fast & Furious or Benghazi ...

But sure, tell me again that the mendacious subterfuge that lead to the Iraq War and the pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the torture of prisoners at black sites around the world, the fraudulent release and abandonment of soldiers with PTSD under the cover of "preexisting personality disorders," the epidemic of rape in the U.S. military - all those events are overshadowed by two minor, routine events.



You have an irrational hatred of Obama, which leads you to obsess over relatively minor events, while completely blocking out the real crimes of our time.

Anyways, Steve was right, FoxNews is lunatic, destructive caricature of real news. Only a fool would deny it.

Regarding Steve's failings, he more that made up for that in his life. His own daughter could forgive him, but anonymous busybodies on the internet never forgive or forget. Steve even invited Noah Wylie onstage at Macworld to mock him for his abusive behaviour as a young CEO.

In other words, to compare a man who made amends for his errors with a company that tells deliberate lies as a business plan and will never regret or deny it is absolutely fncking absurd.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Look, I liked the idea guy too, but let's not kid ourselves here over a man that had compromised an awful lot of principles for the dollar. Suing the shit out of a 19 year old blogger for accurately outing the mac mini, child labor and sweat shops in China, berating and belittling employees, denying paternity of his daughter, etc... all adds up to taking Jobs' idea of "destructive" with a grain of salt. He built a company, a hell of a company yes; not unlike Fox News in becoming among the most popular in the markets they serve.

News flash: Steve was a jerk.

[besson3c]

Do you agree with Steve's assertion that the axis is not conservative and liberal, but constructive and deconstructive?

[subego]

I think axes are usually far to simplistic.

[subego]

Or, you could say yes: 95% destructive.

It's a testament to our resilience they keep hammering on shit and we're still around.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think axes are usually far to simplistic.

And ineffective if they haven't been sharpened.

[subego]

Depends on the effect you want.

Sometimes the head should fall cleanly away, sometimes you want it to take 10-15 whacks.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you agree with Steve's assertion that the axis is not conservative and liberal, but constructive and deconstructive?

More or less.

Economically, left vs right or conservative vs liberal is dead or meaningless. It's unregulated capitalism vs regulated capitalism. Except unregulated capitalism is a juvenile dream that even conservatives don't believe in, they just pretend to when they want to protect their friends' profits.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Depends on the effect you want.

Sometimes the head should fall cleanly away, sometimes you want it to take 10-15 whacks.

Indeed, some were offered a sharpened sword, while others were treated to a vaguely pointed sledge hammer.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

But sure, tell me again that the mendacious subterfuge that lead to the Iraq War and the pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the torture of prisoners at black sites around the world, the fraudulent release and abandonment of soldiers with PTSD under the cover of "preexisting personality disorders," the epidemic of rape in the U.S. military - all those events are overshadowed by two minor, routine events.

Some problems with your analysis as usual;

• Fox News first aired in 1996. Missiles had been lobbed around in Iraq long before this.
• Bill Clinton (nowhere reportedly beholden to or ilk appreciative of, Fox News) signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was a declaration of regime change for Iraq, into law. Fully bipartisan effort btw.
• What lead to the Iraq War was overwhelming bipartisan support after 9/11, 12 years of 13 failed UN resolutions that had served to do little more than starve the Iraqi people to death with economic sanctions, the concern of an arms race with Iran, and documented evidence of weapons programs being sold to rogue players abroad. The US had the agreement of most of the rest of the world that Saddam had WMDs, the disagreement had always been on whether or not he posed a threat. This concern played well into Saddam's hands... until it didn't.
• Fox News did not invent or embolden torture or rendition and "black sites" did not all of a sudden become visible to mckenna because Rupert Murdoch conceived a contrarian news broadcast. I'm sorry man, but this has got to be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on the internet and given the number of years spent here, that's saying quite a lot.

Do me a favor please and make that connection between Fox News and the mistreatment of PTSD or sexual misconduct in the military again. I want to know what our resident reader of the ever-constructive and sane, Blue Street Journal has to say.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

**Litany of embassy attacks under Bush within graphic only slightly more grown-up and informative than the cartoon clip preceding it. And then...

You have an irrational hatred of Obama, which leads you to obsess over relatively minor events, while completely blocking out the real crimes of our time.

I don't even have a hatred of you, mckenna; rational or otherwise. Why on earth would I hate Obama? The best place for me to start, in the interest of diplomacy, would be to sympathize with how difficult this apologetic must be for you.

I've not once blamed Obama for the fact that an embassy attack happened. I would no more blame him for the consulate attack than I would for the Boston bombers. Identifying and proactively addressing hostile elements before they launch attacks is an art of perfection, particularly with suicide bombings like the ones that happened to many of the embassy attacks under Bush. Everything else is response. There are questions of our reasoning in light of the UK packing their bags months prior and the like and those details will become more available through an investigation. The response here was ineffective, plain and simple. And everything since then has been patently sloppy and downright dishonest starting with the imprisonment of the sap who thought he'd get away with 13 minutes of free speech.

Unless you can produce some valid reason why there should be no investigation, there's really no reason to attack the few media outlets willing to inform of it. I mean, which one of Bush's embassy attack responses began this way? How many Ambassadors or officers were lost in those attacks? How many diplomatic officials were compelled to testify on Bush's poor response to those attacks? Or claimed they were ever threatened to not speak on it? I mean... if there were a partisan angle to work in those incidents, don't you think at least the sane and constructive Dan Rather would've fabricated something from them?

Anyways, Steve was right, FoxNews is lunatic, destructive caricature of real news. Only a fool would deny it.

If he was right, I'm not sure I could take your word for it. I mean, not without something from MSNBC, HuffPo, or CommonDreams.org to affirm it of course.

Regarding Steve's failings, he more that made up for that in his life.

What a silly thing to say. How could you possibly know this?

His own daughter could forgive him, but anonymous busybodies on the internet never forgive or forget. Steve even invited Noah Wylie onstage at Macworld to mock him for his abusive behaviour as a young CEO.

Dude, I friggin' started off saying I like the guy. Busybodies indeed.

In other words, to compare a man who made amends for his errors with a company that tells deliberate lies as a business plan and will never regret or deny it is absolutely fncking absurd.

Okay... Fox News has more than made up for their failings. Now why can't I compare the two? Because Fox News remains and you don't like them because they feature people who are effective at offending you? Eesh. What news outlet could live up to such a lofty criteria? I mean... other than your favs of course.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Look, I liked the idea guy too, but let's not kid ourselves here over a man that had compromised an awful lot of principles for the dollar. Suing the shit out of a 19 year old blogger for accurately outing the mac mini,

To discover who leaked, not to get at the blogger.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

child labor and sweat shops in China,

No, actually. Frequently alleged, but never proven - and while you can't prove a negative, at this point there has been enough digging that if there were something to find, it would have been found.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

berating and belittling employees,

These stories are almost exclusively from before he took over the Mac group in 1981. These are what disturb me the most about him, because there is a real sense of bullying to stories like this one, but you can hardly say it was for the almighty dollar.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

denying paternity of his daughter, etc...

Again, something he corrected in 1980.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

all adds up to taking Jobs' idea of "destructive" with a grain of salt. He built a company, a hell of a company yes; not unlike Fox News in becoming among the most popular in the markets they serve.

I read this differently: Having been a nasty piece of S in his youth, he recognized that in others and tried to reform them.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Some problems with your analysis as usual;
The US had the agreement of most of the rest of the world that Saddam had WMDs, the disagreement had always been on whether or not he posed a threat. This concern played well into Saddam's hands... until it didn't.

No, the US absolutely did not have the agreement of the rest of the world that Saddam had WMD. The rest of the world was as united as I've seen it in thinking that you were nuts. You couldn't even reach a simple majority in the UN for that line of reasoning, and that includes a number of staunch US allies.

I agree with the rest of what you're writing here - the US political establishment was united behind the idea of going to war in Iraq, and some members of it have since done everything in their power to make it appear otherwise - but don't fool yourself into thinking that even a significant minority of the rest of the world agreed with you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

To discover who leaked, not to get at the blogger.

The blogger was shut down, the leak and leaker were not identified.

No, actually. Frequently alleged, but never proven - and while you can't prove a negative, at this point there has been enough digging that if there were something to find, it would have been found.

Completely proven, acknowledged by Apple, and confirmed through their own selected investigative agency.

These stories are almost exclusively from before he took over the Mac group in 1981. These are what disturb me the most about him, because there is a real sense of bullying to stories like this one, but you can hardly say it was for the almighty dollar.

If the man is loaded and business practice brutish, is there any other motive to conclude? I mean... we can dig deeply into the psyche of Steve Jobs to find why berating and belittling people seemed to be one of his legacies, but at the end of the day we don't afford anyone this much gratuity; not even posthumously.

Again, something he corrected in 1980.

I hope so, but "making it right" is something entirely different and something we could not know.

I read this differently: Having been a nasty piece of S in his youth, he recognized that in others and tried to reform them.

I certainly hope reformation was in their cards, otherwise they were simply berated and belittled.

No, the US absolutely did not have the agreement of the rest of the world that Saddam had WMD. The rest of the world was as united as I've seen it in thinking that you were nuts. You couldn't even reach a simple majority in the UN for that line of reasoning, and that includes a number of staunch US allies.

I cited this in context of 13 UN Resolutions, all calling for cooperation with the multiple weapons inspection teams dispatched to Iraq. If the international community thought we were nuts for believing Saddam had WMDs, why did they repeatedly vote for greater economic sanctions against the regime for noncompliance with weapons inspectors? Note; crippling economic sanctions. Both Hans Blix and Jacque Chirac, arguably the most vocally opposed to unilateral military action; believed Saddam actually had WMDs and are on the record saying as much.

I agree with the rest of what you're writing here - the US political establishment was united behind the idea of going to war in Iraq, and some members of it have since done everything in their power to make it appear otherwise - but don't fool yourself into thinking that even a significant minority of the rest of the world agreed with you.

Conversely, don't kid yourself that the 13 UN Resolutions authored against Saddam Hussein over the 12 years preceding action in Iraq with final threat of "serious consequences for non-compliance" were not voted into existence in the very international body you claim didn't buy it. The disagreement was on how to handle the threat of Saddam Hussein, not that he didn't pose one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conversely, don't kid yourself that the 13 UN Resolutions authored against Saddam Hussein over the 12 years preceding action in Iraq with final threat of "serious consequences for non-compliance" were not voted into existence in the very international body you claim didn't buy it. The disagreement was on how to handle the threat of Saddam Hussein, not that he didn't pose one.

Can you point out where Hans Blix is quoted as saying that he believed Saddam had WMD? I'm not seeing that here, unless I'm blind:

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Completely proven, acknowledged by Apple, and confirmed through their own selected investigative agency.

No, not the same. In Apple's supply chain, there were companies that did not follow the regulations set up by Apple. That's a far cry from saying that Apple sent production to child labor sweatshops to save money.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If the man is loaded and business practice brutish, is there any other motive to conclude? I mean... we can dig deeply into the psyche of Steve Jobs to find why berating and belittling people seemed to be one of his legacies, but at the end of the day we don't afford anyone this much gratuity; not even posthumously.

Just about anyone who is successful has very high standards. The world is full of stories about how Gates or Ballmer go bananas at underlings who don't do their job (there is a delicious rant from Gates that made it into the court documents in the antitrust case, I'll see if I can find it) and I don't fault Jobs for doing that. What I do fault him for is when he was belittling people as in that link I posted, but it seems that that was something that happened back when he was younger.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I hope so, but "making it right" is something entirely different and something we could not know.

The story is told in some detail in the many biographies of Steve. Basically, Steve had a high school girlfriend called Chris-Ann (sp?), with whom he later reconnected and had some sort of on/off relationship. At some point in this, Chris-Ann became pregnant. Steve obviously didn't want a relationship, but Chris-Ann refused to budge - she wanted the baby, with or without Steve. This is where Steve seems to have had a meltdown - he felt pressured into becoming a father long before he wanted to, and acted out, claiming that he wasn't the father, etc. After the baby was born and paternity seemed clear (presumably only through a blood test, they could hardly do DNA testing back then), Steve seems to have calmed down. He acknowledged paternity and paid support. From what we know, Steve had a good relationship with the daughter, but doesn't seem to have met the mother any more.

When Jobs died, and also just before, there was this reporting around him like he was a saint. I hated that, and as someone who has used Macs since the eighties, I knew that he was anything but. OTOH, every such piece printed brought a counter to bring up these events from 30 years previously - the paternity case, the one about cheating Woz out of money for the first game and a few others. They are not a true description of the man any more than the hagiographies.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I certainly hope reformation was in their cards, otherwise they were simply berated and belittled.

In this case, the reformee was Murdoch. I think he can take it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I cited this in context of 13 UN Resolutions, all calling for cooperation with the multiple weapons inspection teams dispatched to Iraq. If the international community thought we were nuts for believing Saddam had WMDs, why did they repeatedly vote for greater economic sanctions against the regime for noncompliance with weapons inspectors? Note; crippling economic sanctions. Both Hans Blix and Jacque Chirac, arguably the most vocally opposed to unilateral military action; believed Saddam actually had WMDs and are on the record saying as much.

We know that Iraq had WMD in the eighties (because he frigging used them on the Kurds) and we know that he didn't want to cooperate with inspections after the end of the first war - most likely to make himself appear more dangerous to others in the region - but this doesn't make him guilty. It simply makes the case Not Proven, as the Scots would say. That is sufficient standard to add more sanctions, but not to go to war - and the inspections leading up to the second war made the case for WMD weaker by the day.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

No, not the same. In Apple's supply chain, there were companies that did not follow the regulations set up by Apple. That's a far cry from saying that Apple sent production to child labor sweatshops to save money.

I appreciate what you're saying P, but you send labor to China to save money, not philanthropy for Asians. When you outsource labor to the Chinese with known labor violations (it's not as if the notion of human right violations in China is a new phenomena) you sacrifice some leverage in the treatment of employees as you're leaving that entirely up to someone else. Again, you send labor to China to save money.

Just about anyone who is successful has very high standards. The world is full of stories about how Gates or Ballmer go bananas at underlings who don't do their job (there is a delicious rant from Gates that made it into the court documents in the antitrust case, I'll see if I can find it) and I don't fault Jobs for doing that. What I do fault him for is when he was belittling people as in that link I posted, but it seems that that was something that happened back when he was younger.

The story is told in some detail in the many biographies of Steve. Basically, Steve had a high school girlfriend called Chris-Ann (sp?), with whom he later reconnected and had some sort of on/off relationship. At some point in this, Chris-Ann became pregnant. Steve obviously didn't want a relationship, but Chris-Ann refused to budge - she wanted the baby, with or without Steve. This is where Steve seems to have had a meltdown - he felt pressured into becoming a father long before he wanted to, and acted out, claiming that he wasn't the father, etc. After the baby was born and paternity seemed clear (presumably only through a blood test, they could hardly do DNA testing back then), Steve seems to have calmed down. He acknowledged paternity and paid support. From what we know, Steve had a good relationship with the daughter, but doesn't seem to have met the mother any more.

