But as long as there's Joey, there's hope.

Joey's awesome. Comes in, throws a bomb, (although this is the first one he has thrown at McCain, I think) and bails.

Hey, Joey's just doing his part to keep this thread limping along until either McCain or Obama does something stupid or controversial. Unfortunately Hillary has apparently entered the Tyson Zone, where almost nothing she says or does can stir any additional surprise or outrage on this site.

Hey, Joey's just doing his part to keep this thread limping along until either McCain or Obama does something stupid or controversial.

I like Joey. He believes what he believes and sticks up for it, and he does it in his own style, as opposed to my own often vanilla posts. Power to him.

Unfortunately Hillary has apparently entered the Tyson Zone, where almost nothing she says or does can stir any additional surprise or outrage on this site.

This is also known at various times as the "Selig Zone" the "Hank Steinbrenner Zone" the "Boras Zone" and the "Canseco Zone."

By Texas standards, Ron Paul is eminently sane. Here, for instance, is the Democratic candidate for Congress in TX-6.

And what, exactly, makes this TX-6 candidate insane? The fact that he quotes Milton Friedman on immigration? Or just the fact that he doesn't buy into the libertarian "free market" mythology?

Well, as to the latter, yes. Also, his web designer is a nutjob. Or blind.

so when is this thread gonna get renamed - "The Lounge Without Talking About Hot Chicks, Movie Lines or Kids"

Someone needs to educate the old bastard and tell him that the warming trend came to an end and reversed itself five friggin' years ago, and that the earth just had its coldest year in decades.

And Rose gets the PED he needs to go for 5000 hits!

As a great example of this, McCain appears to have swallowed the global warming Kool Aid to such an extent that he's almost indistinguishable from Al Gore on the subject.

Someone needs to educate the old bastard and tell him that the warming trend came to an end and reversed itself five friggin' years ago, and that the earth just had its coldest year in decades.

Either that or we need to disabuse ourselves of calling it 'Global warming' -- and refer to it as 'Global climate change'.

As a great example of this, McCain appears to have swallowed the global warming Kool Aid to such an extent that he's almost indistinguishable from Al Gore on the subject.

He could just be pandering to some demographic, but at this point so many people have swallowed Gore's global warming theory whole that it's hardly surprising that another person has.

Either that or we need to disabuse ourselves of calling it 'Global warming' -- and refer to it as 'Global climate change'.

Right; after all, the term "global warming" is kind of inconvenient when the planet isn't actually warming, as the proponents of the theory discovered. Calling it "climate change" is much better because it allows us to view every change as proof of the theory!

Right; after all, the term "global warming" is kind of inconvenient when the planet isn't actually warming, as the proponents of the theory discovered. Calling it "climate change" is much better because it allows us to view every change as proof of the theory!

Or perhaps it's more a factor naysayers too obtuse to understand that climatologists don't measure such things in single year increments

As a great example of this, McCain appears to have swallowed the global warming Kool Aid to such an extent that he's almost indistinguishable from Al Gore on the subject.

He could just be pandering to some demographic, but at this point so many people have swallowed Gore's global warming theory whole that it's hardly surprising that another person has.

More butter on the grill---two down, and hopefully a couple of strategically placed million more to follow.

Yeah, that McCain is a left wing loon, all right. If I were a real conservative, I'd be ashamed of the Republicans for nominating such a Big Government lover. If I were a principled libertarian, I wouldn't vote for McCain if he were running against a ticket of FDR and Lyndon Johnson, with Rev. Wright as their campaign manager. I'd want a choice, not an echo.

so when is this thread gonna get renamed - "The Lounge Without Talking About Hot Chicks, Movie Lines or Kids"

I loved that scene in Margot at the Wedding where the little boy asks Nicole Kidman "Are you stoned, Mom?" and she says "Just a little."

He could just be pandering to some demographic, but at this point so many people have swallowed Gore's global warming theory whole that it's hardly surprising that another person has.

