padren

This is the problem with people of either political wing taking their information about the opposing side almost exclusively from their own side. Any group or organization will develop a sense of identity, and become biased towards views that justify and validate it's existence. There is no more truth to the left wanting an "entitlement society" than there is to that of the right wanting an authoritarian theocracy. Both groups play off the fears generated by the most extreme of the other side, and ironically both sides are more tolerant of their own extremes in as of much as they help "defeat" the extremes on the other side, when neither have the popularity to push an agenda otherwise to begin with. As for the mentality of the angry French protesters, I can't speak to their minds but generally I don't think it's a failure to understand that money isn't free that causes the problem. It's a breakdown in trust that the problem is honestly dealt with in good faith. I don't know the situation well enough, but for example if the financial shortage followed massive tax cuts for the rich on the promise it would not be allowed to affect entitlement programs, then the breakdown in trust would be understandable. It's not that people people are saying "But we deserve it, even if there's nothing there to pay for it" but they are saying "we don't believe you" that drives this sort of thing. My two cents at least.

And yet, if history has taught us anything on the matter, the span of time between the rise of a necessity and the solution to that necessity is marked by suffering. The whole purpose of addressing potential future necessities is to mitigate that period of suffering as much as possible. That's why we track down and bring an umbrella when it is expected to rain, instead of cobbling together an "inventive" newspaper hat in the middle of a downpour.

I think we are agreed on this being a dumb move and not a 1st Amendment issue, but there are "dumb firings" (due to egos butting heads, etc) and then there are firings for doing your job. In my mind, this is almost as bad as the Bush Administration firing researchers for producing data that made drilling in NWAR appear less "win win" due to ecological impacts. That is not to say there were not other grounds for firing him, and I wouldn't be half surprised if he was intentionally pushing buttons to get fired to drum up more publicity in moving to Fox. I can't say he did do that intentionally, I don't know enough about the guy to say either way - but I am not giving him a free pass either. However, even if he did play his boss, his boss clearly played into it and fired him specifically for those statements, and as such that's all I can evaluate the decision on unless the position is clarified. I've noticed a pattern that people who have been assaulted by a group of individuals of similar apparel and mannerisms, tend to have a visceral reaction to people displaying those traits in the future. Some have trouble trusting cowboys, some have trouble trusting "white trash" and others native Americans and others dressed as gangbangers, and others in police uniforms. When I'm walking home through an alley at 4 in the morning in a questionable part of the city, I am always on guard even if all I see is a cat, but I also know my heart rate responds differently to a black guy in a business suit than it does a black guy dressed like the Somalians that cruise around and roll the small time drug dealers. Personally I have drank with Somalis dressed as hood rats quite comfortably, but there is a biological reaction creating a sense of concern or mild apprehension when running across a group of people who present themselves in certain ways before you have the chance to evaluate the individuals or the nuances of the specific group's behavior. I don't think that makes me a bigot, nor do I think admitting this reality means I am promoting bigotry. If you want to reduce bigotry, you actually have to look at the real challenges in overcoming the real obstacles, and one of the largest obstacles is that when a group of people are traumatized by the actions of another group, it has a lasting psychological effect triggered by anyone matching that individual's mental model for that group. On 9-11, a lot of people who did not know next to a damn thing about Islam or the Middle East were traumatized by the attacks, and whether or not the "mental model for that group" is well refined, they have had to deal with the psychological impact of that event. That's not bigotry anymore than it would be for a kid to be apprehensive around a priest, when they had been abused by a completely different priest in the past. It would be bigoted to say you can't trust anyone with black robes and a white collar, but admitting the visceral reaction the poor kid has is the first step in helping him get passed it, and the same goes for the issues faced by those Americans traumatized by 9-11 in this manner. Yet, it's the very fact that commercial stations like Fox News are so aggressive with such policies that we no longer even consider them a news organization. It may be a fact that commercialized agenda-media has largely replaced respectable journalism in this country, but it's also something we pretty much all complain about as being bad for the country. It's also a fact that commercial stations are required to put the interests of stock holders above journalistic integrity, fairness and even honesty... and since this is not the image that National Public Radio wants to portray, they should probably avoid the practice.

Why does everything have to be so black and white? Regardless of whether NPR had the right to fire him, the reasons he was fired and the manner in which he was fired cannot be a healthy contribution to the national dialogue. This is a person who was paid to participate in and comment on the daily political climate in America. It's understandable for someone to fear loosing their job if they are inaccurate, sloppy, or misleading - regardless of political implications. To fire someone in this manner only heightens the fear among their staff that they can be fired for making statements that are disagreeable to their boss, even if the statement is accurate and not at all misleading. Sure, this undoubtedly happens all the time, but this is a rather high profile and blatant case that only exasperates that general concern. Sure Fox News is worse for these sorts of actions, but they are quintessentially worse at everything "News" and sure has hell don't set the bar on ethical standards. If NPR wants to be considered a source for reasonable analysis and discourse on political topics, this firing (in both cause and execution) hurts that goal. It is not consistent with "walking the walk" and can only push their staff to second guess themselves and choose "safer assessments" in what they report - not for accuracy, but for the perspectives they try to relate. That just hurts everyone.

