WIP

I first came across Ayn Rand by way of Rush's 2112 album; which Neil Peart wrote in the liner notes that the concept was inspired by Rand. Unlike Nugent, who always acted like an asshole, even back before he was connected with rightwing causes, Neil Peart has always come across as a decent guy...so I never did get what he found so appealing in her novels. According to the nuances of her objectivist philosophy, Ayn Rand didn't consider Objectivism to be a libertarian philosophy, and spewed her bile at libertarians, whom she claimed were riding her coattails. To the casual observer, it all looks the same.

Try educating yourself on the subject Tim, before you go tossing off bad advice. You may have no idea, but the experts in the field DO have an idea; and what they have been trying to tell the public and the politicians for years, is that if there are errors, they are on the side of minimizing the risks...not exaggerating them, like your disinformation sources would have us believe. Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 "may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models" World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree Guardian poll reveals almost nine out of 10 climate experts do not believe current political efforts will keep warming below 2C I don't see the climate disinformation sites mention that IPCC reports are collected from data that is already three years old by the time it gets included. By the time they discover a new trend, it's already been going on for years. This part isn't rocket science! Every degree increase in global average temperatures means 7% more water vapour is absorbed...so guess what happens when you increase the amount of heat energy retained by the atmosphere, while adding more moisture? Take a look at recent insurance underwriter reports that have been written about the increase in weather damage claims around the world in recent years. The cost of doing nothing is already greater than the costs of reducing energy demand and replacing carbon sources with alternative energy. I've seen the Lomborg Argument before. Now, if you don't believe rising CO2 levels increase global warming, and don't believe there is a connection between increasing extreme weather events and global warming, then why are you talking about "adapting" to rising CO2 levels? This looks more like throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, then it resembles actually developing a coherent argument. Lomborg doesn't deny climate change, he just argues for doing nothing about it, and the plan falls apart as soon as we consider that this is not a hurricane, or some big storm to prepare for. We have no idea what we will have to adapt to. We already know we will have to adapt to climate change, because latest data indicates that even if we stop now, it will take 1000 years to reduce CO2 levels back to levels that would stop the worst effects, like melting ice caps etc. Can we adapt to 450 ppm of carbon? Or 500, 600 etc.? As long as we keep adding more than the natural cycles can absorb, CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels keep increasing. In a hundred years, our near-future descendents could be living a hellish existence as they desperately try to eek out a living near the poles, and have to deal with further greenhouse gas increases even after all significant economic activity has collapsed; oxygen levels decline, and the oceans die and become filled with anaerobic bacteria. It happened before, during the Permian-Triassic Extinction, by way of volcanism, and we could be sending our world into this scenario by "adapting" and doing exactly what we are doing right now! Under A Green Sky Bullshit! The Third World has a similar situation as the guy living next to a chemical factory that's polluting his soil. They have every right to be pissed off at the Western industrialized nations who have the big carbon footprints, while the most destructive effects are being felt in the countries near the Equator, by way of increasingly severe droughts and floods. They also have the least resources to be able to adapt to climate change; so compensation is justified, and that's why the oil lobby is focusing on climate change reparations to influence the West to keep doing nothing. Insurance claims are not speculation!

Thanks! Could be some combination of the three. Some of the conservative media guys think she's sexy....I assume most of them could afford better.

Her voice is horrible, and her demeanor is equally revolting. It beats me why this woman gives fat old conservative men wood!

I remember, feminist writers sure hated Ayn Rand back when she was still around. And sometimes, when I heard her interviewed, I wondered 'what's in it for you'. Her heroes are all men in her fiction, and even in her real life essays and talks. I remember her talking about what a great guy Alberto Stroessner - the late dictator of Paraguay was....had to wonder if she would have been fawning over Hitler and Mussolini earlier in life. Her fawning over idealized masculine virtues and building a new kind of man, does seem to indicate that she was heavily influenced by Nietszche, who also disparaged altruism and created a 'superman' who was brave, confident, and serving his own interests. And, in Nietszche's case, he created a hero and a set of values that were everything he was not. He likely wished he was someone who would be feared and respected by others, but wasn't in his real life. May be a lot of similarities with Ayn Rand, creating heroes that are opposites of themselves.

Not only wouldn't I vote for her, I wouldn't even do her to begin with! Maybe it's the voice, but right now I'm feeling that the recent Enquirer revelations of Todd Palin's latest affair is justified compensation for having to be married to her.