When Jobs died, and also just before, there was this reporting around him like he was a saint. I hated that, and as someone who has used Macs since the eighties, I knew that he was anything but. OTOH, every such piece printed brought a counter to bring up these events from 30 years previously - the paternity case, the one about cheating Woz out of money for the first game and a few others. They are not a true description of the man any more than the hagiographies.

His point was that Fox News is destructive. I don't know what his standards are for media, but somehow I'm not sure there's an outlet that passes muster here. In the interest of media as historically the staunchest critic of leadership, we've not had that in the US for a long time. There is a honey-dripping romance between the media and the US' current administration and it's frustrating to watch how they've been marginalized. Fox News, while sensationalist at times has broken stories you just don't hear about elsewhere and that (among other things) has crafted an extremely successful model for them. Jobs and Apple are no different. They've made good and healthy decisions just as they've made unhealthy bad decisions and it's a heavy crown at the top. I'm encouraging some perspective around this arbiter of destructive and I think it's perfectly fair to do so.

In this case, the reformee was Murdoch. I think he can take it.

I'm sure he can. Scrutiny abounds for those at the top of their game as Jobs learned.

We know that Iraq had WMD in the eighties (because he frigging used them on the Kurds) and we know that he didn't want to cooperate with inspections after the end of the first war - most likely to make himself appear more dangerous to others in the region - but this doesn't make him guilty. It simply makes the case Not Proven, as the Scots would say. That is sufficient standard to add more sanctions, but not to go to war - and the inspections leading up to the second war made the case for WMD weaker by the day.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree. You don't author crippling economic sanctions against a regime for non-compliance with weapons inspectors because you believe the ideal that he would have these weapons is, in your words, nuts. I can't think of anything more irresponsible than an international body voting to starve hundreds of thousands of people to death over whimsy. You author crippling economic sanctions when you're near certain he has them and is attempting to hide them from you. When you publicly acknowledge a concern that he has them as Blix and Chirac had, you're a far cry from believing this intel was nuts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Can you point out where Hans Blix is quoted as saying that he believed Saddam had WMD? I'm not seeing that here, unless I'm blind:

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His statement may not be cited in Wikipedia, besson.

Christiane Amanpour interviewed Hans Blix in March of 2004 at which time, while critical of Bush's lack of "critical thinking" claimed; "But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." You'll notice he didn't say that he thought the intel was nuts.

New York Times
If they had destroyed them, Blix wondered, why did they not ''try to convince us of this in 2002 and 2003. . . . Had there really been no written orders issued in 1991? . . . Why was the Iraqi side so late in presenting . . . lists of people who they claimed had taken part in the destruction of prohibited items in 1991? Why did they not present these people for interviews in December 2002?'' Thus in his first report to the Security Council, in January 2003, Blix declared, ''Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world.''

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate what you're saying P, but you send labor to China to save money, not philanthropy for Asians. When you outsource labor to the Chinese with known labor violations (it's not as if the notion of human right violations in China is a new phenomena) you sacrifice some leverage in the treatment of employees as you're leaving that entirely up to someone else. Again, you send labor to China to save money.

Of course you send jobs to China to save money, but I don't consider it particularly cutthroat business to do so today. Apple outsourced its production to a large manufacturer located in the region where most semiconductor products are produced today. As you say, the risk of human rights violations is likely higher there than in Europe or North America, which means that statistically, there would likely be some additional violations as a result of that outsourcing. But the same sort of statistic would apply wherever you placed the plant. There is much more gun violence per capita in the US than any other nation not currently experiencing a revolt or civil war - by this reasoning, statistically more Apple workers would be shot if Apple were to move its production back to the US. That reasoning doesn't get you anywhere, because Apple is not the cause of either gun violence or child labor, and is working to prevent it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

His point was that Fox News is destructive. I don't know what his standards are for media, but somehow I'm not sure there's an outlet that passes muster here.

Not knowing his reasoning, but I can guess: Fox News has a tendency to complain about anything Obama does because it is Obama doing it rather than proposing an alternative agenda.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In the interest of media as historically the staunchest critic of leadership, we've not had that in the US for a long time. There is a honey-dripping romance between the media and the US' current administration and it's frustrating to watch how they've been marginalized.

Sidenote: I think that this is due to the way the large media conglomerates have to go to Congress for every deal they want to make. This means that the media want to avoid antagonizing Congress too much. A better way to regulate this sort of thing would be that the legislative branch made some laws to be followed and then let the judicial branch make the actual decisions on what goes and what doesn't (we could call it something fancy, like "separation of powers". Hm, that rings a bell...). Obviously Congress has zero interest of doing this, because they like having that power around so they can keep that 95% re-election rate.

OK, end rant.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fox News, while sensationalist at times has broken stories you just don't hear about elsewhere and that (among other things) has crafted an extremely successful model for them. Jobs and Apple are no different. They've made good and healthy decisions just as they've made unhealthy bad decisions and it's a heavy crown at the top. I'm encouraging some perspective around this arbiter of destructive and I think it's perfectly fair to do so.

Obviously that is a viewpoint, not absolute truth, but it is an interesting viewpoint. The political climate in the US has changed for the worse, and Congress gets less done every year as "compromise" has become a bad word. Fox News is a part of that. It's not unfair to call them destructive.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We'll simply have to agree to disagree. You don't author crippling economic sanctions against a regime for non-compliance with weapons inspectors because you believe the ideal that he would have these weapons is, in your words, nuts. I can't think of anything more irresponsible than an international body voting to starve hundreds of thousands of people to death over whimsy. You author crippling economic sanctions when you're near certain he has them and is attempting to hide them from you. When you publicly acknowledge a concern that he has them as Blix and Chirac had, you're a far cry from believing this intel was nuts.

It's a question of time. Everyone knows that Iraq had WMD in the eighties. We also know that at least some of this was destroyed after the first Iraq war. Now the UN put the onus on Iraq to prove that all of the WMD was gone, and used sanctions to force that to happen. Since Iraq kept messing around, this was never proven to the UN's satisfaction, and the sanctions were kept around. Noone was happy about this.

Then the US starts pushing the issue, conveniently as the Afghanistan war starts winding down. The inspections start up again, and still no WMD are found. At this point the US goes to war. This is the part where I think it was nuts to do so. You need more evidence to go to war over something - innocent until proven guilty. As long as the inspections were ongoing, the burden of evidence was on Iraq to prove that they had no WMD anymore, but to go to war, the burden was on the US to prove the opposite. The US failed to do so (and in fact, I think that the evidence was building the other way).

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you agree with Steve's assertion that the axis is not conservative and liberal, but constructive and deconstructive?

My black and white thinking is better than your black and white thinking? Maybe not, but it's certainly more polarized and deconstructive to call someone else's very successful business model deconstructive. Liberal and conservative represent encompassing political ideologies that mean more than constructive / deconstructive. Other media companies are no less guilty than Fox.

It doesn't really matter. It's not up to media companies to be constructive. It's up to each person to become educated, look at the overall picture and discern the BS from reality. It's actually not that hard. As long as people allow their ideological messiahs to do all their thinking for them; believe everything they say to a T; they get what they deserve. It just sucks for people who didn't vote for crap-heads who also have to get what everyone else deserves.

[subego]

I think you mean "destructive" rather than "deconstructive".

/pedant

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

Of course you send jobs to China to save money, but I don't consider it particularly cutthroat business to do so today. Apple outsourced its production to a large manufacturer located in the region where most semiconductor products are produced today. As you say, the risk of human rights violations is likely higher there than in Europe or North America, which means that statistically, there would likely be some additional violations as a result of that outsourcing. But the same sort of statistic would apply wherever you placed the plant. There is much more gun violence per capita in the US than any other nation not currently experiencing a revolt or civil war - by this reasoning, statistically more Apple workers would be shot if Apple were to move its production back to the US. That reasoning doesn't get you anywhere, because Apple is not the cause of either gun violence or child labor, and is working to prevent it.

Unfortunately, when you consider the rates of rape and assault abroad say... in Europe, we're no better off there. Assuming you have to employ people somewhere to build your product; the point was you lose leverage in the treatment of those employees while outside of your immediate jurisdiction or access. It is a business decision that has destroyed lives, whether you like it or not. It's not okay because it's Steve Jobs and the allegedly destructive decisions made by Fox are bad because it's Murdoch. In fact, that appears to be what I'm hearing and I have a hunch it has much more to do with partisan sensitivity than any honest gauge of business practice.

Not knowing his reasoning, but I can guess: Fox News has a tendency to complain about anything Obama does because it is Obama doing it rather than proposing an alternative agenda.

This is where I think folks miss the boat on the media. The media is the fourth estate, it is not the media's job to be fair to a public figure, particularly a political leader nor is it their job to solve world hunger or offer alternatives. That said, the conservative pundits that have many an underwear all bunched up do offer alternatives. For example, when Obamacare was hot on the press -- many alternatives had been offered by the pundits on behalf of the party who bends their ear with no less than 130+ alternatives to Obamacare and several bills to that effect out of the Republican House.

I do understand what you're saying, P, but again; the media is not in business to express fairness. The reason Fox News may come off harsh on the President is that until very recently when the Administration started tapping into the AP, there has been a very apparent favor paid to this President by the AP. i.e. when you compare Fox News to the remainder of the media collective, Fox looks unfair because the remainder of the media has been decidedly absent. Otherwise the "they just hate Obama" line is old and tired while this Administration continues to erode civil liberties and abuse their powers in the most abhorrent and egregious ways. It needs to be reported. If it's Fox News as the lone evil media giant patently unfair to the President, so be it. He's a big boy and can deal with it not unlike any other Administration prior who has had to deal with the same level of scrutiny and pressure. Too many have only begun paying attention to politics since Obama was inaugurated to know that this how it has always been and it's a heavy crown at the top.

Sidenote: I think that this is due to the way the large media conglomerates have to go to Congress for every deal they want to make. This means that the media want to avoid antagonizing Congress too much. A better way to regulate this sort of thing would be that the legislative branch made some laws to be followed and then let the judicial branch make the actual decisions on what goes and what doesn't (we could call it something fancy, like "separation of powers". Hm, that rings a bell...). Obviously Congress has zero interest of doing this, because they like having that power around so they can keep that 95% re-election rate.OK, end rant.

Can you give me an example of when the large media conglomerates had to go to Congress for a deal they wanted to make? I'm telling you the media is decidedly composed of leftists and their reporting is reflected in the stories they choose to air and the ones they don't. Those that would shed a negative light on this current Administration in particular and too often Democrats in general, have been surprisingly absent. They didn't serve the Bush Administration in this manner and in fact, went so far as to forge signatures and documents to make Bush look bad... just in time for an election. That my friend was destructive and I don't recall Jobs proclaiming a pulling of all ads from CBS. Perspectives, that's all I'm asking for here.

Obviously that is a viewpoint, not absolute truth, but it is an interesting viewpoint. The political climate in the US has changed for the worse, and Congress gets less done every year as "compromise" has become a bad word. Fox News is a part of that. It's not unfair to call them destructive.

Compromise is how any bad thing happens just as any good thing from government. Otherwise, (IMO) we've got to get this silly notion out of our heads. There has been a wealth of compromise on the less contentious matters, it is only the most contentious matters such as an overhaul of a 6th the US economy in healthcare while debt-to-GDP exceeds 100% or arguments over the baser interpretations of the most important Constitutional principles that creates an environment of less compromise and we'd expect or want it no differently. Unless we're more concerned for our partisan sensitivity than an effective governance predicated on the very checks built into its system that would burden compromise of course.

It's a question of time. Everyone knows that Iraq had WMD in the eighties. We also know that at least some of this was destroyed after the first Iraq war. Now the UN put the onus on Iraq to prove that all of the WMD was gone, and used sanctions to force that to happen. Since Iraq kept messing around, this was never proven to the UN's satisfaction, and the sanctions were kept around. Noone was happy about this.

Then the US starts pushing the issue, conveniently as the Afghanistan war starts winding down. The inspections start up again, and still no WMD are found. At this point the US goes to war. This is the part where I think it was nuts to do so. You need more evidence to go to war over something - innocent until proven guilty. As long as the inspections were ongoing, the burden of evidence was on Iraq to prove that they had no WMD anymore, but to go to war, the burden was on the US to prove the opposite. The US failed to do so (and in fact, I think that the evidence was building the other way).

What folks fail to understand is that regime-change for Iraq had already been US doctrine from well before Bush entered office and for a host of reasons. Were you opposed to our action in Libya under Obama? Were you opposed to Obama deploying the surges on Bush's time-table with subsequent withdrawals also on Bush's time-table? Blix and Chirac as late as 2002 believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs. You claimed this notion was nuts and you are historically inaccurate. You can say that you didn't appreciate the US' unilateral action in Iraq and I can appreciate that. You can even say action in Iraq was nuts, but that's not what you said. Again, most of the international community believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, the argument was in how to deal with this threat. The international community authored and agreed on no less than 13 UN resolutions over 12 years calling for greater compliance with inspectors and as little as one month prior to the beginning of action in Iraq, Blix cited continued non-compliance. The final resolution called for "serious consequences for non-compliance" and while already under the harshest of economic sanctions imposed on a country, that's a precursor to war plain and simple. That was the debate at the time. Was "serious consequences" in light of the already serious consequences imposed on Iraq in fact a precursor to war. The US believed it was and we took action with overwhelming bipartisan agreement.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Assuming you have to employ people somewhere to build your product; the point was you lose leverage in the treatment of those employees while outside of your immediate jurisdiction or access. It is a business decision that has destroyed lives, whether you like it or not.

Snipping because I'm not here to debate crime around the world, it was just an example.

I don't buy that the business decision to outsource to Foxconn has destroyed lives. Even if Apple had not outsourced production they would still need suppliers - unless you are proposing that they start manufacturing every single thing themselves? Apple has always bought a large amount of the hardware content from suppliers, that didn't change when Steve came back. All they did was outsource final assembly - and in most cases, final assemble of new things that they never made before.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's not okay because it's Steve Jobs and the allegedly destructive decisions made by Fox are bad because it's Murdoch. In fact, that appears to be what I'm hearing and I have a hunch it has much more to do with partisan sensitivity than any honest gauge of business practice.

Jobs was never especially partisan. Look up his contributions - there are some to the DNC and a few to specific candidates, but he never contributed to e.g. Obama's campaigns (the conspiracy theorists probably think that the ebook DOJ investigation wouldn't have happened if he had). With the kind of money he has and has had for decades, he could have thrown his weight around a lot more.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is where I think folks miss the boat on the media. The media is the fourth estate, it is not the media's job to be fair to a public figure, particularly a political leader nor is it their job to solve world hunger or offer alternatives. That said, the conservative pundits that have many an underwear all bunched up do offer alternatives. For example, when Obamacare was hot on the press -- many alternatives had been offered by the pundits on behalf of the party who bends their ear with no less than 130+ alternatives to Obamacare and several bills to that effect out of the Republican House.

Not serious alternatives. The individual mandate was originally a conservative proposal, adopted to try to make nice with the GOP. All Dems got for that was a constitutional challenge. If they knew beforehand that they wouldn't get any GOP votes for the proposal, they could have gone with a e.g. single-payer structure.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can you give me an example of when the large media conglomerates had to go to Congress for a deal they wanted to make?