Consider the faces on this page, the FBI's top 10 most wanted: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten Aside from Bin Laden, you have a lot of other people who have had a lot of success avoiding capture within the US, and you could be sure they have good run of the mill, fun loving American neighbors. So why haven't these criminals been run out yet? It's not a question of whether Americans tolerate hardened top-ten-list criminal behavior, it's a question of how good these people are at hiding and using networks consisting of that small percent of people who do sympathize that make it possible. Osama may be pretty famous and hard to miss if he goes to get vegetables in the town market, but he's not going to do that. Last I heard he was on dialysis and assume he still is (so clubbing is out), and where ever he is he'll have non-suspicious people who can do all the footwork for him. There may very well be some communities where he can move about freely, but I doubt he would because even if it's true, anyone who wants to lay low knows that you can't even trust good neighbors that would happily die for you - people inexperienced in keeping life and death secrets cannot keep secrets for long, and certainly not amongst a population the size of even a small village. They will tip others off without even knowing it. They never know what innocent detail they mention will become dangerous when combined with an innocent detail mentioned by someone else. As such, people who want to stay hidden don't depend on the sympathy of the masses, they depend on the ignorance of the masses. There is no faith in your fellow man when your life is on the line. Also, it's worth noting that he's not likely hiding among the more sophisticated urban populations, but small villages that still fear warlords and feudal authority. Most are consumed with maintaining what little they have, are terrified of loosing it, and do not want to invite turbulence into their region on a gamble of a rumor that the new fellows that get supplies are bringing them to Osama's hideout. You could drop a dime, but it's fair to say the US military is seen as a very blunt instrument in that part of the world, just as likely to kill your children as a terrorist in a drone attack. On top of that, if it really is Osama's people, then he probably has allies in the village who are powerful enough to slit your throat and that of your wife and children without reprisal. More likely than not, the very idea that it could be Bin Laden hiding near your village would be both terrifying and seen as a burden, one you simply hope passes with evidence he's somewhere else, or evidence that he was right there and moved on. When people are fearful for their families and basic survival needs, they tend not to want to believe and especially not become involved in anything that could make life even more volatile. Now, if he is in an urban area, it's even easier to hide in some respects. It's harder in terms of surveillance and I have seen no evidence (haven't looked) that he is accustomed to urban survival so I am skeptical he'd find it advantageous but if you can pay someone to smuggle drugs, you can pay someone to smuggle people - it's not like corrupt officials verify you have heroin and not a human. You can also live in a building in a very populated area and never leave, and no one on the street would ever know. In a part of the world where there is a good amount of organized crime (not just tied to terrorism) most people don't want to be involved, they don't want to look them in the eyes. They may suspect the person is hired muscle for a drug ring, or human traffickers selling drugged young girls overseas, and they may hate the idea of that, but still be afraid to look at them twice or get involved in any way. If there is only risks to getting involved most people will find a way to make the information fit not needing to be involved. All in all it doesn't take a large percentage of loyal experienced people to be able to go entirely underground.

Pangloss, I know he's not a crazy righty, I was speaking sarcastically to poke fun at how they treated him like a devil-conservative. As for the rest of what you said, perhaps the far left progressive movement, but almost all liberals I know, even ones that really want giant government programs really can't stand political correctness. I don't think it's fair equivocation to say "Fox News Channel have leveled the playing field" when while it could be considered "leveled" between extreme left and right, not only is it unmatched as a relatively mainstream manufacturer of misinformation, but all this highlights is the two extremes being bullies when 90% of the left can't stand their own extremes anymore than they like the right's. Fox isn't doing the moderate right any favors anymore than Christine Pelosi does for the left with her comments. I suspect that while Williams will likely not be offered (or want) his job back, I bet NPR will have to admit they overreacted, and it won't be Fox News but pressure from the left (people that actually listen to NPR) that will be the reason for it.

I was sort of wondering if the guy wanted to be fired, if he had some bad blood and thought the right comment could bait his boss well enough. Still, I don't think it would validate NPR's position and even a crazy bigoted right wing meany deserves the benefit of the doubt if there's no evidence.

Btw: Posts are numbered on the top bar to the right of each post. They are not visible in the reply's "topic summary" but are in the thread. So if a family of three wastes 50% of the fish they harvest, and a family of eight wastes 0% of the fish they harvest, and both harvest the same number of fish per person - which is responsible for more consumption? It seems to me, it's the family that doesn't understand how baby is formed is responsible for more consumption, even if they manage to achieve 100% efficiency in their fish harvest utilization. It's not like they can magically achieve 110% efficiency - the limit is 100%, but populations grow exponentially. Btw, it's not nearly so daring to suggest to someone they have less kids, it's not like people are demanding they do. Unless you have some stellar mathematical solution I missed the suggestion does seem to be a more immediate means to mitigate the high rate of consumption of resources that bother you so much. Considering that children consume, how are they not a luxury? Isn't having even one child an act of dedicating resources to something other than your survival, and thus unnecessary waste?

Could be true, though I think it may be overly simplistic. In the same way that there are social conservatives with what many conservatives consider intolerant social values, there are liberals with the same bent. While there is a strong correlation between far left political views overlapping with intolerant social values in a similar manner to that of the right, in may be inaccurate to bunch them together entirely at either extreme. I think it's fair though to say of either extreme, that when someone feels righteous enough to know the right way for people to act, they are far more likely to feel justified in telling people how to think and speak. I would say that it is a good example that the moderate/mainstream left separates itself from and even condemns intolerant liberal social values, or at least the one of overzealous political correctness. The comments of both Dworkin and Christine Pelosi bother me quite a bit. Both contain crude ridicule and bully-styled aggression and Pelosi especially plays on the language of intimidation, things these people should not consider politically correct, unless of course they consider the target to be worth less as a human than those they try to protect by imposing PC nonsense.

Okay, this is too funny not to post: http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Plant.asp?code=A896 The real question is if it makes a decent tea, which could be nice at parties.

Based on the information provided, I'd say no. I've always hated politically correct BS, and frankly his comments seem pretty benign. The difference with what Bill O'Reilly said was that he stated a simple fact (That Muslims killed Americans on 9/11) as the justification for infringing on the rights of Muslims in general within America to construct centers with the same freedoms of other Americans. I can understand why people would find that offensive and bigoted. You could just as easily state the fact that dark skinned people attacked us on 9/11, and conclude that dark skinned people shouldn't enjoy the same freedoms to build anything near the WTC site. All Juan Williams did was to acknowledge an emotional reaction that he has in certain situations, and didn't try to use that as a justification for any sort of bigotry. All I can see coming out of this is more people shutting their mouths out of fear for their jobs, which can only hurt the discussion. It wouldn't be so bad to be fired for publicizing bigoted views or straight up distortions, but to be fired for appearing to publicize bigoted views in the eyes of individuals that don't even have to justify their conclusions is absolutely ridiculous, and in light of the other comments that get a pass it could be construed as bigoted in of itself.