And again you're full of bullshit up to your eyeballs. Do you understand the difference between supplier and supplier(s)....which was not my statement, but something you added, likely because you posted numbers without first taking a look at them. Or is it an addition problem? Since even if we do compare Canada with combined imports from Saudi Arabia and Mexico, the Canadian total is still higher, based on your own source!

It's a secondary concern because as usual, short term gain trumps long term needs. I read a number of summaries about the Copenhagen Summit, that concluded that by their own math, even if the nations met their targets they wouldn't come close to their stated objective of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees celsius....but you see this as a cause to celebrate? And, you also have your priorities backwards. How many billions are the floods now costing in Australia? Or the floods in China, Pakistan and others? We have already reached the point where extreme weather is making the costs of inaction greater than the costs of reducing carbon. Even from a skeptical standpoint, the longer we keep going down the same path of rising CO2 rates, rising population levels, the greater the disaster awaiting us when this joyride we're on is forced to come to an end. So, if we do nothing about it, our environment will stop writing blank cheques for us, and a total collapse will follow. And it needs to be made clear that the cap and trade strategy was not created by the environmental movement, but came to us from self-styled entrepreneurs who declared that a financial incentive was needed to go green. An honest approach would have been a carbon tax that puts a penalty on polluting and raising carbon levels. If someone was dumping their garbage on your front lawn, you would be going to court to seek compensation for damages. But, when it's the air we breathe, somehow ruining it is not added to the cost of doing business....but it should! So, go ahead, do away with carbon credits talk and start pushing for a shift to carbon taxation.

Conservatives and liberal war hawks are only able to justify the size and cost of the U.S. Military by continually pressing the alarm button. This has been the pattern all through the 60's and up till the present. We didn't learn until decades later, that McNamara and the later Nixon Administration drum beaters greatly exaggerated the conventional Soviet threat at every turn....which was conveniently used by the defense contractors to build more aircraft carriers, and more sophisticated and expensive planes, tanks, missiles etc. And then, when Soviet weaponry was finally tested in battle during the first Gulf War, they tried to play dumb and express their surprise at how poorly the Soviet-bought planes, tanks and anti-aircraft guns performed. It was a confidence game from the start, and it still is from what can be discerned from the low level cables revealed by Wikileaks. But, the worst aspect of the Military Industrial Complex is not the enormous cost; it's the incentives to constantly be at war and looking for new wars, because of defense industry lobbyists. The "well regulated militia" envisioned by the Founding Fathers is a good illustration of why constitutions (like bibles) have to be interpreted in the present, not treated like an instruction manual! Back in those times, a collection of farmers with muskets and bayonets, were an army; and with a little training, could be an effective army. This is not the case today; and the notion that 'bearing arms' is for protecting the nation is pure fantasy of the gun nuts. Who is giving orders to whom? Are the politicians telling the business leaders what to do? Or are the corporate paymasters selecting the politicians who's primary objective is to carry out their interests? I would argue the latter, based on the evidence presented by their actions. The only difference I can see between Republicans and 90% of the Democrats, is that the Repubs worship money and the people who've got it....recalling that embarrassing example during the summer of one Texas Congressman apologizing on behalf of the Government to Tony Hayward, the CEO of British Petroleum. The Democrats try to have it both ways -- pretend that they are only concerned about the people, while doing their best to keep corporate contributors happy. I posted this short essay called Inverted Totalitarianism before; at the present, it provides the clearest explanation of who's in charge. The primary difference between this upside down fascism and the typical fascism we understand as dictatorial rule, is that author Sheldon Wolin sees the corporations as the real power base in the present political system; whereas the usual fascist examples of Hitler and Mussolini, give us a cowed aristocracy and business class that takes orders from a political ruler. But, if we consider that business leaders in Italy and Germany, turned to Mussolini and Hitler to protect them and their money from the Communists, it's not a big stretch to see that an inverted totalitarianism could turn into a real fascism once society becomes unstable. When the rich start to fear for their wealth, and their lives, then the opportunistic fascist leader, skillfully using all of the rhetorical buttons of faith, patriotism, domestic and foreign enemies, will be the one they back to save their hides. But hopefully that day doesn't come too soon. There is just so much to go through, it could take a whole page in itself. But, the 'let the buyer beware' dictum falls flat in light of more recent revelations that the modern convoluted mortgage financing scheme has seen scores of houses foreclosed by banks that can't even prove they have legal title to the properties! That, and 30 page fineprint mortgage contracts with escalator clauses etc. and there is a clear case of outright fraud committed not only to these buyers, but also the investors in mortgage-backed securities who were grossly misled about the level of risk involved. The whole thing was a ponzi scheme that was due to fail as soon as real estate prices hit their limit....and yet Bernie Madoff was the only one sent to prison! Most likely because his victims were among the rich and powerful, not the average homeowner! Conservatism is not about sharing the wealth...it's a pragmatic political philosophy that started from observing the American Revolution, and the French Revolution, to present a way for aristocrats to adapt to change when necessary, while preserving most of their power. Edmund Burke had no intentions of sharing the wealth...or at least sharing any more than would be absolutely necessary to preserve the class system. Yes, she was all full of contradictions in her personal life, but even in her writing, her claim to fame is that she provides legitimacy for greed and self-interest, which were universally considered vices prior to her. Now every self-important billionaire from Trump to the Koch Brothers can pretend their John Galt, and are the real heroes of the story, instead of the villains. She turned the whole basis for morality upside down by trashing altruism, and fabricating her own substitute: "ethical egoism" as if this was something that could be internalized by a society and replace a basic lesson that parents try to teach their children when they're young: to not be selfish, and help others.