Comcast buying NBC comes to mind.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm telling you the media is decidedly composed of leftists and their reporting is reflected in the stories they choose to air and the ones they don't. Those that would shed a negative light on this current Administration in particular and too often Democrats in general, have been surprisingly absent. They didn't serve the Bush Administration in this manner and in fact, went so far as to forge signatures and documents to make Bush look bad... just in time for an election. That my friend was destructive and I don't recall Jobs proclaiming a pulling of all ads from CBS. Perspectives, that's all I'm asking for here.

I think that this sort of thing is what Fox staffers tell themselves every night - the others are just as bad, and also they have the wrong opinions and we have the right ones, so we can do this.

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good . . . Ideology-that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.


I'm not going to argue that anyone is perfect. Everyone is colored by their opinions, and since reporters generally have a long eduction and education skews Democratic, it is not unreasonable to believe that journalists in general tend to vote Dem. What is different about Fox is that it seems deliberate. Every time there is a scandal about a lesser-known politician, Fox News identifies them as (D) for the first hour or two until the dust settles and they correct it. Every election, they are the first to call a state red and the last to call it blue. Every time there is a decision up in national politics, Obama's position is wrong because he is the one stating it - and this last is the destructive part. And no, you can't say that all the other channels thought everything GWB did was stupid - GWB's stance on immigration reform, for instance, was routinely placed by leftist commentators.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Compromise is how any bad thing happens just as any good thing from government. Otherwise, (IMO) we've got to get this silly notion out of our heads. There has been a wealth of compromise on the less contentious matters, it is only the most contentious matters such as an overhaul of a 6th the US economy in healthcare while debt-to-GDP exceeds 100% or arguments over the baser interpretations of the most important Constitutional principles that creates an environment of less compromise and we'd expect or want it no differently. Unless we're more concerned for our partisan sensitivity than an effective governance predicated on the very checks built into its system that would burden compromise of course.

95% of GOP candidates for Congress 2012 has Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge, stating basically that they should never ever vote for a new tax on anything. Nothing can get done without money, which means that these 95% will not compromise on anything, and certainly not on the biggest challenge currently faced by the US.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What folks fail to understand is that regime-change for Iraq had already been US doctrine from well before Bush entered office and for a host of reasons.

I'm sure it was. I also think that the US wanted to promote regime change in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1991, but that didn't mean that you tried to invade.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Were you opposed to our action in Libya under Obama?

No, in fact I thought they were a perfect example of successful intervention: seek wide international support, and then act in support of a popular revolt to urgently stop actions going on just then. The Iraq war was nothing of that - it was a unilateral invasion to strike first to prevent Hussein potentially doing something some time in the future.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Were you opposed to Obama deploying the surges on Bush's time-table with subsequent withdrawals also on Bush's time-table?

That was military strategy after the fact. From an international politics perspective, irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Blix and Chirac as late as 2002 believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs. You claimed this notion was nuts and you are historically inaccurate. You can say that you didn't appreciate the US' unilateral action in Iraq and I can appreciate that. You can even say action in Iraq was nuts, but that's not what you said. Again, most of the international community believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, the argument was in how to deal with this threat. The international community authored and agreed on no less than 13 UN resolutions over 12 years calling for greater compliance with inspectors and as little as one month prior to the beginning of action in Iraq, Blix cited continued non-compliance. The final resolution called for "serious consequences for non-compliance" and while already under the harshest of economic sanctions imposed on a country, that's a precursor to war plain and simple. That was the debate at the time. Was "serious consequences" in light of the already serious consequences imposed on Iraq in fact a precursor to war. The US believed it was and we took action with overwhelming bipartisan agreement.

You're writing this as if the entire world knew Iraq had WMD, and that's just not the case. It was suspicious that they didn't cooperate further with inspectors, but that's far from an open and shut case - and if anyone were to decide that an invasion was warranted, it was the UN. Did Blix or Chirac or anyone else advocate an invasion?

That piece you linked about the Blix quote was quite interesting. It had quotes like:

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.

Note that this indeed happened during earlier inspections.

Also note the timetable. In a March 7 report, Blix reported that Iraq had accelerated cooperation with inspectors, and that it would be months rather than years before it was finished - this was exactly the compliance that the last UN resolution was requesting. Another report around that date made it clear that the nuclear part of the allegations were false. It was at this stage that the US decided to go to war - the invasion begun less than two weeks later.

This is the part where I refer to with the nuts comment - which may been in bad taste, I should have chosen my words better. There was a lot of uncertainty throughout the fall, but as the dust was settling, it was becoming clearer by the day that there was nothing there. The US went to war as there was still some residual doubt about the WMD, appearing as if it was grabbing the last chance to use that excuse.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by P 

No, not the same. In Apple's supply chain, there were companies that did not follow the regulations set up by Apple. That's a far cry from saying that Apple sent production to child labor sweatshops to save money.

Furthermore, Apple was the only company at the time to do anything about it. Which is rather telling when you consider that Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony, IBM, etc., etc., etc., didn't so much as bat an eyelash. Apple certainly gets the most press.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

His statement may not be cited in Wikipedia, besson.

Christiane Amanpour interviewed Hans Blix in March of 2004 at which time, while critical of Bush's lack of "critical thinking" claimed; "But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." You'll notice he didn't say that he thought the intel was nuts.

New York Times
If they had destroyed them, Blix wondered, why did they not ''try to convince us of this in 2002 and 2003. . . . Had there really been no written orders issued in 1991? . . . Why was the Iraqi side so late in presenting . . . lists of people who they claimed had taken part in the destruction of prohibited items in 1991? Why did they not present these people for interviews in December 2002?'' Thus in his first report to the Security Council, in January 2003, Blix declared, ''Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world.''

Unless you have a different quote, this is not the same as Blix saying that Iraq had WMD. All he is saying here is that he doesn't understand why Iraq was not being compliant. Iraq could have chosen to not be compliant to thumb their nose at the rest of the world, but not necessarily because they were actually hiding WMD.

You don't wage war because you think something might be so, you wage it when you know it to be so. No offense ebuddy, but at this point with how history has played out it is just partisan wankery to excuse the Iraq war, especially if you cannot honestly say that you wouldn't be all over a Democrat for waging this war.

[subego]

I get irritated we're still mired in these self-serving, oversimplified narratives our two parties built for us. It's not like the actual story isn't out there.

What the Democrats need to know: Bush didn't lie. It's that simple. He thought there were WMDs because everybody thought there were WMDs. The General in charge of securing them during the invasion realized during the planning stages there was so much intel about where they were stashed it was going to be almost impossible to cover all the places. This was further exacerbated by the way Saddam ran things. Until we targeted him, it was a useful bargaining tool for him to have his neighbors think he had WMDs, so he aggressively pushed that disinformation, even among some of his own generals, none of whom when captured were able confirm there weren't any WMD. Lastly, he had people lying to him to protect themselves. He didn't deal well with failure, so there was great incentive to tell him what he wanted to hear, which is going to complicate getting an accurate assessment.

I'll say it again: Bush thought there were WMD because everybody thought there were WMD.


What the Republicans need to know: remember that part I said about there being all those possible places with WMD, and the General in charge of securing them? How did the military deal with this serious issue? They started by pulling people and supplies from him. Then they pulled more. Then some more. The rationale was always the same. Anyone working on WMD wasn't helping the invasion. You're risking more casualties by not giving this to us. Of course the final nail was the main plan was to immediately destroy all of Saddam's command and control. The only other tool the WMD team could have used to complete their job.

Ask yourself, how important do the WMD seem to you?

[besson3c]

Subego: I agree that Bush didn't lie, he thought there were WMD, but what evidence is there to suggest that *everybody* thought there were WMD? As I said to ebuddy, Iraq's non-compliance is not the same as there being, in fact, WMD.

Also, how many WMD would have made Iraq a serious threat? Would they have been a threat if they had one weapon that barely could be considered a WMD? I think there were those that overall felt that Iraq didn't have the means to pose a serious threat.

[subego]

It wasn't just non-compliance. As I said, it was deliberate misinformation to scare off his neighbors. He wanted people to think he had WMD.

As for the threat of Saddam or his WMD, I never bought that. We attacked him because he was the easiest to knock-over.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It wasn't just non-compliance. As I said, it was deliberate misinformation to scare off his neighbors. He wanted people to think he had WMD.

As for the threat of Saddam or his WMD, I never bought that. We attacked him because he was the easiest to knock-over.

Agreed. It's kind of interesting to me how we took Saddam's scare tactics seriously, yet we sort of see North Korea as a pathetic transparent con-job. I'm not saying that they are a threat, but they seem to be in the same realm with Iraq as far as what threat they pose.

I honestly believe that countries waging war might be a thing of the past. First of all, it is foolish for a country to wage a war they can't win at, but second of all, with the technology we have available today it seems far more effective to have decentralized terrorist cells that don't have a single bulls-eye on their headquarters and a single identity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

Snipping because I'm not here to debate crime around the world, it was just an example.

Your statement didn't make sense to me so I put it in its proper perspective, that's all.

I don't buy that the business decision to outsource to Foxconn has destroyed lives. Even if Apple had not outsourced production they would still need suppliers - unless you are proposing that they start manufacturing every single thing themselves? Apple has always bought a large amount of the hardware content from suppliers, that didn't change when Steve came back. All they did was outsource final assembly - and in most cases, final assemble of new things that they never made before.

You're still not getting it. It was a business decision that destroyed lives; a destructive force. Remember, all we have from Jobs on Fox News is; "The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you've cast your lot with the destructive people."

I think when someone wants to talk about constructive vs destructive, they have to take the whole of the model into account and in both cases, I'd say they are both as constructive as they set out to be with their business models. It was about providing a unique product that would revolutionize their respective worlds and both manifest in wild popularity. What people do with your unique product is something else entirely. Steve Jobs just didn't appreciate conservative punditry. That's okay. Calling it destructive in a sermon to the broadcaster's owner is something else and calls into question the integrity of the arbiter by nature. All Fox News has done is give the contrarian viewpoints an outlet to speak and if that's destructive, it's not because those pundits have taken up arms to storm Pennsylvania Ave. It's because the conservative pundits were growing in popularity and their messages were beginning to resonate. Otherwise, the masses can access whatever contrarian viewpoints they seek with any one of Apple's mobile devices. I think it's perfectly fair to put Jobs' commentary in perspective.

Jobs was never especially partisan. Look up his contributions - there are some to the DNC and a few to specific candidates, but he never contributed to e.g. Obama's campaigns (the conspiracy theorists probably think that the ebook DOJ investigation wouldn't have happened if he had). With the kind of money he has and has had for decades, he could have thrown his weight around a lot more.

He certainly could have and that goes for philanthropy as well, although Laurene was a good donor to the Obama campaign. Jobs has been critical of Obama's fiscal policies as well, but that doesn't mean he was a champion of being politically moderate. i.e. you didn't have to sit and wonder about Steve's political persuasion, it was pretty clear. What I'm talking about is a measure of constructive vs destructive and it's entirely subjective in this regard.

Not serious alternatives. The individual mandate was originally a conservative proposal, adopted to try to make nice with the GOP. All Dems got for that was a constitutional challenge. If they knew beforehand that they wouldn't get any GOP votes for the proposal, they could have gone with a e.g. single-payer structure.

Revisionist history. Yes, the individual mandate was a conservative ideal from the 1980's, but it was for catastrophic care only. And it was a damned good idea. That's not what was adopted in Obamacare. What other ideas? State Chartering for health care, opening the market across state lines, HSA's and compatible plans, Federal subsidies for those who couldn't afford the supplemental plan with the ability to roll plan savings over from one year to the next... all Republican ideals throughout dozens of Republican bills authored with alternative plans, none adopted in Obamacare. Wouldn't get GOP votes for the proposal? Hell, they couldn't get Democrat votes for the bill without wooing them behind closed doors to offer kickbacks to their States and waivers to their unions. Obamacare is horrible legislation evidenced by the fact that to get the support they needed from Democrats, they wanted to ensure that first they and their staffers wouldn't be subjected to it, their states could be waived from aspects of it, and their unions would be waived from it. Good enough for the rest of us of course. How horrible is this legislation? Watch over the next couple of years the number of Democrats that divorce themselves from this brilliant idea when the train is fully derailing.

Comcast buying NBC comes to mind.

The government oversees mergers and acquisitions and all must apply to endeavor them. How is the above any different? The fact that it had Union opposition? Otherwise, what congressional hurdle existed? I mean... they were merely buying the remaining stock owned by GE.

I think that this sort of thing is what Fox staffers tell themselves every night - the others are just as bad, and also they have the wrong opinions and we have the right ones, so we can do this.

No, they're saying there's a lot of people not happy with the coverage they're getting elsewhere and they were hungry. This is how you identify market niches and they were wildly successful. All Fox News staffers have to worry about is the fact that they're employed by the #1 cable news outlet. Otherwise, you're just leaping out into bizarre speculation here.

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good . . . Ideology-that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.

That's deep for sure man... what does that have to do with any of this?

I'm not going to argue that anyone is perfect. Everyone is colored by their opinions, and since reporters generally have a long eduction and education skews Democratic, it is not unreasonable to believe that journalists in general tend to vote Dem. What is different about Fox is that it seems deliberate. Every time there is a scandal about a lesser-known politician, Fox News identifies them as (D) for the first hour or two until the dust settles and they correct it. Every election, they are the first to call a state red and the last to call it blue. Every time there is a decision up in national politics, Obama's position is wrong because he is the one stating it - and this last is the destructive part. And no, you can't say that all the other channels thought everything GWB did was stupid - GWB's stance on immigration reform, for instance, was routinely placed by leftist commentators.

I get suspicious whenever I hear; "every time", "every election", "every"..., but then I've got a couple of kids and that usually equates to a perception entirely void of substance. You don't think a leftist editorial staff is deliberate? Again, this is your perception and I respect that, but let's not pretend this equates to a substantive analysis here. There had been plenty of positive coverage on the pirate affair, capture and killing of OBL, etc... the News broadcast itself is very even-handed, the problem you're having is the conservative punditry, but all news channels do this. They have the news at the top and bottom of the hour and programs between. Those programs are generally geared toward a specific angle and again, this is no different than any other news channels on the planet. You guys just don't like it for the one unique factor; conservative punditry. Let's not fool ourselves that it's really any deeper than that.

95% of GOP candidates for Congress 2012 has Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge, stating basically that they should never ever vote for a new tax on anything. Nothing can get done without money, which means that these 95% will not compromise on anything, and certainly not on the biggest challenge currently faced by the US.

And 100% of Dem candidates for Congress 2012 have the Buffet Rule for which they'd never vote for anything other than a tax increase on "rich" people right?

I'm sure it was. I also think that the US wanted to promote regime change in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1991, but that didn't mean that you tried to invade.

No, in fact I thought they were a perfect example of successful intervention: seek wide international support, and then act in support of a popular revolt to urgently stop actions going on just then. The Iraq war was nothing of that - it was a unilateral invasion to strike first to prevent Hussein potentially doing something some time in the future.

What phenomenas existed in Libya in justifying action that didn't exist in Iraq, without your consent or the international community? Certainly not human rights abuses right? Let me save you some time; global economic impact for those abroad and for many here -- Bush (R), Obama (D). Don't kid yourself, if Iraq was for oil, Libya had European support for UK oil in Libya. That supposed "unilateral" action in Iraq had either the material support or military aide of no less than 42 countries. Otherwise, there are competing interests that aren't always on the right side of history either.