Admittedly off topic: I never thought of that, but now that you mention it, it would be a pretty interesting topic for a scifi story. I know I'd read "Post-Singularity Zombie Cyborg Cannibals" and the eventual sequel "Post-Singularity Zombie Cyborg Cannibals In Space" in one sitting each. As a singularity outcome, it makes gray goo seem pretty tame.

I can't speak for Moon, but I personally am not advocating mandatory birth control. I am only advocating a better understanding and exploration of the topic. Okay, so to suggest that is not the case, then it is reasonable to assume we can maintain our current population, and current rates of consumption overall, and maintain both purely from renewable resources? I think it is potentially possible, but not currently viable without massive changes to our infrastructure and choices in consumables. I'm not trying to say "lulz then u think we can burn oil forever" or anything, but that it would take more than just switching from less sustainable resources to more sustainable ones, but also technological innovations that don't currently exist. That's just my view (pulled out of nowhere, really), though I am curious if you could elaborate a bit because I am quite interested in the basis for your view. Fair enough, at the very high end of [n] the "+" component is pretty much negligible, though I doubt either of us could imagine a world where everyone has a billion dollars of disposable income unless inflation gets really bad I suppose it's a difficult part of the question because we can talk about reducing consumption, improving efficiency, but "survival" is a tricky term in itself. When increasing your resources allows you to reduce the risk of contracting a fatal illness, being able to definitely say what bare essentials are needed to survive becomes ambiguous.

The Earth is made out of a finite number of atoms, and all of the resources available to us come from those atoms. If we were to take an extreme leap of faith and hope to utilize every atom in the solar system, we will still reach a point where we have to leave this system and expand to consume exo-solar atoms to continue to grow. Even if we were to expand in every direction at light speed, we could not continue to acquire resources at an exponential rate in step with exponential population growth. It may be delayed to an inconceivable point in the future (just as any mechanism to convert our own solar system to useable resources within an exponential rate of return is also inconceivable) but truly exponential growth in resources is beyond highly improbable. It would really require some sort of "zero point energy source" and the means to convert that energy into matter. In other words, if we could accomplish exponential growth in resources to sustain our human population, we would be so far removed from our current state I don't think you could call us human anymore. That is a bit out of the scope of the assertion, I just wanted to be sure we could agree. It may be "easy" to reduce it by 75%, or maybe only 10% I don't know. However, our core needs require a specific quantity of energy to be met, and you cannot reduce the footprint beyond a 100% efficiency just like a car engine can't be more than 100% efficient. As such, it is evident that our ecological footprint can't be reduced at an exponential rate either. As to the specifics, I don't know how those numbers work out, just that past a point reducing the footprint further will result in diminishing returns. Our current system requires waste. Pointing out that it is wasteful is not the same thing as developing and advocating a less wasteful alternative. The current system that we have, as wasteful as it is, is the only system we are aware of that is capable of allowing us to even discuss the concept of waste reduction in the manner we are. Innovation requires experimentation, much of experimentation is unnecessary and also wasteful, yet without it we wouldn't even have the internet to carry on this discussion. Consider the fact the energy you are expending by running your computer right now is considered "leisure" and not at all necessary for your immediate survival. That is wasted energy. You can hope that new information you gain from this leisure activity brings about an overall efficiency gain and thus reduce your total waste over time, but that is speculative. The one thing we can be certain about though, is that waste is part of our current system, and we have to start from where we are now to change anything, and as it is now we consume a large amount of resources. Why is it greedy to want your children to have a low mortality rate? Why is it greedy to want your children to be unencumbered by disease and low life expectancy? How is it greed, when it is due to our consumption (willingness to burn tons of resources to find an answer that may or may not be there) that we have any chance of alleviating the suffering in the poorest societies? All the techniques we've developed to reduce waste have come from taking resources that could have been used for survival, and instead wasting them on attempts to improve the quality of life for generations forward. You really think that's greed? You mean they should be treated as theoretical? Reproduction and population growth are definitely exponential processes. The only limiting factor is birth control, either by abstinence, contraception, or mortality/infanticide/neglect. The key factor in the last set (mortality/infanticide/neglect) arise due to a lack of accessible resources, which through immense suffering can limit population growth but is not a factor if we are talking about population growth as-is without the condition of limited access to resources. As such it's a definitive fact, that population growth is based on exponential processes leading to definitively mathematical exponential rates of return. There is no room for such a caveat on this. What if there was a solution to any future energy problems, in the form of a baby who would grow up to discover/invent a wonderful, clean, renewable energy for the world, which would remove the stranglehold and power of the Middle East, but we prevented the vicious brutal rape that would have led to his conception? What if by beating my neighbor to death, his brother is driven to start a scholarship program in his honor, and that results in someone discovering how to get unlimited energy out of rainbows? On some level, I get the idea that "9,000,000,001 minds are better than 9,000,000,000" but you have to resort to some pretty outlandish logic to play the "genius roulette" game, and the same logic works as justifications for many far more horrible things just as easily as it does in your example.

There's a lot of views on a lot of facts that seem to be rather "diverse" overall.... can we try to nail some things down? 1) Unlimited exponential growth will exhaust any limited resource, no matter how large that limit is. Can we agree on this? This should be the easiest because exponential growth is really easy math. Mr Skeptic's graph, while based on data sampling, clearly demonstrates experiential growth and as such, we should be able to agree in principle that point 1 is a mathematical fact. 2) It is theoretically possible to greatly reduce our ecological footprint and increase the number of humans the world can support Moderate gains are very possible, though some require lifestyle changes and others require technology that does not yet exist. 3) The current total balance of consumption and population is currently straining the world's capacity to support current human populations. I will give the caveat that even if we continued to deplete resources in quantities greater than their capacity to renew, we could probably find means to support our current global population through lifestyle and technological changes. However, current rates of extinctions, deforestation, the collapse of various fisheries in the North Atlantic do suggest that we are using more of some resources than the world can sustain. It may be possible to switch from one resource to another after depleting one, but it should be obvious that currently the resource we use is more efficient within our current state of affairs. If it wasn't, we would have already switched for free market reasons. 4) More resources per person always equals more options, and more options allow for a higher quality of life per person. No matter how efficient a society or family is, each individual consumes or ties up some amount of resources. For every person that doesn't exist but could, there are more resources per person that do, so even if a person can "survive on [n] resources" they can survive and additionally improve quality of life with "[n]+" resources. 5) Land to live on is not the bottleneck in resource consumption, so honestly it is irrelevant. If you wish to argue how land can be used to increase the availability of scarce resources, that's fine but arguments about how much room there is for people to live on are irrelevant. Also, theoretical means of converting unused land to resources that require additional technology should remain with the caveat that they are, in fact theoretical, and not be confused with contemporary means to actuate such conversions. I really can't discuss the nuance of this topic without at least knowing where people stand on those 5 questions, and I think for the focus of the discussion it could help in general, so we don't talk around points none of us are actually disagreeing on, nor arguing the quality of an argument that is based on a precept that multiple parties assume they agree on but don't. Just my two cents anyway