Thanks, fortunately the storm that started building Saturday in Niagara didn't get too bad. We were able to make it through.....and I try to get down to visit my mom at her nursing home every weekend. If I had to pick, I would take growth for social development, rather than for rightwing pet projects like military and empire. The 50th anniversary of Ike's famous warning about allowing the Military-Industrial lobby to become too large really became apparent after the end of the Cold War, and only modest reductions in U.S. military took place. And most of the reductions in numbers were offset by growth of expensive, high-tech weaponry. A defense contractor who is producing multimillion dollar missiles for example, is not going to be motivated to try to lobby the political establishment to look for opportunities to use them. Even a little proxy war is necessary to waste a few, and make an argument for buying more. The main reason why America is stuck with an empire that is draining its financial reserves, is because there is so much money at stake in trying to maintain the empire. I'll take spending on health, welfare, education and infrastructure any day, instead of this! Why should government be small? Other than the obvious trend that larger systems tend to be more complicated and inefficient. The philosopher and ethicist Isaiah Berlin gave the best one line quote for why libertarian anarchy is a bad choice: “Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.” I've asked many fiscal rightwingers how a limited government that lowers taxes and legal controls on business is able to remedy the problems created by unscrupulous Wall Street firms, banks and big oil companies, and I'm not hearing anything except a faith-based notion that markets are self-correcting. No, I`m not a Christian, but I think that would be a better principle to aspire to than `every man for himself` or something else that Any Rand supporters might come up with. We don`t know completely what was going on at the time, but I am wondering if the Pilgrims` Calvinist ideology about the depravity of man might have been partially to blame. Why shouldn`t depraved people act depraved, if they have a strong suspicion that they are destined for hell anyway. There have been some examples of successful communal systems...the Israeli Kitbbutzim were success stories, although I haven`t heard lately if or how they function these days. Maybe it`s a matter of unfettered advertising. I know it eventually falls on the individual to have the right priorities in life, but there is so much about the excess of modern consumer culture that is unhealthy, both on a personal level and for society as a whole. So much energy wasted for buying crap by people who don`t know the difference between the things they want or the things they need. But, the capitalist system, in principle, makes no distinction between the two. Who pays for the lobbyists. A modern politician, regardless of ideology, has one of two choices: vote for what the people want, or vote for what the contributors and benefactors want. It seems to me that most are going with the money these days. And that becomes a problem for the whole economy, not just the politicians worried about re-election. At least up till now, a no-growth capitalist economy means higher unemployment and a decline in personal wealth for most people. So, when we hit the limits of growth, how does capitalism help us deal with the situation. Then why is it that things are getting worse in the age of the cutbacks to social programs. There is a false argument that influences too many people, that trickle-down economics is real. Somehow the crumbs fall off the table and benefit everyone down the food chain...but it doesn`t happen! As the rich have gotten richer over the last 30 years, the other income groups have stagnated and fallen back in real income. The era of higher taxes on the rich also coincided with the growth of the middle class and the lessening of income disparities. Since 1980, all of this has started to unravel. Since the threat of Communism and the Soviets were previously mentioned, I`m starting to think that the wealth class was in a more generous mood during the Cold War, especially at the beginning; because they really feared being overrun by foreign and domestic communists. The problem is that, as it stands today, the right has feared no confiscation of wealth for the last 30 years. Maybe this threat has to be revived before we can expect them to do anything more than advance their own interests at everyone else`s expense. Obama got a lot of Wall Street money early on when Hillary was the expected Democratic nominee; what was promised in return for their generous donations to his campaign. It might explain a lot of why his administration is so anemic at dealing with Wall Street and other business interests. The public option or the promise of a Medicare-buy in, were not popular with the private insurance companies; but I`m still waiting to hear an answer of why having a public choice should not have been made available for the average American. And that`s why most of the legitimate polling showed it to be a popular choice. The false negative polls were the product of clowns like Rasmussen, that considered all negative responses to be opposition to a public option - including the responses from people who said the public option didn`t go far enough. That`s why you can`t just take a polling number at face value....especially from a polling service for Foxnews.