That was military strategy after the fact. From an international politics perspective, irrelevant.

No, it's what you do when you feel you have to. That's why it's relevant. It doesn't make it better because Russia is not as vocally opposed to it or because the UK wants to secure oil.

You're writing this as if the entire world knew Iraq had WMD, and that's just not the case...

Let me stop you here to remind you that your statement was that the rest of the world thought the US was nuts for believing Saddam had WMDs. This is factually incorrect. You'll recall this is what had spawned our entire thread redirect.

That piece you linked about the Blix quote was quite interesting. It had quotes like:

We know he was opposed to action in Iraq and I've already acknowledged as much. I just wish Blix would acknowledge today how instrumental the intel from the Bundesnachrichtendienst was in taking Baghdad. General James Marks certainly has glowing reviews of German assistance in Iraq. There's what you say and then there's what you do. They are often two different things.

As far as the timetable of inspections go, Blix remained insistent that Iraq was not in full compliance. The 13th UN Resolution called for full compliance with weapons inspection teams and threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Yes, this went on for 12 years and would likely continue to this day while Iraq engaged an arms race with Iran -- both sworn enemies of one of our most important allies in the region and we'd have no staging grounds for action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or the geographical check on Iran. While you can argue the merits of the decision, there was certainly no evidence that conditions in the Middle East or the resultant relationships were going to improve or that continued inaction would be more effective, particularly for the people of Iraq.

This is the part where I refer to with the nuts comment - which may been in bad taste, I should have chosen my words better. There was a lot of uncertainty throughout the fall, but as the dust was settling, it was becoming clearer by the day that there was nothing there. The US went to war as there was still some residual doubt about the WMD, appearing as if it was grabbing the last chance to use that excuse.

This wasn't the only reason for action in Iraq. This was certainly the most newsworthy, but there were many reasons stated for action in Iraq. Tell me again why action in Libya was acceptable? Because more people had some immediate economic benefit?

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're still not getting it. It was a business decision that destroyed lives; a destructive force. Remember, all we have from Jobs on Fox News is; "The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you've cast your lot with the destructive people."

That business decision being outsourcing final assembly to Foxconn, which somehow created issues at Apple's suppliers a few levels down? Or is it the details in Apple's sourcing process that is the problem here? I don't think that Steve was involved in them.

But let's say he were. Are you saying that Apple shouldn't source anything from China, because "everyone knows" that they do this sort of thing? That seems somewhat prejudicial. What Apple did was define standards that suppliers must adhere to to supply to Apple. Ideally this would work to improve the situation at Chinese suppliers - a constructive action, in that case.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think when someone wants to talk about constructive vs destructive, they have to take the whole of the model into account and in both cases, I'd say they are both as constructive as they set out to be with their business models. It was about providing a unique product that would revolutionize their respective worlds and both manifest in wild popularity. What people do with your unique product is something else entirely. Steve Jobs just didn't appreciate conservative punditry. That's okay. Calling it destructive in a sermon to the broadcaster's owner is something else and calls into question the integrity of the arbiter by nature. All Fox News has done is give the contrarian viewpoints an outlet to speak and if that's destructive, it's not because those pundits have taken up arms to storm Pennsylvania Ave. It's because the conservative pundits were growing in popularity and their messages were beginning to resonate. Otherwise, the masses can access whatever contrarian viewpoints they seek with any one of Apple's mobile devices. I think it's perfectly fair to put Jobs' commentary in perspective.

Jobs' points was that it wasn't about the viewpoints but about how they were presented. I hesitate to put words in his mouth about what he meant in detail, but he seems to have stepped on some toes, because we're still talking about it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Revisionist history. Yes, the individual mandate was a conservative ideal from the 1980's, but it was for catastrophic care only. And it was a damned good idea. That's not what was adopted in Obamacare. What other ideas? State Chartering for health care, opening the market across state lines, HSA's and compatible plans, Federal subsidies for those who couldn't afford the supplemental plan with the ability to roll plan savings over from one year to the next... all Republican ideals throughout dozens of Republican bills authored with alternative plans, none adopted in Obamacare. Wouldn't get GOP votes for the proposal? Hell, they couldn't get Democrat votes for the bill without wooing them behind closed doors to offer kickbacks to their States and waivers to their unions. Obamacare is horrible legislation evidenced by the fact that to get the support they needed from Democrats, they wanted to ensure that first they and their staffers wouldn't be subjected to it, their states could be waived from aspects of it, and their unions would be waived from it. Good enough for the rest of us of course. How horrible is this legislation? Watch over the next couple of years the number of Democrats that divorce themselves from this brilliant idea when the train is fully derailing.

The point is that they tried to compromise to get wide support for a healthcare reform bill, and they got nothing for it. This was not surprising: The stated goal of the GOP for 2009-2010 was to attempt to block everything Dems tried to do.

Also: Why does the US insist to try to reinvent the wheel when it comes to healthcare financing? Many countries around the globe have systems that are both more efficient and more popular among its users. Why not borrow a few ideas? There will be no patent infringement suits, I can assure you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The government oversees mergers and acquisitions and all must apply to endeavor them. How is the above any different? The fact that it had Union opposition? Otherwise, what congressional hurdle existed? I mean... they were merely buying the remaining stock owned by GE.

It's not different at all. I'm just pointing to an example of why the media would want to avoid antagonizing Congress. Quiet frankly I don't care if Comcast or GE owns NBC - the act of needing congressional approval is what's destructive.

(This is not unique to the US, btw. Polticians around the world have their tricks to keep a hook on the mdeia.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, they're saying there's a lot of people not happy with the coverage they're getting elsewhere and they were hungry. This is how you identify market niches and they were wildly successful. All Fox News staffers have to worry about is the fact that they're employed by the #1 cable news outlet. Otherwise, you're just leaping out into bizarre speculation here.

Of course it's speculation. I can't possibly know what Fox staffers are thinking, but it is a common phenomena - justify your own actions by saying that "the other side" does the same thing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's deep for sure man... what does that have to do with any of this?

It's a Solzhenitsyn quote. It felt appropriate. Some of what Fox does seems almost cartoonishly evil (the one where they faked photos of critics to move the hairline back and and yellow their teeth comes to mind) and I suspect that they're arguing like this over it. Again: Not their viewpoints, but how they present them.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I get suspicious whenever I hear; "every time", "every election", "every"..., but then I've got a couple of kids and that usually equates to a perception entirely void of substance. You don't think a leftist editorial staff is deliberate? Again, this is your perception and I respect that, but let's not pretend this equates to a substantive analysis here. There had been plenty of positive coverage on the pirate affair, capture and killing of OBL, etc... the News broadcast itself is very even-handed, the problem you're having is the conservative punditry, but all news channels do this. They have the news at the top and bottom of the hour and programs between. Those programs are generally geared toward a specific angle and again, this is no different than any other news channels on the planet. You guys just don't like it for the one unique factor; conservative punditry. Let's not fool ourselves that it's really any deeper than that.

No, I'm fine with editorials, when they're labelled as such. The issue is the spin Fox puts on the news itself. This shows up in studies about how well-informed the public is about issues - for example, watchers of Fox News believe that there is significant debate about Climate change among scientists, when in fact 97% of scientists in the field agree that climate change is happening (Note that the source in that case is not the most reputable, but they're "climate skeptics" which made it amusing to include here).

To be absolutely clear: If Fox wants to say that climate change is not a problem and we shouldn't bother about it, that's opinion and that's fine. If Fox wants to say that the climate isn't changing, they can probably find some sponsored study to agree with them and merely report that study as fact - that's spinning, and when you do that consistently, you're putting opinion in the news. But when Fox says that scientists disagree about whether climate change is real, they're wrong. That's a verifiable data point, and there's no excuse to report the opposite.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What phenomenas existed in Libya in justifying action that didn't exist in Iraq, without your consent or the international community? Certainly not human rights abuses right? Let me save you some time; global economic impact for those abroad and for many here -- Bush (R), Obama (D). Don't kid yourself, if Iraq was for oil, Libya had European support for UK oil in Libya. That supposed "unilateral" action in Iraq had either the material support or military aide of no less than 42 countries. Otherwise, there are competing interests that aren't always on the right side of history either.

There was consent of the international community to establish a no-fly zone (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973), which is exactly what foreign powers did in Libya. Also, there was an urgency in this case - the attacks were to prevent human rights violations that were happening urgently, rather than arguing over actions that happened 10 years ago. As such, it was more closely comparable to the war in Yugoslavia in the nineties.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, it's what you do when you feel you have to. That's why it's relevant. It doesn't make it better because Russia is not as vocally opposed to it or because the UK wants to secure oil.

This one quote was originally about the surge in Afghanistan. I said it was irrelevant from an international politics perspective (the initial attack on Afghanistan was considered a counterstrike for 9/11, and thus acceptable action).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me stop you here to remind you that your statement was that the rest of the world thought the US was nuts for believing Saddam had WMDs.

As you have reminded me in every post in this thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is factually incorrect.

Hardly. Slight exaggeration for effect, perhaps.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'll recall this is what had spawned our entire thread redirect.

Yes, and we don't appear to have changed each others' minds.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We know he was opposed to action in Iraq and I've already acknowledged as much. I just wish Blix would acknowledge today how instrumental the intel from the Bundesnachrichtendienst was in taking Baghdad. General James Marks certainly has glowing reviews of German assistance in Iraq. There's what you say and then there's what you do. They are often two different things.

What do the Germans have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As far as the timetable of inspections go, Blix remained insistent that Iraq was not in full compliance. The 13th UN Resolution called for full compliance with weapons inspection teams and threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Yes, this went on for 12 years and would likely continue to this day while Iraq engaged an arms race with Iran -- both sworn enemies of one of our most important allies in the region and we'd have no staging grounds for action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or the geographical check on Iran. While you can argue the merits of the decision, there was certainly no evidence that conditions in the Middle East or the resultant relationships were going to improve or that continued inaction would be more effective, particularly for the people of Iraq.

Oh, I understand the neo-con reasoning for attacking. Now, I disagree with attacking, which is easy enough to do after the fact considering how it turned out, but I disagreed with the decision to attack before it happened as well.

Arms race? Didn't you just say that sanctions had destroyed Iraq's economy - and even if they had money, no nation was permitted to sell them any weapons.

No evidence the conditions would improve? Well...yes, there was: Saddam Hussein's advancing age. All dictatorships in that part of the world are vulnerable when the founder dies or is made infirm by age. If one wanted regime change without killing quite so many young Americans and Iraqis, that would be the time to act - put someone more agreeable and less murderous on the throne.

No staging ground against Afghanistan? How about Afghanistan itself?

No geographical check on Iran? How about the Saudis? They hate Iran more than you can ever know, and they'd be happy to let you stage whatever you wanted for an attack on them.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This wasn't the only reason for action in Iraq. This was certainly the most newsworthy, but there were many reasons stated for action in Iraq. Tell me again why action in Libya was acceptable? Because more people had some immediate economic benefit?

Because the rights violations were urgent, and because the attacks stayed within the purview set by the UN resolution.

A question for you: would you support military action in Syria, and under what circumstances?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

That business decision being outsourcing final assembly to Foxconn, which somehow created issues at Apple's suppliers a few levels down? Or is it the details in Apple's sourcing process that is the problem here? I don't think that Steve was involved in them.

This doesn't matter. You're (rhetorically -- Steve Jobs) defining an entire news outlet by a couple of conservative pundits doing what pundits do on virtually all news channels. It was an allegedly destructive "lot". The fact is, people use Apple products to do any number of distasteful things on a daily basis not unlike how people will respond to the information they get on Fox News (the only way they could be "destructive"). There's no difference. You say Steve Jobs was not directly involved, Fox News is not involved in punditry any more than any other news outlet or Steve Jobs in labor violations. They're doing what pundits do. Steve did what he did, just like FNC does what they do.

But let's say he were. Are you saying that Apple shouldn't source anything from China, because "everyone knows" that they do this sort of thing? That seems somewhat prejudicial. What Apple did was define standards that suppliers must adhere to to supply to Apple. Ideally this would work to improve the situation at Chinese suppliers - a constructive action, in that case.

Are you saying there's no merit to information? Dissent? Free speech? Protestation? Ideally this would work to inform the populace, embolden action for real change, and balance powers.

Jobs' points was that it wasn't about the viewpoints but about how they were presented. I hesitate to put words in his mouth about what he meant in detail, but he seems to have stepped on some toes, because we're still talking about it.

There's nothing inherently destructive about dissent, ideological diversity, or protest. Yes, toe-stomping. Not unlike FNC which is why this is newsworthy and the source of Jobs' ire IMO.

The point is that they tried to compromise to get wide support for a healthcare reform bill

Wait... that's a non-point. The Republican proposal from 30 years ago was mandatory catastrophic-only coverage for the uninsured with a greater opening of the insurance market across state lines, HSAs, and Charter States, not mandatory comprehensive coverage, penalties for businesses and others, and massive tax increases on all to cover the costs. This and what you're talking about aren't even close and there was zero compromise. Truth be told, there were few Democratic proposals in it by the time they were done eating their own young in debate. It's like a barbi doll head on an alligator.

and they got nothing for it. This was not surprising: The stated goal of the GOP for 2009-2010 was to attempt to block everything Dems tried to do.

A. You're sounding as if you had forgotten all the brow-beating necessary to get Democrats to buy off on it. Brow-beating as in bribing with waivers from the signature legislation, waivers granted to specific unions, and a wealth of kickbacks. Democrats like Max Baucus now referring to the impending exchange architecture as a "train wreck". Ron Wyden admits premiums will increase for young people, and Schumer claims premiums are already rising due to Obamacare. All I will say on the matter is continue to watch as Democrats literally divorce themselves from this law, though many of them will be able to lean on and cite instances of great skepticism throughout the process of its passage.

B. I think you're getting the stated goal of the Republicans all wrong. The stated goal was to make Obama a one-term President. That's different. Why? Well... why wouldn't that be the desire of any Democratic constituency during a Republican administration? Of course it is. You're faulting Republicans for being more forthright and transparent than Democrats.

Otherwise, at no point was there a stated GOP goal for 2009-2010, to attempt to block everything Dems tried to do. First of all, we've already mentioned the emotional words like everything, they're meaningless. In this context, wholly inaccurate. For starters, there has been a great deal of compromise on less contentious legislation.

Also: Why does the US insist to try to reinvent the wheel when it comes to healthcare financing? Many countries around the globe have systems that are both more efficient and more popular among its users. Why not borrow a few ideas? There will be no patent infringement suits, I can assure you.

Who says we've not adopted any of their ideas? First, more than 80% of Americans are happy with their health care and coverage. The concern had been for the uninsured or uninsurable. Second, you'll have to tell me which countries. If they're essentially the size of one large US city or state, that's going to be a lame comparison. If they have a tax structure Democrats would demagogue as feeding the rich on the backs of the poor, you've got a non-starter. I notice the further we go in this discussion, the more various political discussions we're having here.

It's not different at all. I'm just pointing to an example of why the media would want to avoid antagonizing Congress. Quiet frankly I don't care if Comcast or GE owns NBC - the act of needing congressional approval is what's destructive.