needimprovement, over consumption is the most immediate problem, but it is exasperated by "increases in population" even if you don't want to use the term over population. It's worth noting that focus applied to poor nations, is most first world nations (or "rich populations" if you prefer) have a negative or very low population growth. Secondarily, regardless of how we deal with over consumption, if humans continue to reproduce at exponential rates we would not have enough resources on the planet to make up their molecular structures, so there is a literal maximum even if we don't reach it due to other factors. Thirdly, I can't speak to your consumption or the consumption of your family, but you also have to consider the raw manufacturing and growing/raising of the food your family consumes. If your children also have larger families than "every person you know" no amount of saving will offset the consumption. Your progeny could consume 1/100th of that of your neighbors, and still use more than their progeny. Additionally, if you use 1/100th of the resources your neighbors do, they can always learn to also use 1/100th of their resources as well, but you can't reduce the size of your family.

Frustration would be a more apt word, you make assumptions about what I do and do not want. For instance, I want less government and more freedom. I also wish our government and citizens would celebrate successful people. For example I wish our country had more Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Jack Welch types. I’m also thankful to all those wonderful people that provide me with that wonderful chemical, gasoline. It also makes my life so much better. I don't understand what I could have said that would make you think I didn't want those things, other than I think the Democrats have a better chance of delivering that than Republicans. You said "Naw, like Bascule things aren’t currently going your way. " This is after I clearly stated that I don't buy the cyclical argument, stating the facts: "We can go round and round all we want, but the debt keeps going up. Our dips are getting deeper, our recoveries are taking longer, and this is far and away anything but business as usual." Do you dispute that these are factors that are continuing to increase, despite the cyclical elements? That's why I referred to this as a "spiral" and stated why this is the reason for my dismay. Your "Naw..." not only puts words in my mouth, they completely contradict the words that did come out of my mouth, and completely ignore the statements of fact I cited to describe why I held my position. If you are going to challenge my arguments for why I feel as I do you could at least have the courtesy to demonstrate where I went wrong in my own articulation of why I feel as I do. Is that too much to ask? Actually, the whole point of reforming health care is to save money while providing better health care, but that is a whole other debate. At this point however, you can't separate our financial situation from the political cycle. Also, I don't think you can judge the entirety of stimulus spending based on what you see driving around. The waivers are temporary, they exist to provide more time to facilitate the transition. Any initial change to a system puts momentary stress on that system, and this allows that stress to be largely mitigated. As do I but that is irrelevant to the question of those who don't want to join the military, nor does it change the fact that despite all the bumper stickers out there, many veterans still struggle to reintegrate with civilian life, and often have to fight to get the benefits they are do. Again, separate topic, but the military is hardly a social safety net. It also doesn't address those who for whatever reason are disqualified for service. I am not in the habit of drawing causative relationships where isn't even evidence of a correlative one. I think Alan Greenspan put it better: That was a joke, regarding the fact you were enlightened to some piece of information outlining how I really felt, which apparently was reliable enough to counter and contradict my own statements on the topic. I'm only middle of the road on some issues, but what games are you referring to? I agree with regards to the Bush cuts, Republicans rarely vote against Bush.

I agree and I don't mean that the Chinese feel they are being taken advantage of right now, but I suspect they credit a strong centralized authoritarian government to ensure they are not. If you look at our politicians from their perspective, you have two sides accusing each other of trying to swindle and cheat the American people. Compared to the sense of stability and unity (and artificial absence of criticism) they currently have, trusting a system such as ours could be difficult initially. I think this would more likely move to more backwards parts of their own country, as they do have the population for it. By the time the last (outsourceable) 10% of labor goes overseas 90% will already have migrated to services.

At least the health care is better than it was, but it sure fell short of the goals. He had to sign it, he had to demonstrate that unilateral obstruction means you get left out of the game, and you can't deny it's better than leaving the broken system as it was. It's still broken, but it's less so. Do you really believe that? I don't see how signing your life over to get shot at is considered a safety net, or why veterans still end up having to fight just to get treatment for PTSD when what's left of them gets back state-side. If the middle class doesn't need a safety net, why is it shrinking? They aren't all becoming millionaires. Middle class people have been hit with joblessness too. What have Republicans done that actually would give a business owner the impression that they know the first thing about business? Did you hear that on Fox News? I don't know where you got your information about my sentiments, but go on ignoring the statements of fact that I posted contradicting your assessment, call a spiraling deficit "a cycle" and feel smug if you like. Btw, as a "middle of the roader" all I wanted was a public option, and I don't know many liberals who consider Obamacare a victory, but it was an accomplishment. Getting anything past the unrepentant obstructionists is an accomplishment. But lets keep blaming Democrats for only getting 59 out of 60 when they had a super-majority for the lack of progress. Never mind that Republicans couldn't muster more than 0 out of 40 for anything.

How would loosing the House make any difference? The Republicans won't have a super majority either, and they'll just promise a million free lollipops for everyone and 150% tax cuts to pay for it, then decry the Democrats must Hate America for not passing their bills. This will continue until 2012, status quo as usual. I don't disagree that politically it could be the best thing for both Obama and Democrats to give the GOP enough rope to hang themselves (and the rest of us) all over again, but as citizens it will hurt them. If the Republican policy of obstruction fails to gain a majority in the House, they may actually have to come back to the middle and talk to Obama, who has proven to a fault he's happy to compromise on just about anything short of suicide for bipartisanship. However, rewarding the obstructionists who believe in "our way or no way" with more power, yet still (thankfully) not enough power to get "their way" will only reinforce the strategy clear until 2012.