There! That ought to be the thread-killer.

You mean rolly eyes is the only rebuttal? There's no contrary character evidence telling us what a wonderful human being Donald Trump is....that says volumes right there! It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure out a guy who's schemes investors out of their money for personal gain, and then buys his way into celebrity culture through beauty pagents and reality TV shows. If he acts like a greedy, self-absorbed narcissist, I'm going to assume he is one. Past behaviour can tell us a lot about what someone will do in the future. Especially when it's someone who tries to wrap up their vices and present them as virtues for others to follow. So, you're going to insist that I take this idiot's ramblings about oil seriously. Donald Trump is a dumbass and a liar! First, he makes a false claim that Wall Street is being scapegoated...when Wall Street has created a range of new, derivative investment schemes that still threaten the entire world banking and finance system....nuff said. Then the idiot claims high oil prices are because of OPEC collusion...apparently unaware of how little the U.S. oil market depends on the M.E. We're America's main supplier of foreign oil....not Saudi Arabia. But, if the Donald finds out, he'll be going on Fox and calling for an invasion of Alberta. What this dumbass doesn't know, is that this isn't 1973. This isn't just a matter of the U.S. reaching the limits of domestic oil production; now, it's the world oil market that's past peak oil production. Why do you think they're drilling through 2 miles of rock under the sea floor, and fraking oil out of the Tar Sands? Conventional oil is running out, and there is nothing OPEC or anyone else can do to put the oil-based economy back together again. Considering the affect this industry is having on climate, the only downside to running out of oil is that they are now going after the dirtiest, and riskiest sources of supply right now. But, Trump's threat of invading Kuwait and Iraq to take their oil isn't new. Sean Hannity thinks Iraq should be showing it's gratitude for the invasion that has killed more than 100,000 civilians, and led to an internal and external refugee crisis that is still not being addressed....and they should just say 'here America, take the oil!' If Trump has to steal ideas from a dimbulb like Hannity, he really is as dumb as he sounds. It's not like Hannity is a source of original thinking himself after all. And his comments on China: did I miss something! Did he say anything about the fact that the trade imbalance is due to U.S. manufacturers who have shut down their factories and moved their operations to China? But why should we be listening to Donald Trump anyway? Why not just go to the original sources of profound wisdom to find a presidential candidate? But, it's not like Trump would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a Republican nomination anyway. Even if he says all of the right things that the rightwing aristocracy wants to hear, the great unwashed masses of Republican backers who are drawn in by conservative social policy and religious appeals, are never going to go near someone as odious as this clown. Donald's just looking at the publicity and attention that can be gained from a two year run for the WhiteHouse....if he has the stamina and focus to actually put up with the long hours of campaigning. His casino business filed for bankruptcy largely because his Taj Mahal couldn't generate enough revenue to cover the loans. Who payed for that btw, and allowed him to reorganize and come back in with new investors? It was his choice to finance the operation through high interest junk bonds, so the fact that the recession took a bite out of revenues for the new casino, puts him in the same boat as every other reckless investor who just assumed the good times would keep on rolling. And, he almost filed for personal bankruptcy, and that might have been the last we would have heard of this clown otherwise. This is the fundamental problem of the corporate system. A guy who opens a restaurant, or any other business, has everything to lose if his business goes under....but not the bigshot who has the resources to incorporate and limit the reach of bankruptcy trustees to take his personal wealth. If a bigshot sleaseball still has connections to find new investors (suckers), he can do it all over again....and somehow, the right sees all of this as a system of virtue! I've already said what's wrong with his take on OPEC and China, but the biggest problem with electing a totally immoral, self-interested billionaire as president, is that he may just use the office to advance his own financial and personal interests....like the typical banana republic dictator...or Dick Cheney, if you want a domestic example. If Trump had a summit with Chinese leaders, and they offered a secret side deal to build a Trump casino in Hong Kong for him, or funneled significant amount of business to his other operations, do you think a Trump would say to himself 'I can't take the money, I have to do what's right for the country.' There are probably few leaders who put their nation's interests ahead of their own anyway, but if you deliberately seek out someone like this to start with, it's a sure guarantee that they will change nothing of importance in the country, but leave office with an even greater fortune....if they don't try to become president-for-life first.