You'll get no argument from me on oppressive and lopsided Congressional oversight of the free market, but I've not seen a solid example of why the relatively old process of overseeing mergers and acquisitions has to do with an overwhelmingly apparent liberal spin in the media. i.e. this is more the product of the number of self-proclaimed liberals in the industry than it is the practice of overseeing mergers and acquisitions.

(This is not unique to the US, btw. Polticians around the world have their tricks to keep a hook on the mdeia.)

That's why the AP situation is so newsworthy, they're claiming the dragnet used in the tapping was unprecedented. When the media gives such a pass to leadership, that leadership becomes more brazen and abusive and we're just now coming to the conclusion that we've got a more pervasive problem in this Administration, several months too late thanks to their silence.

Of course it's speculation. I can't possibly know what Fox staffers are thinking, but it is a common phenomena - justify your own actions by saying that "the other side" does the same thing.

What you're saying is that Apple is a great big company and Steve Jobs can't possibly be held to account for their practices. Okay, Fox News is a great big company and cannot be held responsible for what people do with the information Fox News distributes. It's not justification, it's a measure.

It's a Solzhenitsyn quote. It felt appropriate. Some of what Fox does seems almost cartoonishly evil (the one where they faked photos of critics to move the hairline back and and yellow their teeth comes to mind) and I suspect that they're arguing like this over it. Again: Not their viewpoints, but how they present them.

There is no large media company without its scandals. Don't take my word for it, Google; enter any media company here controversy. Fox News was held to account for the action. If this is Steve Jobs' measure of "evil" and "destructive", there is virtually no broadcast on which he could advertise, that's the point. It's their viewpoints, plain and simple.

No, I'm fine with editorials, when they're labelled as such. The issue is the spin Fox puts on the news itself. This shows up in studies about how well-informed the public is about issues - for example, watchers of Fox News believe that there is significant debate about Climate change among scientists, when in fact 97% of scientists in the field agree that climate change is happening (Note that the source in that case is not the most reputable, but they're "climate skeptics" which made it amusing to include here).

To be absolutely clear: If Fox wants to say that climate change is not a problem and we shouldn't bother about it, that's opinion and that's fine. If Fox wants to say that the climate isn't changing, they can probably find some sponsored study to agree with them and merely report that study as fact - that's spinning, and when you do that consistently, you're putting opinion in the news. But when Fox says that scientists disagree about whether climate change is real, they're wrong. That's a verifiable data point, and there's no excuse to report the opposite.

How many political discussions would you like to have here? First, the argument is AGW - global warming. Granted, it has become "climate change" to the natural variability deniers, but the overwhelming evidence suggests natural variability is the cause for global climate change. Yes, there is disagreement among scientists regarding AGW, not climate change. You see, that's a ruse as evidence points to natural variability -- change the narrative.

There was consent of the international community to establish a no-fly zone (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973), which is exactly what foreign powers did in Libya. Also, there was an urgency in this case - the attacks were to prevent human rights violations that were happening urgently, rather than arguing over actions that happened 10 years ago. As such, it was more closely comparable to the war in Yugoslavia in the nineties.

Great... except, there are gross humans rights violations in any number of countries. Why Libya? Why now? If anyone had shown a willingness to comply with weapons inspections and elimination, Libya did. Syria is gassing its people and yet... we're not ousting their leader.

Yes, and we don't appear to have changed each others' minds.

That's the way it works here, we're talking about this for the benefit of others.

What do the Germans have to do with anything?

There's what you say to the populace of your country to maintain popularity and then there's what you do when it serves your own interests or maintains specific foreign relations.

Oh, I understand the neo-con reasoning for attacking. Now, I disagree with attacking, which is easy enough to do after the fact considering how it turned out, but I disagreed with the decision to attack before it happened as well.

There were gross human rights violations in Iraq, suppression of women, and free speech. Why so opposed to Iraq?

Arms race? Didn't you just say that sanctions had destroyed Iraq's economy - and even if they had money, no nation was permitted to sell them any weapons.

That was the reason for Saddam's ruse. He wanted Iran to believe Iraq was well outfitted with defense for obvious reasons. David Kay overturned a great many weapons programs blueprints and the proposed sale of those programs to rogue players. The sanctions were imposed on the leadership, but oppressive leadership passes those burdens down to the populace. Saddam still maintained a lavish lifestyle and there's no reason to assume he wasn't interested in competing militarily with Iran. Can you think of a reason why Iraq wouldn't want to compete with Iran?

No evidence the conditions would improve? Well...yes, there was: Saddam Hussein's advancing age. All dictatorships in that part of the world are vulnerable when the founder dies or is made infirm by age. If one wanted regime change without killing quite so many young Americans and Iraqis, that would be the time to act - put someone more agreeable and less murderous on the throne.

Why relegate to "that part of the world"? How did the transfer of power go in North Korea. Pretty much more of the same. We implanted the leadership of Iraq, otherwise what examples are you using for the above, unsubstantiated opinion?

No staging ground against Afghanistan? How about Afghanistan itself?

Afghanistan is an extremely difficult, mountainous terrain that have brought many an enemy into submission through attrition and exhaustion. By staging in Iraq, we were able to divert much of the battle in our theatre, not seek them out in theirs while also basing operations in taken ground as opposed to being surrounded by an invisible enemy.

No geographical check on Iran? How about the Saudis? They hate Iran more than you can ever know, and they'd be happy to let you stage whatever you wanted for an attack on them.

Is there any particular reason why you'd select only one base of operations or would a choice of several not be more optimal? We also overstayed our welcome from Desert Shield in the early 90's.

Because the rights violations were urgent, and because the attacks stayed within the purview set by the UN resolution.

You're not getting it. There are gross human rights violations throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. This was an effort largely begun by the French and the British and we helped. If you believe the action in Libya was exclusively for altruism, you've been wholly duped. The UK had more at stake in Libya and we had more at stake in Iraq. We had the assistance, material or otherwise, from each of the NATO countries involved in Libya for our action in Iraq.

A question for you: would you support military action in Syria, and under what circumstances?

You'll probably want to start a new thread if you're interested. There are a lot of details around Syria and I'd rather not adjudicate that, anthropogenic global warming (now known as climate change when you can't "hide the declines"), and healthcare in the thread about Steve Jobs and Fox News.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you saying there's no merit to information? Dissent? Free speech? Protestation? Ideally this would work to inform the populace, embolden action for real change, and balance powers.

Not at all - there is merit in all these things. I'm merely trying to follow your thread here. You're faulting Apple for sourcing parts produced in non-democratic countries - I'm saying that avoiding sourcing parts from there would amount to isolation, which won't help anyone. The best they could have done is IMO what they did - source, but attempt to enforce standards on behavior.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A. You're sounding as if you had forgotten all the brow-beating necessary to get Democrats to buy off on it. Brow-beating as in bribing with waivers from the signature legislation, waivers granted to specific unions, and a wealth of kickbacks. Democrats like Max Baucus now referring to the impending exchange architecture as a "train wreck". Ron Wyden admits premiums will increase for young people, and Schumer claims premiums are already rising due to Obamacare. All I will say on the matter is continue to watch as Democrats literally divorce themselves from this law, though many of them will be able to lean on and cite instances of great skepticism throughout the process of its passage.

I know that the ACA is flawed, but I would argue that it is more flawed by its attempts to compromise. And yes, there were Dems who held their party ransom, which meant that they got more in the sausage-making. In a way, it's the worst option. If Dems had tried to ram through what they really wanted, it would have been more effective and efficient. If they had got a few GOP votes on board, they wouldn't have had to spend so much buying wavering Dems. The second point is where I would tie this to Fox - their branding of anything resembling a compromise on getting something health-care related through Congress made the bill worse than it should have been.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

B. I think you're getting the stated goal of the Republicans all wrong. The stated goal was to make Obama a one-term President. That's different. Why? Well... why wouldn't that be the desire of any Democratic constituency during a Republican administration? Of course it is. You're faulting Republicans for being more forthright and transparent than Democrats.

No, I'm faulting them for dragging their strategy into the lawmaking far too early. It is what means that so little gets done unless under the gun. They could have tried to get something done for the first three years and campaigned to unseat Obama the fourth year.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who says we've not adopted any of their ideas? First, more than 80% of Americans are happy with their health care and coverage. The concern had been for the uninsured or uninsurable. Second, you'll have to tell me which countries. If they're essentially the size of one large US city or state, that's going to be a lame comparison. If they have a tax structure Democrats would demagogue as feeding the rich on the backs of the poor, you've got a non-starter. I notice the further we go in this discussion, the more various political discussions we're having here.

You're right, we're getting a bit far afield, and I realize that the federal nature of the US government makes it hard to copy something like the British system. (Although Germany is a federal state and with a total population 50% more than California - might be interesting. I know little about it, though). My point is rather that the healthcare financing system in the US is inefficient compared to just about any other nation, and it is remarkable how little benchmarking there is in these debates.

And as for the costs...If the efficiency in the system improves, that makes the total bill for everyone lower. You can call the fees for it something other than a tax and add provisions for "locking" the money to pay for exactly healthcare and nothing else.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'll get no argument from me on oppressive and lopsided Congressional oversight of the free market, but I've not seen a solid example of why the relatively old process of overseeing mergers and acquisitions has to do with an overwhelmingly apparent liberal spin in the media. i.e. this is more the product of the number of self-proclaimed liberals in the industry than it is the practice of overseeing mergers and acquisitions.

It's not about a liberal spin, as you see it (that's explained by the educational background of journalists, and anyway I don't see it nearly as much these days) but about the fact that the media is not as aggressive as it should be.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you're saying is that Apple is a great big company and Steve Jobs can't possibly be held to account for their practices. Okay, Fox News is a great big company and cannot be held responsible for what people do with the information Fox News distributes. It's not justification, it's a measure.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The entire bit with the quote is there to illustrate a point of human behavior: If there is "another side" that you disagree with, their mere existence can be used to justify breaches of standards that one would not normally consider. I'm arguing that that is what Fox News is doing - conservatives have gone on about a liberal bias in the media as long as there has been a media, and that very idea is now pervasive enough that it can be use to justify any behavior. That includes very destructive behavior.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How many political discussions would you like to have here? First, the argument is AGW - global warming. Granted, it has become "climate change" to the natural variability deniers, but the overwhelming evidence suggests natural variability is the cause for global climate change. Yes, there is disagreement among scientists regarding AGW, not climate change. You see, that's a ruse as evidence points to natural variability -- change the narrative.

I don't want to discuss climate change at all - I'm using it to illustrate the point. The scientific consensus is that it is happening and that it is caused by humans. Now, one can argue that the consensus is wrong and point to the discovery of quantum physics or something, but you can't say that there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about it, because - as that study I linked to showed - that's simply not true.

Don't get hung up on my use of climate change instead of AGW or whatever. English isn't my first language, and I've been saying climate change or the equivalent in any language since the mid-nineties at least (before which I probably just said "greenhouse effect", which I dumped because the term was initially used to describe the natural effect that keeps this planet livable).

"Natural variability deniers" - oh, so we have a pro-life/pro-choice wording now? First I've seen of that term. I hope some spin doctor got paid well for it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Great... except, there are gross humans rights violations in any number of countries. Why Libya? Why now? If anyone had shown a willingness to comply with weapons inspections and elimination, Libya did. Syria is gassing its people and yet... we're not ousting their leader.

The complaint about Libya had little to do with WMD, so inspections wouldn't have done anything.

The reason action was taken against Libya was the urgency again. Let's see if I can take a less contentious example this time: Traffic. More people die from traffic accidents with cars, trucks, motorcycles etc than do from major events like disasters or airplane hijackings, yet we do much more to try prevent the big events that we do trying to make cars safer. Why? Because when a disaster strikes, it becomes urgent and people take action against it. Traffic accidents are a statistic and don't become urgent unless there is a massive accident somewhere.

We don't know that Syria is gassing it's own people. If we did, there would be a no-fly zone over the country inside a week.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's what you say to the populace of your country to maintain popularity and then there's what you do when it serves your own interests or maintains specific foreign relations.

Oh, OK. I just don't remember Germany being especially opposed to US action in Iraq. They are reluctant to send their own army anywhere (for good reason), but it's not like their approval is required.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There were gross human rights violations in Iraq, suppression of women, and free speech. Why so opposed to Iraq?

Because there was always a risk that it would end this way, which is arguably even worse for the entire country. Because invading without a clear mandate breeds resentment with the west in all corners of the world, and that resentment breeds terrorism. Because it spent US strength, meaning that it had little to threaten with when other situations brewed. Because by going its own way means that anyone involved has no moral standing to complain when someone else does the same.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Can you think of a reason why Iraq wouldn't want to compete with Iran?

I'm sure he wanted to, but I'd argue that he didn't have a chance to do so, without money and isolated by sanctions.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why relegate to "that part of the world"? How did the transfer of power go in North Korea. Pretty much more of the same. We implanted the leadership of Iraq, otherwise what examples are you using for the above, unsubstantiated opinion?

The opinion that as dictators grow older, they grow weaker? I would have thought it obvious, but Gadaffi was 69, Mubarak was 83. Both ruled with an iron fist for years, but were overthrown as they weakened by age. Even if you leave the Middle East, it mostly holds true - Cuba is slowly opening up after Castro, and just about any African dictator you'd care to name got kicked out as they grew older. It's not 100% - the Confucian traditions of North Korea might prove an effective firewall - but it is a sign.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Afghanistan is an extremely difficult, mountainous terrain that have brought many an enemy into submission through attrition and exhaustion. By staging in Iraq, we were able to divert much of the battle in our theatre, not seek them out in theirs while also basing operations in taken ground as opposed to being surrounded by an invisible enemy.

So you invaded because you needed a parking space?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Is there any particular reason why you'd select only one base of operations or would a choice of several not be more optimal? We also overstayed our welcome from Desert Shield in the early 90's.

Even so, the Saudis would let you stage an attack against Iran. .

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're not getting it. There are gross human rights violations throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. This was an effort largely begun by the French and the British and we helped. If you believe the action in Libya was exclusively for altruism, you've been wholly duped. The UK had more at stake in Libya and we had more at stake in Iraq. We had the assistance, material or otherwise, from each of the NATO countries involved in Libya for our action in Iraq.

I think you are misreading the actions of the European governments here. There was a lot of soul searching after it became clear just what went on in Bosnia during the war in the nineties, and governments fell for not putting a stop to it. There was a Dutch government forced out a year or two ago by another report on Srebrenica. Any oil interests were definitely secondary to that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

Not at all - there is merit in all these things. I'm merely trying to follow your thread here. You're faulting Apple for sourcing parts produced in non-democratic countries - I'm saying that avoiding sourcing parts from there would amount to isolation, which won't help anyone. The best they could have done is IMO what they did - source, but attempt to enforce standards on behavior.

I think you're protecting some partisan sensitivity with this. He cast his business with this "lot" and it turned out destructive. His complaint was that some of the pundits featured on Fox News are a destructive lot. Not because they are taking up arms and storming Pennsylvania Avenue or calling for anyone to do so mind you, but because of what the public will do with the information. What of what the public will do with computers and mobile communications technology provided by Apple? He's providing a popular product, just like Fox News. When I challenged you on the outsourcing of this labor to China, one of your arguments was that a lot of people outsource their labor China. Okay, a lot of people feature partisan pundits in their broadcasts.