Even Republicans acknowledge this to a degree, why else would they be running ads posing as Latino Progresses telling them the moral thing is (not to vote Republican but) to not vote at all. You mean the token adjustments to the free market health care insurance industry, that were watered down post-election in an attempt to placate conservatives? On point 2, see point 1. If we weren't dead set on maintaining a Cold War era military, don't you think that just maybe we could provide basic safety net programs for the middle class? Who still considers the Republicans to be the party of business? More to the point, you can call it the "current phase of this cycle" but frankly it's not a cycle, it's a spiral, and not the good kind that keeps going up. We can go round and round all we want, but the debt keeps going up. Our dips are getting deeper, our recoveries are taking longer, and this is far and away anything but business as usual. I'd say considering the context it does make this a new low.

You can have a smaller government that is more involved - size and involvement are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I would like a lean government that does what it does well, including the things it can do better than private individuals and industries and avoids doing what it can't do better. We can regulate what practices individuals can engage in (prostitution, child labor, fraud, racketeering) and don't get angry at the government for interfering but when the same logic is applied to bigger businesses it's suddenly market interference. I think it's healthy to debate what laws are needed for big business, and what powers the government has to intervene in free market booms and collapses but I don't think anyone wants a bigger government just for the sake of it. I also don't think many people truly want a big government - they want heavy government involvement to help us weather this economic crisis, but that is highly transitive in nature. I also don't think there is an ideological conflict between those that want bigger government, and those that want it smaller - just people that want to fix the problems we have, and a failure to communicate and work together. There were huge tax cuts in the stimulus bill, and he is looking at reimplementing many of the Bush tax cuts as well. With regards to the Bush cuts expiration date, I understand what you are saying but I do think it's important to keep things in context. They were passed into law on the basis that they would expire, and that preventing that expiration would require action. If we passed a one-time stimulus of $100B over four years, you can bet that "spending that much again" in four years later by extending the plan would be considered new spending. In the same way, I don't understand how these new tax cuts aren't considered new. How they are felt by citizens will be different of course, because they have gotten used to them and those impacts cannot be ignored, but it is new action taken and that has to be taken into account too. The important thing is that it's a commitment, and whether or not it can be kept will reflect on the success of that commitment, and the credibility of it's advocates. The first step in a diet isn't slashing certain types of food, but to set goals and commitments, and then measure the success in meeting those commitments and adjusting accordingly. Again, we are in a very difficult position because all our social services are being strained from high unemployment, and consumers are not able to drive economic growth. We have to think differently about the tactics we use to recover, and what tactics we need to maintain future growth once the economy is stabilized. I personally believe that government spending is a big factor in getting through to recovery, and if done right it can prevent some of the more hazardous collapses that still threaten our stability. I am happy to discuss the nuances of these arguments but I think it's a slightly different discussion. I just want to highlight the difference between supporting a major long term increase in government spending, and emergency stop-gap measures. Perhaps I'm applying my definitions too restrictively. I just don't think the message has any more merit than saying "We need people with integrity and good values" because it's incredibly vague. Everyone is equally capable of paying lip service to vague ideas, and for an individual to only apply lip service to vague ideas brings nothing to the table. If you are left responding "But what does that mean, compared to anyone else saying that?" and can't get an answer, I think the original statement you are responding to can't be that coherent. However, if I am using the word wrong I'm happy to use another. I agree and I do understand that it can have a beneficial impact on the entire political process. I don't even have a problem with the fact they are raising challenges that no one can answer - it's that they don't admit they don't have them either. They do not attempt dialogue towards finding equitable solutions and compromises. If anything, the speech and response patterns that I've noticed mirror the ideological unilateralism of Ayn Rand disciples and the folksy vagueness of hardline social conservatives. It's not the platform, but the approach that disturbs me so much, and the approach is intentionally obstructionistic. It's an intentional mechanism to avoid the sort of nuanced discussions that would require individual tea party candidates to either agree or disagree and cause fracturing within the movement. Fracturing is a natural part of refining and improving ideas, but they seem to be intentionally avoiding it in an effort to maintain enough critical mass to get some candidates into office, and the dialogue has suffered for it. Fracturing is usually followed by discussion and reunifying with a stronger core strategy and only the most extreme ideologues permanently break off. It's a healthy process, and I fear they are avoiding it because they can't afford to loose the ideologues. I am actually genuinely interested in what the Democrats are doing along these lines, as I haven't had a chance to really dig through and separate long term growth initiatives from immediate temporary relief initiatives. I think it shows some savvy that they've made social conservatism a back burner issue, but my concern is more that they approach spending with the same mindset. The personalities I've seen quite clearly give me the impression that they treat cutbacks as a moral imperative, and as such the consequences "will be what they will be." This mindset is good at times, such as our dedication to winning the second world war, when questions about whether or not we could pay for it were sidelined by the moral imperative that we had to. Of course the issue was still addressed and war bonds etc were printed, but there is a fanaticism and ideological simplicity that really scares me in the tea party. I can see the benefits they bring but it only works as long as they are incredibly marginalized, as a movement of action they are terrifying. I don't know any social progressives then, because when if someone is chastised for saying "that's so gay" they're quickly told not to be a F'ing retard. I find the idea of political correctness to be quite repulsive, but I also don't see much from that as a movement affecting the Democrats. I remember some time back something apparently was discussed about the word "retard" but the whole thing sounded so gay I didn't pay any attention to it. I think a lot of people feel that way on both sides, because everyone hears about the macro-politics and senate/congress seats in the balance, but the personal politics of these candidates can make you want to pull your hair out. I agree entirely. I think part of this comes from when one party responds to the other's attempt to draw them into a black & white polarizing discussion. They get so caught up in trying to defend "No it's white!" they fail to account for the shades of gray and cease to see what they are advocating as a divisible, revisable and nuanced entity. I hope so, and if Jon's rally is rendered moot by means of a political upheaval that leads to saner discussions, I bet he'd be more pleased than anyone. I find the idea of the "political singularity" interesting, and the polarization we have in place now has to create, by it's very nature, a huge range of views in the vacuum. Whether it's new forms of communication or cracks from other means, when that vacuum goes a whole lot of political energy will be released. Speculation of course, but it's a pretty interesting idea. Btw, I've been enjoying this discussion despite not having much time to really distill down a lot of my posts concisely, so thanks for taking the time in responding so completely. I'll try to find a youtube link when one comes around, the only one I found so far cuts it off far too early. She honestly starts off really well, and I'd definitely be interested in second opinions on how she did.