Well, I guess it's time to get to work! I was avoiding this post because of limited time and I knew this would take me a while to get through: Wasn't that an early Christian economic model? Acts 2:44-47 (New International Version, ©2010) 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. That could be why it wasn't working for the Pilgrims, and they had to divy up the land and have everyone grow their own food. The problem with capitalism is that it makes no distinction between wants and needs. And today, for the most part, we have a generation that has no capacity to tell the difference, and runs headlong into debt regardless of their income -- there is always more crap to buy. A command economy, which is what most Marxist countries used at first, can be very successful in that early period. I'm reminded that during my youth, the Soviet Union was taken very seriously, not only as a military threat, but also as an economic threat. After WWII, and through the 1950's, the Soviet economy was growing as fast as the U.S. and Japan. Planning an economy to meet basic needs and plowing the rest into building more industrial production (what they called the input-input system) was very successful for at least 10 years. According to some older Ukrainians I talked to, they felt life was good until about the 1970's. That's when they started getting dissatisfied with their tenement flats, and having a very limited choice and selection of consumer products: there was only two or three different types of watches if available; most of the time there were too many of some clothing items and not enough of others. During the 70's, nylons and bluejeans were huge on the blackmarket....so, no doubt eventually a command economy is going to run into trouble dealing with the whims of the consumer. But, is a consumer-driven economy the better choice? Besides the jaded values that have been instilled in young people, my other beef with what we have now is how do maintain this system at a time when it is approaching the limits to growth? As mentioned previously, the planet isn't growing to accommodate our wishes and demands! At some point very soon, we are going to hit the wall. A smart course of action would be to start slowing down now and re-adjusting our priorities; because the other choice is to go over the cliff like the inhabitants of Easter Island did centuries ago. Today the Earth is one giant Easter Island! And that's my main problem with our present economic system. We may not have the luxury of having the system that provides the highest level of economic growth for much longer. In reality, humans started becoming hierarchical as soon as there was stuff to fight over.....in most places that meant that when the agricultural revolution began, we had land to defend, goods to accumulate and status to achieve and maintain. This is part of the reason why it is so difficult for aboriginal cultures to integrate into a modern dog-eat-dog world. But, since status and hierarchy are ingrained values, a "classless" society soon discovered that "some pigs have to be more equal than others" as according to Animal Farm. So, in the Soviet Union and Maoist China, Communist Party members had to be rewarded in some way according to their status within the Party. They had access to better housing, cars and even special stores where western consumer products were on the shelves. Even if they had to wear the same drab clothing, they found ways to distinguish themselves. For example, members of the Red Army in China all wore exactly the same uniforms, with no ranks or medals displayed....but western delegates soon were made aware that they could tell the rank of a military officer by the number of pens he had attached to his shirt pocket. But, in both the U.S. and Canada, income gaps decreased from WWII to the 80's, and strongly coincided with progressive taxation. The move to flatter taxation, especially cuts to investment taxes and the top income bracket have created a surge in income for the wealthiest, while everyone else has stagnated over the last 30 years or fallen. If you want to help the poorest members of society, we have conclusively proven that you don't do it by giving tax breaks for the wealthy and hoping that it will trickle down to everyone else....this was the greatest hoax perpetrated in the last 30 years. But, a term like "creeping socialism" is meaningless without context. According to rightwing pundits and talk show hosts, anyone who breathes a word about raising upper income taxes or protecting pensions and medicare is a socialist. When it's applied to someone like President Obama, it becomes laughable, because here we have a leader who is working directly for corporate interests...check out his latest state visit from the Chinese Premier, and how he brought the chairmen of G.E., Goldman Sachs, Microsoft etc., and made the summit about advancing their economic interests in China, rather than anything that would directly benefit the average American. Another example would be his latest free trade agreement with South Korea, and his attempt to expand these trade deals in Latin America. If Obama worked as hard for the people who were swept up in the last election and voted for him, he might be somewhere on the left; but instead, he is putting the interests of the people who pay him, ahead of those of the ones who voted for him. From some of the early rumblings, I've heard that the Obama Re-election Campaign is hoping to raise one billion dollars for the 2012 election!!!!.....this is not the kind of money you get from internet contributions....this money...if he gets it, will be a reward from the captains of industry who want to thank him for carrying out their agendas, while throwing a few bones to the great unwashed masses to prevent any sort of instability that might threaten their prosperity. In light of the recent firing of Keith Olbermann, it seems we have another example of just how far someone on the left can rock the boat before they are terminated. Consider all of the nutcases on the right who have TV and radio shows. The MSM has a few pet liberals on staff for much the same reason as Sean Hannity kept Alan Colmes around for several years - to give an appearance of balance and bi-partisanship. I'm thinking recently of Rachel Maddow and her condemnation of Wikileaks...and worse, her reluctance to even discuss the countless examples of malfeasance and war crimes that have been uncovered. Unless it's a gay issue, it's not a primary concern for her, and her silence over the suspension of Olbermann and now his termination, tell me that the liberal commenters on MSNBC and Huffpo who are worrying if she'll be next, have nothing to worry about. Okay, I'm on their front page now, and there's a lot here that I agree with. I can better identify what's wrong than how to fix the problem....just like on the environment, the global warming crisis is getting so large, I'm a little lost on how it's going to be solved this late in the game. A real socialist system may be impossible to create without going to war against the monied interests that run things, but gains can be made to level out a capitalist system if the rich start getting scared and decide to make concessions, rather than support a fascist tyranny. In South America, a number of resource-rich countries forced the foreign business interests to back down because they had the support of the majority of people on their side. Some insurance companies consider Obamacare a necessary compromise, otherwise they wouldn't be sending campaign dollars his way. The deal-breaker was the Public Option...which had no legitimate arguments opposing it. Afterall if someone wanted to buy in to the government insurance system, why shouldn't they be free to do so? The right claims to be all about freedom, yet they were very adamant that this was one freedom they wouldn't allow the average citizen. And the Democrats....well, what can you say about them! They dangled that Public Option like a carrot, even though every insider who's been interviewed since, has told us that the Obama Administration or the Democratic-controlled Congress had no intentions from the start, to include that Public Option in the final draft of the Bill. Some businessmen are pragmatic, and the ones who support the Democratic Party are the business interests who want a Plan B just in case their slavishly devoted Republicans go overboard. From a quick google search front page results: Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Most Americans Approve Of Government Intervention In Health Care Coverage reuters Most in U.S. want public health option: poll Sam Stein [email protected] New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option Maybe the polls you were reading came from the industry-funded interests who rig the questions to get the desired results. Dropping the Public Option is considered by many left pundits, one of the big reasons why most Democrats sat on their hands in the last election cycle and didn't go out to vote. And let's not forget that aside from fringe players like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Anthony Weiner etc., the Democrat leaders (including the President) did nothing and said nothing to make the case for the Public Option. The handling of this issue reminds me of the way McGuinty handled his promise to offer a referendum of proportional representation in the last election. He did nothing to promote it or explain it (even in election literature for Christs sake), but he wanted it to fail, and to come away saying that he tried.....I see the same thing with Obama on the Public Option issue. I think this covers most of the important issues and I'm out of time, so I'll have to wrap this one up here...take care and have a nice weekend.