I know that the ACA is flawed, but I would argue that it is more flawed by its attempts to compromise. And yes, there were Dems who held their party ransom, which meant that they got more in the sausage-making. In a way, it's the worst option. If Dems had tried to ram through what they really wanted, it would have been more effective and efficient.

Compromise with who? A: Democrats. If Dems had tried to ram through what they really wanted, they would've left Obama to face a House and Senate chock-full of Republicans. Make no mistake. You can't possibly know it would've been more effective and efficient, there isn't a solvent heath care system on the globe, notably in the US where approximately half of it is already managed by the Federal government. When you take the consumer out of the purchase decision, you are left with a system that is less efficient and effective.

No, I'm faulting them for dragging their strategy into the lawmaking far too early. It is what means that so little gets done unless under the gun. They could have tried to get something done for the first three years and campaigned to unseat Obama the fourth year.

The problem here is that Obama spent his political capital on one of the most highly contentious liberal agendas in existence from day one through the first three years.

You're right, we're getting a bit far afield, and I realize that the federal nature of the US government makes it hard to copy something like the British system. (Although Germany is a federal state and with a total population 50% more than California - might be interesting. I know little about it, though). My point is rather that the healthcare financing system in the US is inefficient compared to just about any other nation, and it is remarkable how little benchmarking there is in these debates.

Again, you're going to have problems with this analysis because you're referring to taxing structures that would never fly among the proponents of single-payer systems in the US (at least, from what they're saying publically) and you're likely to attempt to compare the US systems with only the most homogenous regions on the planet and a wealth of other differences that comprise demands on your health care system. If you'd care to flesh this out, perhaps you could offer those benchmarks.

And as for the costs...If the efficiency in the system improves, that makes the total bill for everyone lower. You can call the fees for it something other than a tax and add provisions for "locking" the money to pay for exactly healthcare and nothing else.

Yet health care remains a top tier political issue in just about any democratic society on the globe. Health care costs are rising at an alarming rate everywhere. Note; everywhere. The systems you speak of are also not solvent and budget gimmickry will get you nowhere.

It's not about a liberal spin, as you see it (that's explained by the educational background of journalists, and anyway I don't see it nearly as much these days) but about the fact that the media is not as aggressive as it should be.

It has become particularly silenced in the US and this is coming home to roost in an abusive governing authority.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The entire bit with the quote is there to illustrate a point of human behavior: If there is "another side" that you disagree with, their mere existence can be used to justify breaches of standards that one would not normally consider. I'm arguing that that is what Fox News is doing - conservatives have gone on about a liberal bias in the media as long as there has been a media, and that very idea is now pervasive enough that it can be use to justify any behavior. That includes very destructive behavior.

You mean like; "everyone outsources their labor to China"?

I don't want to discuss climate change at all - I'm using it to illustrate the point. The scientific consensus is that it is happening and that it is caused by humans. Now, one can argue that the consensus is wrong and point to the discovery of quantum physics or something, but you can't say that there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about it, because - as that study I linked to showed - that's simply not true.

First of all, "Skepticalscientists" are not skeptical of AGW, they support it. I'm not sure you read your link. Cook; The author of the study co-authored a book against those skeptical of AGW as the title of his book suggests "heads in the sand". It should be noted that Cook falsely classified studies as toeing the IPCC's AGW line when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Several of them were randomly selected and interviewed asking whether Cook's conclusions on their papers were accurate and their answers are enlightening;

Dr. Idso, your paper ‘Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it“. Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

Don't get hung up on my use of climate change instead of AGW or whatever. English isn't my first language, and I've been saying climate change or the equivalent in any language since the mid-nineties at least (before which I probably just said "greenhouse effect", which I dumped because the term was initially used to describe the natural effect that keeps this planet livable).

I just wanted to make clear the fact that no one is denying that the climate changes, no one. Calling them "climate change deniers" is beyond dubious, it's downright fallacious.

"Natural variability deniers" - oh, so we have a pro-life/pro-choice wording now? First I've seen of that term. I hope some spin doctor got paid well for it.

This is for those who believe only humans produce CO2 and that only CO2 causes warming...err... change.

The complaint about Libya had little to do with WMD, so inspections wouldn't have done anything.

The reason action was taken against Libya was the urgency again. Let's see if I can take a less contentious example this time: Traffic. More people die from traffic accidents with cars, trucks, motorcycles etc than do from major events like disasters or airplane hijackings, yet we do much more to try prevent the big events that we do trying to make cars safer. Why? Because when a disaster strikes, it becomes urgent and people take action against it. Traffic accidents are a statistic and don't become urgent unless there is a massive accident somewhere.

We don't know that Syria is gassing it's own people. If we did, there would be a no-fly zone over the country inside a week.

Well... according to UK and US intel, Assad has used sarin gas during this civil war and we've got the soil samples and video evidence of victims' symptoms to prove it.

Oh, OK. I just don't remember Germany being especially opposed to US action in Iraq. They are reluctant to send their own army anywhere (for good reason), but it's not like their approval is required.

The point is, the only "unilateral" aspect of the US' action in Iraq is the lip-service of detractors. Otherwise, we had the military or material support of some 40+ countries. The US lead the effort because we had the most at stake, not unlike the French and British leading the efforts in Libya because they had more at stake.

Because there was always a risk that it would end this way, which is arguably even worse for the entire country. Because invading without a clear mandate breeds resentment with the west in all corners of the world, and that resentment breeds terrorism. Because it spent US strength, meaning that it had little to threaten with when other situations brewed. Because by going its own way means that anyone involved has no moral standing to complain when someone else does the same.

We changed the regime. That had been a goal from Clinton doctrine and it was carried to fruition. Saddam and his henchmen are gone. Their people are voting and their women have more rights. We're also not hearing any more of en masse human rights violations out of Iraq. What was the clear mandate in Libya?

I'm sure he wanted to, but I'd argue that he didn't have a chance to do so, without money and isolated by sanctions.

He had the collective resources of the entire country which is an awful lot when they're denied a share in the fruits of their labor. Plenty enough to continue requiring our lobbing of missiles into their country as had been done along with sanctions the preceding 12 years.

The opinion that as dictators grow older, they grow weaker? I would have thought it obvious, but Gadaffi was 69, Mubarak was 83. Both ruled with an iron fist for years, but were overthrown as they weakened by age. Even if you leave the Middle East, it mostly holds true - Cuba is slowly opening up after Castro, and just about any African dictator you'd care to name got kicked out as they grew older. It's not 100% - the Confucian traditions of North Korea might prove an effective firewall - but it is a sign.

Arab Spring - you may have heard of it. Anti-establishment sentiment has been building among Middle Eastern youth for some time and has culminated in coups that have served uprisings throughout the Middle East. The only thing that happens as you age is that you're not as visible running around with AKs trying to look militant and fearsome. They're figureheads with a wealth of people helping thrust their agendas.

So you invaded because you needed a parking space?

Among other things, sure. What ever came of Libya? How are they doing now?

Even so, the Saudis would let you stage an attack against Iran. .

This didn't address my point.

I think you are misreading the actions of the European governments here. There was a lot of soul searching after it became clear just what went on in Bosnia during the war in the nineties, and governments fell for not putting a stop to it. There was a Dutch government forced out a year or two ago by another report on Srebrenica. Any oil interests were definitely secondary to that.

I didn't say anything about oil in this statement, I said human rights atrocities. I said that there was nothing unique about Libya's treatment of its people as just cause for action and that this was an effort begun by the French and the British because they had the most at stake. I said if you believe the action in Libya was exclusively altruistic, you've been wholly duped.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think you're protecting some partisan sensitivity with this. He cast his business with this "lot" and it turned out destructive. His complaint was that some of the pundits featured on Fox News are a destructive lot. Not because they are taking up arms and storming Pennsylvania Avenue or calling for anyone to do so mind you, but because of what the public will do with the information. What of what the public will do with computers and mobile communications technology provided by Apple? He's providing a popular product, just like Fox News. When I challenged you on the outsourcing of this labor to China, one of your arguments was that a lot of people outsource their labor China. Okay, a lot of people feature partisan pundits in their broadcasts.

No, that's not the point at all. The point is that isolating countries like this by not sourcing anything there would be much more destructive. Sourcing some things there and trying to enforce standards is really the best one can do in this situation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Compromise with who? A: Democrats. If Dems had tried to ram through what they really wanted, they would've left Obama to face a House and Senate chock-full of Republicans. Make no mistake. You can't possibly know it would've been more effective and efficient, there isn't a solvent heath care system on the globe, notably in the US where approximately half of it is already managed by the Federal government. When you take the consumer out of the purchase decision, you are left with a system that is less efficient and effective.

Or that's the theory. Too bad the results don't agree with it.

The theory of introducing competition in the market to earn money comes from the basic assumption that the improvement in efficiency outweighs the cost from giving profits to the private enterprise that makes the market work. That's an assumption,and if that assumption does not hold true, the very idea of a market-based system falls. Also, even the US system is not entirely market-based, as emergency care is still paid for. This means that it is in the interest of private insurance companies to push as much cost as possible into the emergency "bucket".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, you're going to have problems with this analysis because you're referring to taxing structures that would never fly among the proponents of single-payer systems in the US (at least, from what they're saying publically) and you're likely to attempt to compare the US systems with only the most homogenous regions on the planet and a wealth of other differences that comprise demands on your health care system. If you'd care to flesh this out, perhaps you could offer those benchmarks.

What is politically acceptable is another issue entirely. I'm sure there will be cries of socialism if anyone tries to implement a modern European health care financing system.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yet health care remains a top tier political issue in just about any democratic society on the globe. Health care costs are rising at an alarming rate everywhere. Note; everywhere. The systems you speak of are also not solvent and budget gimmickry will get you nowhere.

Health care costs are rising because the age profile of the population is changing. Doesn't mean that the systems are getting worse.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean like; "everyone outsources their labor to China"?

Well, that's the reasoning I suspect they're using.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, "Skepticalscientists" are not skeptical of AGW, they support it. I'm not sure you read your link.

The link was to The Register, which in turn linked to nine other sites. I didn't read through all nine, no - point was the study.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Cook; The author of the study co-authored a book against those skeptical of AGW as the title of his book suggests "heads in the sand". It should be noted that Cook falsely classified studies as toeing the IPCC's AGW line when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Several of them were randomly selected and interviewed asking whether Cook's conclusions on their papers were accurate and their answers are enlightening;

Do you have a link to that? I'd have to read that interview to respond.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I just wanted to make clear the fact that no one is denying that the climate changes, no one. Calling them "climate change deniers" is beyond dubious, it's downright fallacious.

Really? That's progress - certainly wasn't like that 10 years ago. Perhaps we're not just discussing like this for the enjoyment of others, then.

Even if you don't accept AGW... If the climate is changing, isn't it up to us to attempt to counteract that?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is for those who believe only humans produce CO2 and that only CO2 causes warming...err... change.

Many gasses cause an increase in the greenhouse effect. CFCs all have a high greenhouse effect, which makes us lucky that they were banned decades ago, or the problem would be even greater. Methane has a high greenhouse effect, if on a slightly shorter timescale, and one we're unfortunately not doing anything about.

"Only humans produce CO2" is not correct - anything that lives produces CO2 - but the point here is fossil carbon that burns into CO2. A living organism that releases CO2 does so by "burning" carbon that was fixed fairly recently, meaning that the same number carbon atoms are circling around from the surface into the atmosphere. There is a large number of carbon atoms that have been locked into oil and coal beneath the surface and are now released into the atmosphere, and that is a human activity. There are other ways that fixed CO2 can be released from thawing swamps etc. - not sure if that is what you are referring to.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well... according to UK and US intel, Assad has used sarin gas during this civil war and we've got the soil samples and video evidence of victims' symptoms to prove it.

Link for that? It would surprise me, because use of chemical weapons has been described as a "red line" both in the US and the EU.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We changed the regime. That had been a goal from Clinton doctrine and it was carried to fruition. Saddam and his henchmen are gone. Their people are voting and their women have more rights. We're also not hearing any more of en masse human rights violations out of Iraq. What was the clear mandate in Libya?

To institute a no-fly zone to prevent the regime from using its air force in attacks on civilians.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Arab Spring - you may have heard of it. Anti-establishment sentiment has been building among Middle Eastern youth for some time and has culminated in coups that have served uprisings throughout the Middle East. The only thing that happens as you age is that you're not as visible running around with AKs trying to look militant and fearsome. They're figureheads with a wealth of people helping thrust their agendas.

They're examples of leaders that got weaker as they aged. My point was that there would have been an opportunity for the same thing in Iraq as Hussein aged.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Among other things, sure. What ever came of Libya? How are they doing now?

Better than Iraq.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This didn't address my point.

I was probably still stuck on the parking space bit. You're basically saying that invaded one country so it would be easier to invade another country when that wasn't even necessary.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I didn't say anything about oil in this statement, I said human rights atrocities. I said that there was nothing unique about Libya's treatment of its people as just cause for action and that this was an effort begun by the French and the British because they had the most at stake. I said if you believe the action in Libya was exclusively altruistic, you've been wholly duped.

In the real world, there is nothing that exclusively one thing or another, but given the way the media reacted, urgent humanitarian concerns were a big reason for the action. It certainly was in Sweden - we have no big oil companies with interests in Libya.

[subego]

Outsourcing labor to where it's cheapest is destructive? I thought not doing that was destructive.

If you go out of business because you can't compete, you're constructing what again?

[Waragainstsleep]

In terms of constructive and destructive, outsourcing your jobs abroad is locally destructive because it puts people out of work. On the other hand, it provides more jobs in shipping to bring those products back into the country and if the cost cutting helps a company to thrive there are more jobs created in sales and administrative areas. You are also forcing the local workforce that you have put out of work to adapt. Instead of standing on a production line they now need to go and learn some real crafts or skills in order to earn a good living.

You also help the 'sweatshops'. Look at the quality of life Foxconn employees get now compared with 10 or 15 years ago. They may not have caught up with the western world, but previously they were set up like we used to be during the industrial revolution. The technology, education and money has filtered down. The problem is when that workforce that has a reason to evolve and improve fails to do so, overall advancement stops.

Fox News is one of the worst parts of a media machine that is keeping whole sections of society stupid by feeding them LCD crap.

[Shaddim]

The more work the sweatshops receive that requires high-quality labor, the more their conditions improve.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

No, that's not the point at all. The point is that isolating countries like this by not sourcing anything there would be much more destructive. Sourcing some things there and trying to enforce standards is really the best one can do in this situation.

Informing the populace and providing them a check to power is the best a media outlet can do even if it ruffles a few feathers.

Or that's the theory. Too bad the results don't agree with it.

You've not given a metric by which to gauge any of this so... seeing as there isn't a solvent system to compare it to, it's a non-starter and you have no results that "agree" with your supposition. We're kind of at square one here.

The theory of introducing competition in the market to earn money comes from the basic assumption that the improvement in efficiency outweighs the cost from giving profits to the private enterprise that makes the market work. That's an assumption,and if that assumption does not hold true, the very idea of a market-based system falls. Also, even the US system is not entirely market-based, as emergency care is still paid for. This means that it is in the interest of private insurance companies to push as much cost as possible into the emergency "bucket".