I give it about another five to ten years or so before even the more gullible sheeple types out there start to realize what an incredible fraud this whole thing was.

In the meantime, I do my very small part by educating my friends and family about boring, mundane scientific things like solar cycles and ocean currents. My mother is an especially tough case, but I think in a few more years I might be able to finally get her to come around.

Yeah, that McCain is a left wing loon, all right. If I were a real conservative, I'd be ashamed of the Republicans for nominating such a Big Government lover. If I were a principled libertarian, I wouldn't vote for McCain if he were running against a ticket of FDR and Lyndon Johnson, with Rev. Wright as their campaign manager. I'd want a choice, not an echo.

Fortunately, high-minded conservatives have a choice... assuming Paul's convention coup doesn't work.

To be fair, bbc, this threat is supposedly about how baseball is "conservative", it's now over 4000 posts long and we're talking about libertarians in the Republican party. That's pretty minimal drift.

As for DMN on Paul - I don't see his platform as having actual "ideas," just a vague nostalgia for the 1920s - or even earlier. He says nothing positive, all he wants to do is turn back the clock. But more generally, to the points you raise:

Firstly, Paul isn't the Republican nominee, nor did he even come close. He is not the libertarian Barry Goldwater (at least yet). He got his name out there in the primaries, he created a lot of buzz, he lost, he now needs to suck it up and wait for next time. In the meantime he is free to keep professing his beliefs and saying "$0", but hijacking the convention is not part of that. Causing trouble for the Republicans simply creates ill will against him and his followers.

Secondly, I don't agree that people aren't exposed to libertarian ideas. Not only do Republicans often talk a libertarian game, but in fact the libertarian take on most problems is, essentially, "this isn't a problem," "this will sort itself out" or "the cure is worse than the disease," and the libertarian solution is that the government should do nothing about it. People are very familiar with the idea of doing nothing, this is not an idea in need of additional exposure. To take your example, the reason that all three major party candidates think the government should step in over PEDs in sport is because the government stepping in is a vote-winner. People want the government to step in. It's not that they haven't considered the idea of the government doing nothing, or think it's crazy. They think it's unsatisfactory. They want Something To Be Done. In short, your problem is the critical mass of Helen Lovejoys in America.

Or perhaps it's more a factor naysayers too obtuse to understand that climatologists don't measure such things in single year increments

I never said anything about single-year increments. But what's laughable is the suggestion that 100 years of warming even approaches anything like a meaningful sample, given the billions of years the planet has existed for. Here:

100 vs. 4,600,000,000.

That should put a century of data in perspective.

The earth has seen many "climate changes." The only thing certain about the climate is that it does change.

I give it about another five to ten years or so before even the more gullible sheeple types out there start to realize what an incredible fraud this whole thing was.

In the meantime, I do my very small part by educating my friends and family about boring, mundane scientific things like solar cycles and ocean currents. My mother is an especially tough case, but I think in a few more years I might be able to finally get her to come around.

Because lord knows -- reducing particulate emissions, developing renewable energy, cleaner land and water, reductions in waste -- all terrible, terrible things we must fight with every fiber of our being.

Onward industrial soldiers!

He could just be pandering to some demographic

Yes, I think the demographic is called "the scientific community".

I give it about another five to ten years or so before even the more gullible sheeple types out there start to realize what an incredible fraud this whole thing was.

In the meantime, I do my very small part by educating my friends and family about boring, mundane scientific things like solar cycles and ocean currents. My mother is an especially tough case, but I think in a few more years I might be able to finally get her to come around.

Just don't let em chicken out and vote for McCain---Paul and Barr need their support!