So many points, but: 1) I haven't heard anything that implies Republicans believe everyone can be self employed. 2) I don't know anyone who uses those arguments against self-employment as there has never been a discussion that I'm aware of suggesting a massive shift to self-employment is even viable 3) How is it anti-democratic when the majority of people (that I am aware of) have no interest in self-employment and many have chosen to get out of it? Wouldn't it be totalitarian to remove that choice? 4) How does "Republicans know very well that corporatism and employment-based income systems work" reconcile with the comment that "Republicanism has traditionally favored self-employment as the basis for economy" and how is it anti-Republican (point 1) if even Republicans as you say aren't making those arguments? 5) It is a cop-out to blame the problem on "those people who either can't or won't make the effort to conceive of an economy that can survive and even thrive on self-employment" since you basically are saying the problem is people that don't see the world as you do, and don't see the same pressing need for a very specific (and flawed) game-changing shift in our economy. If people aren't interested in what you want them to squeeze into, it's not a matter of them being a problem failing to shoe-horn into your solution, the problem is your solution doesn't fit their problem. As for all the reasons that self-employment is not the solution, I'll go into more detail further down. Considering that the rate of people on food stamps have doubled since '09, and that '09 wasn't an easy year to begin with, I think it's safe to say most new recipients resorted out of necessity to food stamps, as opposed to the sort of "slackers" that always end up on some sort of assistance even in the best of times. As for most families who are employed being considered "slackers" I think the fact that they are employed and (hopefully) making enough to pay taxes and support this nation separates them from the demographic I was referring to. Whether you feel the job is "mostly symbolic" (I assume you mean government job employees) you have to remember that they were hired to do a job, they met the requirements and they are doing the work. How is that slacking? Whether we should cut the job or not as "ineffectual busywork" is immaterial to the employee - the job is posted because we say "We need someone who can do this job for this salary" and they get it done. You can't blame them or call them a slacker just because you don't see merit in what they produce. If it is without merit, the job should be eliminated but again that's not their job, their job is to do what they were tasked with. I have no idea why you feel compelled to wonder that, as no one suggested such an economic system could even or should even exist. People lose income all the time, and have to adjust their lifestyles all the time. The only thing we are talking about is how to avoid a depression, with huge unemployment, homelessness, the toll on on-term physical health, and a generation with educational prospects put on hold. My meaning was that while bailouts are incredibly unpopular, it's like saying "chemo is unpopular" among cancer patients. You won't find anyone who says they do like it. However, most people would prefer it to the alternatives. Of those who wouldn't, you have a small demographic that would rather pray, some that would rather use (entirely ineffective) alternative medicines, some that are just in denial, and a very small group that understand the consequences but would rather spend the end of their lives enjoying it instead of in hospitals. I am angry at the conditions that led to the necessity of the bailouts, by the process by which they were created and managed, and by the lack of any effort to prevent the conditions that led to their necessity in the future. I think that is a fair thing for "moderate America" to be upset about, but I don't think it is possible to simply the entire argument down to "bailouts are bad, people who vote for bailouts are bad" ideology because real world solutions don't come from such simplistic mentalities. I have no problem with people having to change their life goals. A lot of folks had to do that in the 1940s, it's simply called "that's life" and you deal with it. The problem I have is letting people starve, or suffer from exposure. I don't think hard working people that support this system should be abandoned by it the moment it those who are at the wheel send it into the ditch. My argument for the bailouts is as much as I didn't like them, they were necessary to keep those bare essentials social programs that keep people off the street and out of food lines from being completely swamped. Questions: 1) Can you tell me what services and goods that "people expect to have available to them," that result in this "falling short of their ideals" that you mention? 2) Are you equating interdependence to subjugation? 3) When you say "The system has to fail for some people in order for others to gain some freedom from being overburdened with servicing the others." who does it have to fail for, what exactly is the failure condition necessitated, and how are those who are overburdened by providing for services supposed to stay in business when their own customer base is failing due to a lack of services? You almost sound like you are going all "Atlas Shrugged" there, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt to clarify. 4) What is "total privilege" exactly? I assume "total servitude" has the standard meaning, but "total privilege" is not a term I have heard before. 5) What current direction do you think the political-economy is taking? I have no idea why you think everyone would be permanently employed, and we are all already permanently dependent on others. You can't even live in the woods without at least depending on others to abide by the same precepts of private property. 6) Who has even vaguely suggested that "total socialism" (is that communism?) is even viable, let alone ideal? We are heading in that direction, and the Tea Party, while not the solution, is a symptom of the growing unrest and necessity to move beyond party demagoguery (from any wing) and work out genuine compromises that are based on a constructive consensus. Unfortunately, it's hard to see how to get there because the political wings are so polarized, and the competing forces prefer "hurting the competition" to outdoing them. As long as the majority of Americans buy into the idea that the politics of destruction (that dirty destructive tricks are a necessary evil, because the "bad politicians" want to destroy the country and we have to destroy them first) we will have these problems. We however are seeing a backlash against that, and people are starting to question if those evils really are necessary. The key regardless, is to raise the dialogue and demand better answers, better goals, and actual discussions that refine the nuance of any given strategy instead of sabotaging the dialogue to make a favored strategy the only one not demonized. I've been self employed for about 20 years now, with maybe 4 years in there as part time or full time traditionally employed. I've had the benefit of both my parents being self employed, of a natural talent for programming and the sort of good teachers where I had the opportunity to teach computer programming to 8th graders when I was still in high school. I also got to build dynamic websites and work on some of the earliest search engines in the early 90s while still in high school, so I consider myself pretty fortunate in terms of advantages as a self employed individual. That said, self employment is incredibly uncertain, and incredibly difficult and I would not attempt it now if I had a family to support. To answer your question, I want to go over some risk factors associated with self employment: 1) You have to be good at many jobs, and still depend on partners. I am not a graphic designer or any good at marketing, so I am entirely dependent on others to do this. Still, I am my own network troubleshooter, tech support, my own finance manager, my own project manager, my own programmer, I have to manage other contractors in other companies, I have to maintain quality control, and I have to do competitive market niche research and research new technologies. My primary partner in New York has to handle office work, technical support, marketing, market research, material printing and production, graphic design, project management, quality control, invoicing, collections, customer relations. Some of our roles overlap because neither of us has the expertise to handle all aspects exclusively. This "many hats syndrome" creates difficulties for the self employed because it scales so badly - any increase in success has to be met with delegating labor gracefully, or production chokes on a bottleneck created by one of the other hats you have to wear not increasing in step with the others. It usually takes a lot of capital and often new skills for self employed individuals to truly grow their revenue. 2) People don't pay you, like, ever Seriously, people just don't pay you. Last year about this time through January I was thousands of dollars behind on bills when I should have been sitting on several grand in the bank, because we'd work and work and people would flake out on making their payments. You can't always get all money up front, and you sometimes know you are taking a chance on a client you sense is unreliable but sometimes you have to take those chances or you don't eat. I can't stress this enough 3) Stress You are always on call. You are always keeping an eye out and nervously scoping changes to the industry and the reliability of service providing firms you depend on. This is fine for people that want that life, but not everyone does. Many are much happier with a reasonable expectation of a paycheck for doing a job, and a reasonable expectation that by paying into unemployment benefits they can get a small grace period to try and find new work before loosing their home should their job cease to exist. I know people who were self employed who are much happier with their quality of life serving coffee. 4) Not all jobs lend themselves to self-employment Should every garbage truck driver be self-employed? What's the real difference between an employee that shows up to work to haul waste, and a contractor doing the exact same thing on an annual contract? Independent contracting just increases the overhead in managing payroll and all that when the job is really optimized for classic employment. So, for concrete examples I would have to say there is no way I would still be self-employed because even as is, I was nearly homeless several times just as a result of current conditions. People will contract with you and you will work the hours, you just won't get to collect. You end up with clients telling you how "the money is on the way any day, and you are the first they'll pay" which leaves you saying the same thing to your landlord, your ISP, and the companies you depend on to stay in business. There is a phenomenal amount of work involved in surviving as a self employed individual, the last statistic I heard (around 2001) is that only 1 in 10 new brick and mortar business actually survive their first three years. It's hard, and "classic employment" is often used part-time to maintain such ventures until they can support themselves. All the risks of small business apply to self employment and that means even small shifts in the economic environment can bankrupt a new company not prepared to weather it. In short, if classically reliable employment options are not reliable in rough economic times, the perpetually risky nature of self employment is not going to be any better, and the volatility in the economy that was only partially mitigated by the bailouts would only have hurt the self employed even more had they not passed. There are exceptions (I hear self employment isn't so bad in the repossession industry) but they are few and far between, and not broad enough to model general solutions after. Classical employment has to be part of the solution.