But you're arguing with a true believer in a cause....which happens to be the exact opposite cause that we believe in. Unless I find that Shady is collecting money from some oil company front group, I am going to assume that he has wrapped opposition to the AGW argument up with his political beliefs.....which is exactly what the strategists who started working for the oil lobby intended back in the early 90's. But, as stated previously, once someone reacts emotionally...like when their personal integrity is attacked, the door will be closed to any sort of dialogue.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to reason with people; but there's nothing to accomplish by going at them on a personal level. I reserve my wrath for people who intend to profit in some way from maintaining the status quo. I don't consider anti-climate change experts, think tank operators, and supporting media and political hacks to be any different than the greedy bastards who took the money from the cigarette companies when they created the strategy that the oil companies are now using. The rank and file conservatives and libertarians are blinded by their adherence to ideology, not horrible cretins. When my thinking was on the right, I resisted evidence of global warming for a long time myself, even though I was always a science fan. Several years ago, I went first to Cato, Michael Profumo's Junk Science blog, and other sources to find the anti-global warming evidence, even before I read anything by James Hansen or Michael Mann. I was sure that global warming was a money scheme by Al Gore and Maurice Strong.....well, actually I still think that Gore, Maurice Strong, Goldman Sachs, and other investors have created this carbon credits and cap and trade strategies as a way for them to profit from a shift away from fossil fuels -- but just because there's carpetbaggers waiting in the wings, doesn't mean the science is wrong! And it's foolish to place political and economic ideology (capitalism and the threat of world government) ahead of doing what's necessary for our future generations.