-----------------

Secondly, I don't agree that people aren't exposed to libertarian ideas. Not only do Republicans often talk a libertarian game, but in fact the libertarian take on most problems is, essentially, "this isn't a problem," "this will sort itself out" or "the cure is worse than the disease," and the libertarian solution is that the government should do nothing about it. People are very familiar with the idea of doing nothing, this is not an idea in need of additional exposure. To take your example, the reason that all three major party candidates think the government should step in over PEDs in sport is because the government stepping in is a vote-winner. People want the government to step in. It's not that they haven't considered the idea of the government doing nothing, or think it's crazy. They think it's unsatisfactory. They want Something To Be Done. In short, your problem is the critical mass of Helen Lovejoys in America.

Yes, and anyone who thinks the the FDA or SEC have legitimate oversight roles to play beyond rubberstamping Big Corp's agenda is nothing but a "think about the children" nannystater. Nice bit of nuanced thinking there.

I never said anything about single-year increments. But what's laughable is the suggestion that 100 years of warming even approaches anything like a meaningful sample, given the billions of years the planet has existed for. Here:

100 vs. 4,600,000,000.

That should put a century of data in perspective. The earth has seen many "climate changes." The only thing certain about the climate is that it does change.

Sure.... and forgetting Gore for a moment - the perfectly credible scientists that actually DO think it's an issue worth addressing would certainly agree.

Somehow, this strawman has been developed that has anyone in favor of government-funded/subsidized alternative energy research, anyone in favor of increasing caps on industrial waste and emissions, anyone that would just generally lean towards paying a short-term economic price for a cleaner environment as advocating returning to being a society of hunter gatherers.

That's unfortunate.

I give it about another five to ten years or so before even the more gullible sheeple types out there start to realize what an incredible fraud this whole thing was

Suits me. If the Arctic ice-cap ever stops shrinking, we'll all just have to kick ourselves for having developed clean sustainable energy sources.

People want the government to step in

They absolutely do. Note this item about a House bill outlawing genetic discrimination in health insurance, passed 414-1 last week. (No points for guessing the 1.)

I give it about another five to ten years or so before even the more gullible sheeple types out there start to realize what an incredible fraud this whole thing was.

How is it that I knew who'd written this well before I saw the original post?

Don't ever change, Joey.

Either that or we need to disabuse ourselves of calling it 'Global warming' -- and refer to it as 'Global climate change'.

Or, as it was once known in the days of yore, "weather".

As I often find myself at odds with the weather, what with its constant fluctuations of temperature and precipitation, I fully support our quixotic quest to make it stop. Excelsior!

And I see others have expressed similar sentiments already. Dammit.

Or, as it was once known in the days of yore, "weather".

As I often find myself at odds with the weather, what with its constant fluctuations of temperature and precipitation, I fully support our quixotic quest to make it stop. Excelsior!

Perhaps we can compromise.

We'll call it an "Intelligently Designed Climate" -- rename Chapter 55 of 42 USC "God".

Somehow, this strawman has been developed that has anyone in favor of government-funded/subsidized alternative energy research, anyone in favor of increasing caps on industrial waste and emissions, anyone that would just generally lean towards paying a short-term economic price for a cleaner environment as advocating returning to being a society of hunter gatherers.

I'm in favor of government-funded/subsidized alternative energy research... as long as we allocate $0.00 of funding to this.

Seriously, there's no need for government to be funding this.

And I don't know where you got the idea that people want to see the environment destroyed.

As for global warming, it's about power, control, and money. The first thing is to follow the money. Gore (*) has made a killing off of this; "scientists" need to find a problem otherwise their grant money dries up; government officials want to seize more money from the citzenry. More money and more regulation means more control over the citizenry, which means more power for government. Global warming (I refuse to call it "climate change" since that amounts to acceptance of a moving of the goalposts) is essentially global governance.

(*) It would perhaps be more convincing if the patron saint of the movement actually lived by the principles he wants to force others to live by, with his "the planet has a fever" claptrap.

Right; after all, the term "global warming" is kind of inconvenient when the planet isn't actually warming, as the proponents of the theory discovered.

Ray, it would be helpful if you wouldn't post factual falsehoods.

It's helpful for two reasons:

1) lying about the data doesn't help one's credibility, and I would hope you are trying to maintain credibility.