If you like, I can dig around for some hard numbers if I understand the question. The tea party has been pretty consistent in their view that the bailouts were a bad decision, and wouldn't have voted for them if they had the opportunity. While there is disagreement on whether these programs would make the damage "less but longer" or "less and shorter" can be debated at length, but I don't think many argue that unemployment and the majority of the global economy would have gotten much worse had they not been in-place. I've heard numbers around one million jobs saved from the GM bailout alone, and other figures that "without the stimulus" (combined) unemployment would be up to 13%. We are at 9%, and 1 in 5 Americans get food stamps, 1 in 50 report food stamps as their only income. I'm sure many of those have some odd under the table jobs, and it doesn't include non-cash assistance but this isn't your "regular slackers" that never get off the couch. These are normal, strained families trying to keep their heads above water. Personally I was and still am very upset by the bailouts, not that they were done (I am sure they had to be) but because they had to be done, and because of how we did it. I can understand how we could be caught off guard and forced into the situation - still angry about it - and I can understand why we didn't have policies in place to handle it, but we should address what sort of procedures need to be in place so if the situation happens again (and we have procedures for responding to an unthinkable sneak nuclear attack, I think we can plan for economic meltdowns) there is a response plan in place where jobs are named and accountability for those roles in place going in, so we don't have to play a round of roulette to see if the money just vanishes. My point however, is every tea party member I've heard speak has unilaterally spoken against the bailouts, and have offered nothing but the tired old combination of "faith in natural corrections" and "cutting taxes and regulation will grow the economy" as alternatives. That's like saying "well muscles get stronger with use" and pulling the plug on the iron lung to get those muscles moving. I am okay with people being against bailouts in principle, or even arguing from evidence that it hurt the economy - more facts and nuance the better. Unilateral ideological rejection and a refusal to acknowledge the benefits however, is not called joining the political dialogue. I'm happy to discuss the harms of those programs with them. I'm happy to help them build a case why bailouts do harm to the economy. All I want is intellectual honesty, and not to immediately retreat into rhetoric when challenged by the possibility that they did help in some ways. But I want to be able to say "Hey, at least we got some nice t-shirts out of the deal" and get back an honest "Yes we did, but it wasn't worth it." instead of a diatribe on how it is impossible for any good results to come from anything that involves spending money through the government, because government is always the problem. So if you want the hard figures on the degree to which we prevented collapse due to programs the tea party candidates would have voted against, I'll try to dig them out. If that's not what you were getting at or if you already have seen how those numbers add up I'll hold off. Who doesn't want smaller government and less taxes? Hasn't Obama cut taxes? To be clear, allowing tax cuts to expire is not the same as raising taxes - so anything extended from Bush era cuts would be considered new cuts. Wasn't Obama careful to require even the medical overhaul to be budget neutral? This is the problem with such incoherent rhetoric - everyone wants smaller government and less taxes, but the words are meaningless without details. In the details, you get to find out what parts of government someone wants smaller, and what parts they want to be bigger. Everyone wants some aspect to be bigger, even if it's just boosting overdue benefits to disabled veterans, there is always something that needs to be bigger. As a statement, it's meaningless and frankly it's what everyone wants to do, the only difference is they don't like the way Democrats or Republicans say they want to go about it, but fail entirely to offer any alternative themselves. How does the movement represent the majority better? They have the same goals, they just don't offer any details to criticize. Also, why is the tea party typically so skewed towards hardline conservative social values? Do you think they represent the majority on issues of abstinence-only sex ed, prayer in schools, abortion, and immigration? Again, as an organization it's hard to get a clear read due to the lack of specifics, but they definitely seem to gravitate to the social polarity seen in the Hard Christian Right movement that previously held the Republican spotlight for so long. There's a lot more to consider in a candidate than their generalized views on economics, and I find it suspicious that they all seem to gravitate to one social polarity if they are truly representative of the moderate majority. My two bits, I think the left has failed to address the details about what has upset average Americans. They hear Americans are upset about the bailouts, but see that as the result of Republicans poisoning people on it despite the successes achieved, and only consider it an issue of whether they can or can't enlighten everyone to that success like it's just a PR war. If they looked deeper, they'd probably find (I am assuming, largely based on my biased samplings) that people are upset that the bailouts were a stop-gap and no one has addressed the core problems or explained what measures will prevent their need in the future. In an effort to make them more palatable they come across as blasé, which adds insult to injury. I really hope the majority turn out to care more about "restoring sanity" and taking it down a notch, than pushing ever more unilateral ideologies. You never hear the tea party talk about common ground, or finding better solutions. It's a repeating mantra that "government is the problem" and an unwavering faith (from what I can see) that cutting taxes, cutting spending is the universal fix-all that will always work, regardless of the circumstances. You don't have to go out very far on that limb, for the most part that is what went down. Specifically she was asked about cutting any military spending, and she said that since Constitutionally it was allowed, it could be as big as it wants to get without being a bad thing. She was asked about Medicare and responded that it was already broke, so there was nothing to cut. The problem though, and why I consider it still a very real concern that they'd "pull the plug" is instead of admitting that what to cut is a complex issue, or suggesting that we need to work together to solve it, or even having the foresight to figure out one thing she could safely say is good to cut, she just went right back into the old shtick along the lines of "Do you think spending is the solution? What has government ever gotten right?" etc, back into an automatic defense pattern. To simply address that cuts are "a complex issue" is too ambiguous to hold the support of tea party voters. You can see the fear as they walk the tightrope of not wanting to sound too ineffectually vague and sounding even the slightest bit hesitant to slash and burn with total abandon. I sincerely hope it isn't the sensible, hard-working Moderate Americans that have a strong common sense who are putting them on those eggshells. If so, we are in a lot more trouble than I thought. I think this will be the most interesting aspect, and I do hope some good politicians get forged in the process regardless of political leanings. I think they are going to have some serious trouble though, because if "Government is the problem" then once they are part of it, they'll have a really hard time maintaining the uncompromising unilateralism that they are now riding into office. I don't think the tea party is strong enough to force us into a pseudo-pure-capitalism nightmare (they aren't cutting military focused corporate welfare) but I think they would slash first, question later, and I think their seats would be threatened in the next primary if they didn't. They formed as an alternative to the Republicans because they were seen as too soft and too compromising with Obama, and this is despite record levels of obstruction by Republicans. I could see some good independents emerging if they impress moderate Americans, but they will have to betray the tea party entirely to do it.