The problem is a government-manipulated marketplace that hampers competition and the system hasn't been "market-based" in at least 30 years. The failures you cite cannot be adequately described as a failure of the free market in a system where approximately half the health care in the country is already decidedly not "market-based".

What is politically acceptable is another issue entirely. I'm sure there will be cries of socialism if anyone tries to implement a modern European health care financing system.

If it introduces larger cooperation between big govt and big corp, it will have been an entirely appropriate cry. At that point it's a question of whether or not socialism has a definition and/or you appreciate it. Besides, the point I was making is that the very folks who would support the nationalization of health care also decline any efforts to expand the tax base instead of hitting the same base with the same increases (and eventually necessary decreases) decade after decade. In the US, this makes the ideal more of a non-starter.

Health care costs are rising because the age profile of the population is changing. Doesn't mean that the systems are getting worse.

That's one component, but there are many more profound components such as the fact that nearly half the explosive growth in cost is due to burgeoning technologies that are expensive to conceive and implement, increasing administrative regulations, 60% growth in hospital spending from mergers and acquisitions, and wasteful spending on defensive medicine including redundant, inappropriate or unnecessary tests and procedures, and unhealthy living. There's a lot to chew through before you get to the aging population base as this is most notably our next problem as the ACA kicks in to play. It should also be noted that people are working longer into "retirement" to offset those expenditures.

The link was to The Register, which in turn linked to nine other sites. I didn't read through all nine, no - point was the study.

Oh, see I was wondering why you even brought it up then. The most noteworthy contributors to your argument both in the link and the links it referenced support AGW. You had mentioned their opposition was amusing and I couldn't find this opposition to have the laugh with you which lead me to believe you had not vetted your link very well.

Do you have a link to that? I'd have to read that interview to respond.

There were several respondents. Surely you can accept that many things had the consensus of the scientific community until new information provided greater insight and that scientific advancement often occurs in spite of the establishment.

Really? That's progress - certainly wasn't like that 10 years ago. Perhaps we're not just discussing like this for the enjoyment of others, then.

It is not progress to modify or suppress information because it stands in contrast to your narrative or agenda. Progress would be the acknowledgement of the state of the science where it is and make sound judgements on how to proceed for greater understanding. If the interest is science of course and not a legislative agenda.

Even if you don't accept AGW... If the climate is changing, isn't it up to us to attempt to counteract that?

Isn't it also wise to also consider the implications of the agenda to counteract it and shouldn't we know what "it" is with greater clarity before acting?

Many gasses cause an increase in the greenhouse effect. CFCs all have a high greenhouse effect, which makes us lucky that they were banned decades ago, or the problem would be even greater. Methane has a high greenhouse effect, if on a slightly shorter timescale, and one we're unfortunately not doing anything about.

Perhaps the ends do not justify the means or we already would have.

"Only humans produce CO2" is not correct - anything that lives produces CO2 - but the point here is fossil carbon that burns into CO2. A living organism that releases CO2 does so by "burning" carbon that was fixed fairly recently, meaning that the same number carbon atoms are circling around from the surface into the atmosphere. There is a large number of carbon atoms that have been locked into oil and coal beneath the surface and are now released into the atmosphere, and that is a human activity. There are other ways that fixed CO2 can be released from thawing swamps etc. - not sure if that is what you are referring to.

I'm saying that I believe man's contribution to climate change has been bloated for a political agenda who's sole body of work has been perpetuated by an intergovernmental panel predicated on identifying man's role in climate change and taking steps to mitigate it. Identifying other roles with perhaps far greater impact on climate change gets the short-shrift because this does not fit the commission. Nearly the entire consensus being bandied about here are tied back to work published by this panel. The papers themselves are almost never as tidy or dire as zealots would have you believe in their press-releases and the "crisis" is being used to thrust global legislation. I do not believe this body of work is nearly as interested in science as its proponents would have you believe. It is first and foremost about legislation.

Link for that? It would surprise me, because use of chemical weapons has been described as a "red line" both in the US and the EU.

Are you not following the news or are you just asking for links? This was major news just two weeks ago and the President was being challenged on having even made the "red-line" litmus for action in Syria. Let me know if you can't find the information and I'll help, otherwise I'm a busy guy.

To institute a no-fly zone to prevent the regime from using its air force in attacks on civilians.

Was that it? Oh, action in Iraq was to ensure Saddam and his henchmen could no longer oppress civilians.

They're examples of leaders that got weaker as they aged. My point was that there would have been an opportunity for the same thing in Iraq as Hussein aged.

My point was that it had nothing to do with the age of the dictator and everything to do with the Arab Spring.

Better than Iraq.

I disagree.

I was probably still stuck on the parking space bit. You're basically saying that invaded one country so it would be easier to invade another country when that wasn't even necessary.

No, that's what you read to remain argumentative. For starters, you don't know that it wasn't necessary.

In the real world, there is nothing that exclusively one thing or another, but given the way the media reacted, urgent humanitarian concerns were a big reason for the action. It certainly was in Sweden - we have no big oil companies with interests in Libya.

"We" don't, but the UK does which is why they not only supported action in Libya, but initiated it and lead the effort.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've not given a metric by which to gauge any of this so... seeing as there isn't a solvent system to compare it to, it's a non-starter and you have no results that "agree" with your supposition. We're kind of at square one here.

All of this came out of a small wondering about why there was no comparison to how other countries do it. In the meantime, you have mentioned that it doesn't make sense to compare with a state that is the size of s US state, and it doesn't make sense to compare with someone with a higher tax rate than the US. So...the answer is that your situation is unique enough that there is nothing to learn from anyone else?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem is a government-manipulated marketplace that hampers competition and the system hasn't been "market-based" in at least 30 years. The failures you cite cannot be adequately described as a failure of the free market in a system where approximately half the health care in the country is already decidedly not "market-based".

So what is your proposal, then? A completely free market system, no government involvement at all? That would at least be a constructive proposal

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If it introduces larger cooperation between big govt and big corp, it will have been an entirely appropriate cry. At that point it's a question of whether or not socialism has a definition and/or you appreciate it. Besides, the point I was making is that the very folks who would support the nationalization of health care also decline any efforts to expand the tax base instead of hitting the same base with the same increases (and eventually necessary decreases) decade after decade. In the US, this makes the ideal more of a non-starter.

And the point I was making was that improving the efficiency in the system by reducing waste does not imply anything about how said system is financed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's one component, but there are many more profound components such as the fact that nearly half the explosive growth in cost is due to burgeoning technologies that are expensive to conceive and implement, increasing administrative regulations, 60% growth in hospital spending from mergers and acquisitions, and wasteful spending on defensive medicine including redundant, inappropriate or unnecessary tests and procedures, and unhealthy living. There's a lot to chew through before you get to the aging population base as this is most notably our next problem as the ACA kicks in to play. It should also be noted that people are working longer into "retirement" to offset those expenditures.

Most of those things you're quoting, like administrative regulations and unnecessary tests and procedures, are inefficiencies caused by the current regulatory and financial setup in the US. They are not universal. Healthcare costs the world over are increasing because of an aging population. Costs may also be rising for other reasons, but don't believe that e.g. the unnecessary tests and procedures are a universal. They are an effect of the way the system works in the US.

(To solve that problem, you might want to look at how other countries have set up their systems, which is where I was coming from with the benchmarking comment).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There were several respondents.

Will have to read that in detail later.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Surely you can accept that many things had the consensus of the scientific community until new information provided greater insight and that scientific advancement often occurs in spite of the establishment.

Yes absolutely to the first, sorta maybe to the second (scientific advancement in spite of the establishment is actually quite rare. It has been very important in e.g. early 20th century physics, when the establishment of older scientists thought that physics was "done" while a younger generation was busy developing general relativity and quantum physics, but all development from Newton to Maxwell and after Einstein was very much driven by the scientific establishment) but that's not the point. I said:

To be absolutely clear: If Fox wants to say that climate change is not a problem and we shouldn't bother about it, that's opinion and that's fine. If Fox wants to say that the climate isn't changing, they can probably find some sponsored study to agree with them and merely report that study as fact - that's spinning, and when you do that consistently, you're putting opinion in the news. But when Fox says that scientists disagree about whether climate change is real, they're wrong. That's a verifiable data point, and there's no excuse to report the opposite.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is not progress to modify or suppress information because it stands in contrast to your narrative or agenda. Progress would be the acknowledgement of the state of the science where it is and make sound judgements on how to proceed for greater understanding. If the interest is science of course and not a legislative agenda.

I don't see how this is a response to what I said. I'm only glad that we can at least agree that the climate is changing. That used to be a contentious point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Isn't it also wise to also consider the implications of the agenda to counteract it and shouldn't we know what "it" is with greater clarity before acting?

This is the exact reasoning that the tobacco industry used for decades to keep people smoking: "We don't know enough yet". You will never find any scientist who says that something is 100% certain on every detail - our understanding of gravity isn't perfect yet, and Newton showed the basics of that in the 17th century. This is why the scientific consensus is important.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm saying that I believe man's contribution to climate change has been bloated for a political agenda who's sole body of work has been perpetuated by an intergovernmental panel predicated on identifying man's role in climate change and taking steps to mitigate it. Identifying other roles with perhaps far greater impact on climate change gets the short-shrift because this does not fit the commission. Nearly the entire consensus being bandied about here are tied back to work published by this panel. The papers themselves are almost never as tidy or dire as zealots would have you believe in their press-releases and the "crisis" is being used to thrust global legislation. I do not believe this body of work is nearly as interested in science as its proponents would have you believe. It is first and foremost about legislation.

And what would the motives of this panel be? Sent out by the Illuminati to wreck the planet's economy? If the threat isn't real, why would an environmentalist work to limit CO2? They'd much rather spend their time saving frogs or owls or whatever.

That CO2 absorbs the heat reflected by planet Earth is trivial physics - I can type it up if you like. For this reason, more CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to more energy in the Earth (including its atmosphere) - so far, no debates. The only scientific debates I'm aware of are if there are factors to counterbalance - e.g. cloud cover or whatever.

You say that "identifying other roles get short shrift". I disagree, but what would you like to do about other things changing the climate. Geoengineering? We can dump some some iron in the arctic oceans if there is a scientific consensus that that will counteract the changing climate. So far, the most efficient thing we've come up with is to try to limit CO2 exhausts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you not following the news or are you just asking for links? This was major news just two weeks ago and the President was being challenged on having even made the "red-line" litmus for action in Syria. Let me know if you can't find the information and I'll help, otherwise I'm a busy guy.

I'm following the news well enough. The point was that the accusation that the Syrian government had used them was not proven yet - it was merely an accusation referred to the UN for investigation. Today the UN released a new report saying that use of chemical weapons is likely, but still not proven.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Was that it? Oh, action in Iraq was to ensure Saddam and his henchmen could no longer oppress civilians.

Except that that was not the stated reason - the stated reason was the Iraq still had WMD - and that the UN did not authorize an invasion for any reason, while the no-fly zone was authorized.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My point was that it had nothing to do with the age of the dictator and everything to do with the Arab Spring.

It would be a bit of a coincidence, then. Dictators tend to fall as they get older and frailer - or as the next generation takes over. This has been the case all throughout history. Would you blame the Arab Spring for Cromwell's Lord Protectorship collapsing?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree.


No, that's what you read to remain argumentative. For starters, you don't know that it wasn't necessary.


"We" don't, but the UK does which is why they not only supported action in Libya, but initiated it and lead the effort.

These last points we don't seem to get anywhere on. I think Libya is better off than Iraq, that needing a forward base to invade another country is not an acceptable reason to invade, and that the no-fly zone over Libya was indeed motivated by humanitarian concerns. You apparently disagree. Let's end it there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

All of this came out of a small wondering about why there was no comparison to how other countries do it. In the meantime, you have mentioned that it doesn't make sense to compare with a state that is the size of s US state, and it doesn't make sense to compare with someone with a higher tax rate than the US. So...the answer is that your situation is unique enough that there is nothing to learn from anyone else?

Absolutely not, but it is equally important that the metrics used for citing advantages of other systems meet some qualification to ensure they're actionable and reasonable. For example, if a metric shows us that the best way to fund nationalized healthcare is to drop the Corporate tax rate by 10%, increase the tax rate of the lowest bracket by 7%, and drop the highest bracket by 5%; it's simply not going to happen. You may as well be talking about a system in which people just don't get sick. Of course there are many things to learn from others and one of the reasons why the US itself provides some great examples. All States are not equal in their efficiency and the US is comprised of many, supposedly, autonomous States that can do rogue things like Massachusetts. What we've learned is that there are regional anomalies and that one size does not necessarily fit all. There are good things and there are bad things, and then there are good things that have bad side-effects just as there are bad things with good side-effects. When all the metrics and variables are exhausted by debate, it has to be a solvent system or it's a pipe dream.

So what is your proposal, then? A completely free market system, no government involvement at all? That would at least be a constructive proposal

Why must the decision always be between fascism or anarchy? What do you mean by "completely free"? Where people are more involved in choosing their care and providers, States are more interested in competing for charter status, and insurers more interested in winning charter-state bids? Where people can save through tax-deferred HSAs not unlike IRAs allowing others to contribute including employers or a Federal, means-tested subsidy for those in need with the option of rolling plan savings over to the next fiscal year? Okay, yes. And I think those are constructive proposals; certainly more substantive than anything you've offered here... for a thread on Steve's misgivings about Fox News.

And the point I was making was that improving the efficiency in the system by reducing waste does not imply anything about how said system is financed.

Of course not, but just as there is a measure of maggots in your orange juice, there will always be waste and fraud and the expensive bureaucracies to ensure there isn't. This requires financing which requires a stable base from which to draw the means of it. Solvency.

Most of those things you're quoting, like administrative regulations and unnecessary tests and procedures, are inefficiencies caused by the current regulatory and financial setup in the US. They are not universal. Healthcare costs the world over are increasing because of an aging population. Costs may also be rising for other reasons, but don't believe that e.g. the unnecessary tests and procedures are a universal. They are an effect of the way the system works in the US.
(To solve that problem, you might want to look at how other countries have set up their systems, which is where I was coming from with the benchmarking comment).

Administrative regulations, unnecessary tests and procedures, burgeoning technology and implementation are all factors for growing expenses in any healthcare system. I think you're making a mistake by assuming the problems we're discussing here are even universal within the US by your gauge. You're also confusing the US' baby-boom for a global phenomena. Of course, "aging populations" is just vague enough to have been a major consideration of any society of any era and as such an essentially meaningless argument. IMO.

Yes absolutely to the first, sorta maybe to the second (scientific advancement in spite of the establishment is actually quite rare. It has been very important in e.g. early 20th century physics, when the establishment of older scientists thought that physics was "done" while a younger generation was busy developing general relativity and quantum physics, but all development from Newton to Maxwell and after Einstein was very much driven by the scientific establishment) but that's not the point. I said:

I think that was the point and why you're compelled to defend it. Science is not a quest for group-think and the most noteworthy contributors to science have been generally maverick in their pursuits. "Rare" in the context you've used it begs qualification IMO. It has been very important since the discipline's inception.