This should be called the Bjorn Lomborg Argument now, since this argument that action to stop global warming is threatening other environmental issues seems to be his product. This is a fallback position, of someone who won't try to argue the science anymore, but just nitpick at the strategy for mostly the same effect -- keep the benefactors who are financed by oil companies happy! But, if you need an example of how ridiculous this claim is that there are more important environmental issues than global warming, you need go no further than to consider that the rapid increase in global average temperatures coincides with the anti-pollution programs in the industrialized world that reduced auto exhausts and industrial particulate pollution. In other words, it's likely that air pollution was our first geo-engineering strategy to deal with global warming! So, now that the skies are cleaner above most of the world's cities, more sunlight is getting through and being trapped by increasing CO2 and methane gas levels! On the downside, for future consideration of geo-engineering schemes -- the air pollution gave us acid rain and respiratory problems; not to mention the fact that whether or not the temps increase, increasing CO2 levels means more carbon absorbed by the world's oceans and thereby increasing ocean acidification....which may be just as deadly for our longterm prospects as rising air temps. The Lomborg Strategy is a subterfuge, designed to achieve the same results as the hardline global warming deniers....preserve the fossil fuel-dominated world economy as long as possible....even if it means extinction of the human race in a few, short generations.

I noticed that, but did you notice the "may be" in front of the possibility that the Northwest Passage might have opened up during the Medieval Warm Period? I take that as an extremely unlikely event because as Jeff Masters later points out, you have to go back to 8,500 years ago for the most recent example where there is geologic evidence that the Arctic Coast was ice-free during the summer. If you consider how far and wide the Vikings explored during that Medieval Warming - traveling to Greenland and up and down the eastern coastline of North America, there would have been some Viking sailing along an ice-free Arctic coastline if it was possible. That, and the lack of physical evidence makes it unlikely. This period of warming (which was a regional phenomena - South Pacific was colder during that time) can be explained with circumstantial evidence, such as the lack of volcanic activity during that time.....so, what about today? In case you haven't noticed, every attempt to explain our present situation by vulcanism, solar activity, even Milankovich Cycles, has done a face-plant.

Okay, this is getting a little scary now that conservatives seem to be thinking that a psychotic immoral degenerate like Donald Trump is the right kind of guy for a leader! This is someone who's only motivation is greed, and as president, would do what every other banana republic president does -- see how best to use the nation's wealth and resources for personal advantage (see Baby Doc Duvalier for a recent example in the news). Is it because the right thinks the people who accumulate great personal wealth will somehow create prosperity for others? How many rightwingers need to be reminded of the number of times that Donal Trump has declared bankruptcy and left his debts for other investors and the government to deal with? The only difference between the superrich and the average schmo is that the big shots get to just run out and do it all over again. If this was 19th century England, Trump would be sitting in a debtors prison after his junk bond-financed "Taj Mahal" casino went under. For all of their claims of having the highest moral principles, conservatives with power are willing to do anything that suits their advantage, regardless of the consequences to others (Tom Delay's conviction for extorting money from Indian Casinos and foreign child labour operations for a recent example)

Read your history! It has never been open in recorded human history. The quest to find the Northwest Passage was a fool's errand like the search for El Dorado, the Fountain of Youth etc. The simple fact is that the Arctic Ice Cap has shrunk to about half the size it was in the 1950's.

Well, you've got to consider the source. I have a hard time taking Oleg seriously; perhaps because I can't usually figure out what the hell his point is in the first place. And religious people who seem more coherent but make similar statements, feel like everyone needs to share the same experiences they have -- I'm used to this from fundamentalists who have adopted a belief system that claims it's something that everyone needs. They may see it as an act of charity on their part, but I'm a little disappointed when people who identify themselves as rational humanists take up a similar line of thinking, and say that believers in God need, and will be better off after being freed of their delusions. This sort of talk that comes from Richard Dawkins and other hardline materialists, looks like a faith-based belief, because it's not something that can be backed up with any facts. So, maybe my expectations of people who are following the path of reason is higher than those who make some sort of leap of faith. It doesn't seem reasonable or rational to expect everyone to think the same way, and have the same needs. That's why I was a little disappointed with my experiences with these new atheists online and attending the meetup groups. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot if people's metaphysical beliefs about the universe are accurate; what's more important is whether those beliefs are a help to them or a hindrance....and I mentioned that Oleg's view of God is not something that's seems to have any redeeming value