I thought that "average Americans" were polled as generally sympathetic to the overall concerns of the tea party movement, in the same way "average Americans" are sympathetic to the overall concerns anti-globalization protesters and agree "exploitation is bad" or other generalized views. I could even agree that tea partiers, while being white noise generators that add nothing to the dialogue right now, are following that path to political awareness but they certainly aren't there more so now than any of the tree spikers or barn burners you mentioned. I have not yet been able to find a single instance of a tea party advocate explain the tea party platform in a logically consistent manner. How is it there can be an entire movement that actually undermines many Republican primaries without a single coherent argument? The only thing I've been able to ascribe to this is that while many Americans are sympathetic to the core ideals (as any Democrat, Republican, or Independent should be), the real core of the tea party movement are conservatives who one-upped the Republican "value voter" demographic that doesn't care about coherent policy. We saw during the '08 GOP presidential primary when Mitt tried to use this demographic to pull ahead of McCain only to have Huckabee (the quintessential value voter candidate, prior to Palin) come along and undercut him, giving conservative moderates enough relative unification to get McCain on the ticket. Two years later, we have the exact people who split Mitt and Huckabee now in critical enough numbers to completely upset some Republican primaries. I honestly think this is good news for Republicans, because now they have a chance of letting that segment splinter off and get back to their intellectual-friendly roots. Of course, that's just my view, and not a well informed one since I did have to come up with it in a vacuum, but honestly it's the best assessment I've been able to make thus far. What I don't understand though, is how you refer to people as the "real, hard-working, freedom-loving, open-minded but usually-too-busy-to-be-politically-aware" America when they are backing people who have yet to make a single coherent argument in support of their own platform? Isn't that insane? Is it actually considered admirable when you vote for someone who can't tell you what they'd do, can't describe the issues, can't tell you how they'd solve anything, just that they would cut everything not related to defense and (assuming because values were involved) watch it all magically work out okay? Just as a side note I saw Dana Loesch last night on Bill Maher's show, and while Bill is a bit annoying to watch I was really hopeful I'd get to see an eloquent tea party supporter finally. She was actually reasonably articulate and even cognizant, but she completely crumbled and returned to rhetoric as soon as any question involved nuance. I hope there are snippets on youtube soon. I can't tell you how maddening it is to watch someone that apparently represents this movement in hopes of finally finding out anything resembling a platform and always being let down. Again I support all their concerns, but America is basically "on life support" until the economy picks up, and while I agree that "living in an iron lung is expensive" I can't see their "pull the plug and sort it out later" approach as viable, especially when not a single one can articulate how we are supposed to survive in our current condition once the plug is pulled.