I don't see how this is a response to what I said. I'm only glad that we can at least agree that the climate is changing. That used to be a contentious point.

I just needed you to be a little more forthcoming with your caricature of those expressing critical review. The point of contention has always been anthropogenic global warming. As far back as I had been following this debate, I never once witnessed disagreement on whether or not the climate changes. IMO, this is little more than a muddying-the-waters fallacy.

This is the exact reasoning that the tobacco industry used for decades to keep people smoking: "We don't know enough yet". You will never find any scientist who says that something is 100% certain on every detail - our understanding of gravity isn't perfect yet, and Newton showed the basics of that in the 17th century. This is why the scientific consensus is important.

To which I'd respond the same way I responded to my mother when she told me that they didn't know as much about smoking when she was young... Cough**bs. They knew. They knew each morning when they woke up wheezing and coughing. They thought they were cool, they thought they were elegant, they thought they were high-society, and they enjoyed the stimulants of the addiction. Now it's plastered all over every pack one buys, but it's not until you raise their cost that you manipulate the behaviors. Which I've always found interesting among the left who can't square this with the notion of taxing prosperity.

And what would the motives of this panel be? Sent out by the Illuminati to wreck the planet's economy? If the threat isn't real, why would an environmentalist work to limit CO2? They'd much rather spend their time saving frogs or owls or whatever.

The Illuminati? You really do have a very low regard for reasoned disagreement. The purveyor of the consensus position on AGW is first and foremost about AGW; an intergovernmental panel comprised of working groups primarily represented by and delivered to the public through legislators and authors. Securing ratification for global initiatives like Kyoto Protocol requires intergovernmental administration. This administration includes data-mining the contributions from others and delivering these to an International governing authority. If the IPCC is commissioned with identifying man's role in climate change and drafting legislation to mitigate it, there will not be a lot of room for data that challenges the commission of the body. See? It's really very simple. No Illuminati necessary.

That CO2 absorbs the heat reflected by planet Earth is trivial physics - I can type it up if you like. For this reason, more CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to more energy in the Earth (including its atmosphere) - so far, no debates. The only scientific debates I'm aware of are if there are factors to counterbalance - e.g. cloud cover or whatever.

You mean... feedbacks. No need to type it up for me. What do you propose man should do to counterbalance cyclical climate phenomena?

You say that "identifying other roles get short shrift". I disagree, but what would you like to do about other things changing the climate. Geoengineering? We can dump some some iron in the arctic oceans if there is a scientific consensus that that will counteract the changing climate. So far, the most efficient thing we've come up with is to try to limit CO2 exhausts.

I have absolutely no desire to begin bloodletting for diarrhea. There are also ideas for pumping aerosols into the atmosphere... we'd better narrow this down a bit.

I'm following the news well enough. The point was that the accusation that the Syrian government had used them was not proven yet - it was merely an accusation referred to the UN for investigation. Today the UN released a new report saying that use of chemical weapons is likely, but still not proven.

All this to avoid saying; "they are... and it doesn't matter."

Except that that was not the stated reason - the stated reason was the Iraq still had WMD - and that the UN did not authorize an invasion for any reason, while the no-fly zone was authorized...

... By a vote of 10 members with Germany and many others opposing. There were many stated reasons for action in Iraq, the most newsworthy and distributed was WMDs of course, but this was never the only reason given. Iraq has a fledgling constitution and women are voting. Violence is on the rise throughout both countries and in Libya the only semblance of governing rule are the fractured protestors and hostile militias. They've not even begun to formulate a government to begin debate on the most fundamental aspects of existing such as how to utilize their resources. Iraq is miles ahead of them in their prospects.

It would be a bit of a coincidence, then. Dictators tend to fall as they get older and frailer - or as the next generation takes over. This has been the case all throughout history. Would you blame the Arab Spring for Cromwell's Lord Protectorship collapsing?

To maintain this line of reasoning is to deny the incredible upheaval of the establishments throughout the Middle East. What you're citing is merely correlative, not causal. Yes, the leaders were old because they lived to a ripe old age-- remaining in leadership... and then a continental coup began to emerge suddenly enough to be identified as a "spring", an anomaly. i.e. something other than ageism.

These last points we don't seem to get anywhere on. I think Libya is better off than Iraq, that needing a forward base to invade another country is not an acceptable reason to invade, and that the no-fly zone over Libya was indeed motivated by humanitarian concerns. You apparently disagree. Let's end it there.

It should be noted, this wasn't the only reason to invade. If "strategizing" to set an agenda up for success is unacceptable to you, I guess we are at an impasse.

[P]

Snipping heavily in this, because it has gone rather far off topic.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why must the decision always be between fascism or anarchy? What do you mean by "completely free"?

Completely free market, as in, the states don't do anything, not even emergency care.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Administrative regulations, unnecessary tests and procedures, burgeoning technology and implementation are all factors for growing expenses in any healthcare system. I think you're making a mistake by assuming the problems we're discussing here are even universal within the US by your gauge. You're also confusing the US' baby-boom for a global phenomena. Of course, "aging populations" is just vague enough to have been a major consideration of any society of any era and as such an essentially meaningless argument. IMO.

The entire western world has an aging population in the sense that an increasing percentage of the population is old. Population increased significantly as better healthcare meant that more children survived to adulthood and onwards into retirement, followed by a decrease in childbirths later. The result is that the graph of population versus age is no longer a gently sloping hill - it's fairly flat and then drops off sharply much later. The US is only one example of this, and not even the most obvious one - Japan is a more extreme example.

This is not a "problem" to be "solved", it is a fact of life to be handled. Inefficiencies in the system are a problem, and the ACA at least attempts to rectify them

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think that was the point and why you're compelled to defend it.

No. Point was exactly this: there is little disagreement in the scientific community about AGW today. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a fact. Fox viewers generally believe that there is significant debate about it, because that's how Fox reports things.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Science is not a quest for group-think and the most noteworthy contributors to science have been generally maverick in their pursuits. "Rare" in the context you've used it begs qualification IMO. It has been very important since the discipline's inception.

I don't disagree that those challenging the status quo have done important discoveries - I just point out that that is not quite as common as is sometimes portrayed in popular culture. Counterexample, then: The discovery of electricity, the natural laws surrounding it and the development of devices for it was a slow evolution of discoveries, not a revolution by a single mind. To some extent the controversies have been played up for entertainment value, such as the shape of lightning rods etc, but Franklin received medals for his work with electricity already in 1753, a year after the famous kite experiment was first performed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I just needed you to be a little more forthcoming with your caricature of those expressing critical review. The point of contention has always been anthropogenic global warming. As far back as I had been following this debate, I never once witnessed disagreement on whether or not the climate changes. IMO, this is little more than a muddying-the-waters fallacy.

Back when the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, the main contention was that the climate wasn't changing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Illuminati? You really do have a very low regard for reasoned disagreement.

No, but I have a very low regard for the opinion that scientists are deliberately lying when presenting data about climate change, or that it is somehow in their interest that only this view is published. I have never once seen a reasonable motive for that assertion - which reminds me of the Illuminati conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The purveyor of the consensus position on AGW is first and foremost about AGW; an intergovernmental panel comprised of working groups primarily represented by and delivered to the public through legislators and authors. Securing ratification for global initiatives like Kyoto Protocol requires intergovernmental administration. This administration includes data-mining the contributions from others and delivering these to an International governing authority. If the IPCC is commissioned with identifying man's role in climate change and drafting legislation to mitigate it, there will not be a lot of room for data that challenges the commission of the body. See? It's really very simple. No Illuminati necessary.

Wait... The IPCC is tasked with identifying risks from climate change and proposing ways to mitigate or adapt to these effects. Did so long before Kyoto, btw. So your reasoning is that if the climate is only changing for natural reasons, we would not need to mitigate or adapt to this, and the IPCC scientists would be out of work. That about sums it up? Because that doesn't make sense to me - whatever the cause, we'd need to react to the changing climate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean... feedbacks. No need to type it up for me. What do you propose man should do to counterbalance cyclical climate phenomena?

In this paragraph, counterbalance refers to natural effects - higher temperatures leading to more cloud cover leading to more heat reflected out before reaching the surface, ie a negative feedback loop. The temperature of the sun is held roughly constant in such a manner.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I have absolutely no desire to begin bloodletting for diarrhea. There are also ideas for pumping aerosols into the atmosphere... we'd better narrow this down a bit.

What do you want to do about the climate changing, then? Not decrease our effect on, not compensate for it, so... suffer quietly in the corner?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this to avoid saying; "they are... and it doesn't matter."

No. It's news now because there is more information out there, ie, it was not settled before. If it had been, it would have been news. And yes, it matters: IMO, if Syria is using chemical weapons, it should stopped. A no-fly zone is a good place to start.

QUOTE=ebuddy;4233351]
To maintain this line of reasoning is to deny the incredible upheaval of the establishments throughout the Middle East. What you're citing is merely correlative, not causal. Yes, the leaders were old because they lived to a ripe old age-- remaining in leadership... and then a continental coup began to emerge suddenly enough to be identified as a "spring", an anomaly. i.e. something other than ageism.
[/QUOTE]

Correlation does not imply causation, that much is true, but it has been a fact throughout history that the best time to change a society is when the existing leader is either old and infirm, or when he has just been succeeded and the new guy is still fresh. Which means that Saddam might have been ripe for toppling at the same time as Egypt and Libya, which means that there were indeed positive signs before the invasion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

Snipping heavily in this, because it has gone rather far off topic.
Completely free market, as in, the states don't do anything, not even emergency care.

This is a false-dichotomy, straw man argument. No one has ever suggested this.

The entire western world has an aging population in the sense that an increasing percentage of the population is old. Population increased significantly as better healthcare meant that more children survived to adulthood and onwards into retirement, followed by a decrease in childbirths later. The result is that the graph of population versus age is no longer a gently sloping hill - it's fairly flat and then drops off sharply much later. The US is only one example of this, and not even the most obvious one - Japan is a more extreme example.

Yes, antibiotics and trauma care are wonderful, but aging populations have always been a factor and the curve you're citing here has to do with how many young, healthy people there are to fund the health care of the old and ill. In other words, how much can we sock it to people who don't need something (a solution looking for a problem) to pay for those who do. I believe we need to rethink this paradigm. Instead of attempting to reform the health care insurance industry and expanding the role of government in that industry, we need to look at health care itself and place the customer at the front of managing their own care by shopping it more aggressively. The current systems only exacerbate a moral hazard of dependency while the overwhelming majority of us spend more on eating out and entertainment than we spend on our health care at the same time referring to it as "unaffordable" and a "crisis"... you know, for the kids.

This is not a "problem" to be "solved", it is a fact of life to be handled. Inefficiencies in the system are a problem, and the ACA at least attempts to rectify them

Not really. It's health insurance reform and actually has little to do with cost controls or health care itself, particularly the provisions of the bill that nationalize the student loan industry. All projections from the CBO and otherwise are showing expected increases across the board in premiums and in health care provisions while leaving well over a third uninsured.

No. Point was exactly this: there is little disagreement in the scientific community about AGW today. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a fact. Fox viewers generally believe that there is significant debate about it, because that's how Fox reports things.

This overlooks so much critical nuance in context that it's almost entirely meaningless. There's tons of disagreement among the scientific community. Is man mostly responsible, partly responsible, negligible responsibility, or none? There's a long continuum of thought on these matters and that's precisely what many are discussing. What you're talking about is the "consensus" position on AGW as offered by an intergovernmental panel comprised primarily of politicians, authors, and legislators. No, most scientists -- particularly physicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and the engineers that develop the technologies being used for the presupposition such as the GISS modeling have all expressed problems with this "roll-up" of their exhaustive work.

Otherwise, are you a regular Fox viewer or are you merely lapping up how ThinkProgress reports things?

Back when the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997, the main contention was that the climate wasn't changing.

I disagree. The debate has always been centered around man's contribution and what man would have to sacrifice to "fix" the problem... man in the more developed countries exclusively that is.

No, but I have a very low regard for the opinion that scientists are deliberately lying when presenting data about climate change, or that it is somehow in their interest that only this view is published. I have never once seen a reasonable motive for that assertion - which reminds me of the Illuminati conspiracy theories.

You're missing the point. The papers drafted by the scientists are generally very dry, matter-of-fact, calculated, and of moderate temperament because their names are all over the work. What the politicians, authors, and legislators do in "rolling" their work up for the masses is something entirely different.

Wait... The IPCC is tasked with identifying risks from climate change and proposing ways to mitigate or adapt to these effects. Did so long before Kyoto, btw. So your reasoning is that if the climate is only changing for natural reasons, we would not need to mitigate or adapt to this, and the IPCC scientists would be out of work. That about sums it up? Because that doesn't make sense to me - whatever the cause, we'd need to react to the changing climate.

So... what does an elimination of the internal combustion engine, the new carbon credit commodity schema, and oppressive environmental regulations have to do with natural variability? You have virtually no consensus on combating natural variability. None. Helping to build reservoirs and means of pumping water through villages; provisions for third-world scenarios including the bulk shipment of grains and rice in times of little have all been going on since well before the IPCC was conceived and are all issues that can be addressed well outside the legislation this intergovernmental panel seeks to impose. In order to draft legislation that applies to multiple nations of an international body, you need to push the ideal of consensus to get the legislation you seek be it Kyoto or any other global policy. To do this, you need administration. When whistleblowers express concerns about the IPCC working group processes, conclusions, contributing establishments, obstructed FOI requests, circle-jerk peer review, and AR reports, they get the short-shrift. Scientists concerned about getting their work published or the manner in which their work was cited, and the tribal mentality prevalent among its most noteworthy contributors are all well-documented. You may want to have a read on "climategate" for an understanding of why "Illuminati" is overblown as nothing more than a bully tactic to silence reasoned disagreement that offends partisan sensitivity, having nothing to do with the integrity of science.

ie a negative feedback loop...

Like I said; feedbacks. No need to type it up for me.

What do you want to do about the climate changing, then? Not decrease our effect on, not compensate for it, so... suffer quietly in the corner?

This seems to be habitual with you. Anarchy vs Fascism. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. There are already provisions for mitigating these issues. The IPCC is something else entirely.

No. It's news now because there is more information out there, ie, it was not settled before. If it had been, it would have been news. And yes, it matters: IMO, if Syria is using chemical weapons, it should stopped. A no-fly zone is a good place to start.

That's not how the international community makes its decision. There are state-sanctioned atrocities going on all over the globe. Interests are what matters most.

Correlation does not imply causation, that much is true, but it has been a fact throughout history that the best time to change a society is when the existing leader is either old and infirm, or when he has just been succeeded and the new guy is still fresh. Which means that Saddam might have been ripe for toppling at the same time as Egypt and Libya, which means that there were indeed positive signs before the invasion.

He may have been or may not have been compliant. What we knew is that there had been no less than 13 Resolutions against Iraq over the span of 12 years including all manner of economic sanctions serving only to starve the Iraqi people to death with little to no change in the behavior of the regime. Clinton doctrine sought to replace the regime. When we don't take an active role, we have less say in who the new regime will be and how they'll respond to power. We will learn this the hard way in Egypt, Libya, and should Syria fall to the Muslim brotherhood. Make no mistake, this is the Arab Spring -- not ageism.