Do we really need to prove that modern human activity is changing the environment? If the rapidly increasing rate of species extinctions isn't enough, how to deniers deny the !@#$%^& obvious: The Northwest Passage just re-opened a couple of years ago, creating a kerflufle of activity about security and the probability of having U.S. and Russian warships, plus oil tankers, sailing through in the summertime...have the deniers forgotten already? Global warming has provided navigators with an opportunity that many explorers lost their lives searching for since the 11th century....but that's still not proof enough to those who are agenda-driven to deny the obvious! Many of us would have assumed that the corporate leaders who run oil, gas and coal companies would eventually realize that a dying planet threatened their longterm interests enough to put greed aside...at least temporarily, but after reading some briefs about the BP Gulf Disaster, and the reckless conduct of British Petroleum, Haliburton and Transocean, leading up to the disaster -- the conclusion is that these are men who put greed above all else, and will risk complete disaster for the chance to gain more profits....and that's why corporations need to be severely restricted and monitored, if allowed to function at all.

Which science is illegitimate: the scientific consensus of 97% of climatologists, or the science of a tiny agenda-driven minority, who have either sold out to the oil companies that fund them, or have put ideology ahead of science because they see global efforts to address climate change as an attack on capitalism? Some like Richard Lindzen, are difficult to figure motivations, because he makes economic arguments for the status quo, while also collecting big money from the oil companies that employ his services. I'm still waiting for you to provide a contrary example! I'm not a chemist, but if the experts on carbon isotopes tell us that carbon degrades over time, and loses the heavier isotopes (carbon 14 is apparently absent from fossil fuels and carbon 13), then that means that if atmospheric CO2 increase is coming primarily from burning coal, gas, and oil; then carbon 13 levels should be dropping....and if that's what's happening, then that should serve as proof that the increase is not from volcanoes etc. If there is a contrary argument, let's hear it! As for Mauna Loa: the CO2 readings have been steadily increasing year after year ever since CO2 measurements began over 50 years ago...how does that match volcanic activity? And if Mauna Loa's CO2 readings match measurements gathered around the world, then the claim that this volcano is interfering with results has no basis in fact.

And a nice little fictional story it is! The fact is that Bush II doubled the size of the U.S. national debt (just like Reagan doubled the debt during his terms); but now the business-controlled right wing has got religion and through organizations they created like Tea Party Express, sent their minions out there to protest the waste created by Obama! And this little play is carried in glorious technicolor by Foxnews, CNBC, rightwing radio, and worst of all - taken seriously by the MSM. The goal of the right was established over 40 years ago: "starve the beast;" and they have been putting the policy of ramping up military spending while cutting taxes ever since Reagan became President more than 30 years ago. The right only wants to shrink government that serves the majority of people, not government that allows their corporations to be world players and maintain their system of globalization. Right now, we're hearing talk all over the U.S. of cuts to state and local government staff, and threats to decertify public service unions....which I should add, are the only unions left in America anymore, since the trade unions have been effectively decimated by right wing economic and political strategy. Next enemy on the list: Social Security; the right and their Democratic lackeys are going after the pensions for money, because they just can't bring themselves to take on America's gargantuan military! And, let's not forget that the more than half of U.S. revenues that go to defense spending have enriched military contractors that have been making a killing since the Cold War by building more crap to blow up! I couldn't help noticing recently, that a lot of media attention has been payed to JFK's Inaugural Speech: "ask not what your country can do".......you know the rest! While a much more important speech the previous week by retiring President Eisenhower has gone almost completely without mention: Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 If Harper, who has been pretty much following the REpublican playbook to the letter up till now, is leaving the reservation even a little - to invite insults like "rhino", then I guess he's smarter than I gave him credit for!

So, you even need to quote yourself now! Is this a conversation that's going on inside your head? I guess I'll just leave you two alone to have a private chat.

Yep, I really got sidetracked with that Granfalloon story! Oh well, it gave me a chance to wander down memory lane for a bit. Some of the names on your list came up after the old farm club system was abolished though, did that have any effect on Bruins fans in Oshawa? In the Falls, the link with the Bruins died after that, and the players could get drafted by any team. Also, down here in Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, and Hamilton, there wasn't enough fan interest to support Junior A hockey without a clear link with any NHL teams.