2) it is a waste of time to have to google and correct the falsehoods you are trying to spread.

Here:

Copyright © 2008 Earth Policy Institute

January 10, 2008

2007 SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD
Northern Hemisphere Temperature Highest Ever

Frances C. Moore

With the record for 2007 now complete, it is clear that temperatures around the world are continuing their upward climb. The global average in 2007 was 14.73 degrees Celsius (58.5 degrees Fahrenheit)—the second warmest year on record, only 0.03 degrees Celsius behind the 2005 maximum. January 2007 was the hottest January ever measured, a full 0.23 degrees Celsius warmer than the previous record. August was also a record for that month and September was the second warmest September recorded.

As for global warming, it's about power, control, and money.

All that, and also trying to rein in the evil, wicked United States.

For those of us who can read between the lines, it was a dead giveaway when they showed they were willing to exempt all of the developing countries, including China and India. What a joke. Had they put as much pressure on these other countries as they were on us, it would have been a heck of a lot more convincing that they were actually sincere about all this crap.

Gore (*) has made a killing off of this; "scientists" need to find a problem otherwise their grant money dries up

This is also a canard. Government scientists are salaried professionals, are paid regardless of research outcome and aren't dependent on grant money. They're just paid to continue to monitor and record what they have always been paid to monitor and record. What, have you adopted Kevin Trudeau as your rhetorical ideal?

Additionally, you are basically accusing the entire body of climatologists of conducting a massive fraud. You better have something more than the Kevin Trudeau conspiracy argument on your side to make usch a claim. Do you actually have data that contradicts the observation that global warming is occurring, or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

If so, I'd like to see it and analyze it. Short of that, you got nuthin'.

Seriously, there's no need for government to be funding this.

Sure there is.

The government has funded cross-continental railroads, space programs, medical research, and any host of other programs.

Innovation isn't an ends of the free market - it's a means to end.

The United States has always funded programs that didn't have/have enough/have enough promise for short-term economic gain by private industry, but were in the nation's best interest.

I see no problem with funding research into renewable energy, clean energy, etc -- just as I would have no problem with national highway systems, railroads, etc.

Seriously, there's no need for government to be funding this.

Please refer to the "promote the general welfare" clause in the premable of the Constitution.

I'm in favor of government-funded/subsidized alternative energy research... as long as we allocate $0.00 of funding to this.

Seriously, there's no need for government to be funding this.

And I don't know where you got the idea that people want to see the environment destroyed.

As for global warming, it's about power, control, and money. The first thing is to follow the money.

Well, Ray, tell us how the "money" (i.e. the stock market) weighs the pursuit of unregulated corporate policies that result in short term profits, vs. any range effects those policies may have on the environment.

The biggest "Big Lie" here is that corporate policies that have a long range effect on the environment are magically "self-correcting" in the marketplace, and need not be of any concern to the government. That's a form of fundamentalism that matches anything ever spouted by any TV evangelist.

there's no need for government to be funding this

I assume that the government does nothing to subsidize the oil industry?

Right; after all, the term "global warming" is kind of inconvenient when the planet isn't actually warming, as the proponents of the theory discovered.

Ray, it would be helpful if you wouldn't post factual falsehoods.

I probably phrased that poorly. I didn't mean to say that the planet isn't warming now; I acknowledged in #4116 that the planet has warmed over the last century. (Of course, since 1998, as even the chart Zonk linked to in #4110 shows, the planet has not warmed -- but I don't claim that's enough data for a trend. Though if we're claiming that 100 years is meaningful, then I don't see why 10 years wouldn't be.)

No, my point was that the climate is always changing, so when we see data points that are in the opposite direction of warming (the temperatures since 1998, the increased snowfalls in Maine this year, etc.), the proponents of the theory want to claim that that proves the theory also. If the assertion is that the climate "changes" -- and whoever said that it didn't -- then any change can be held up as proof of the theory. There's no possible way to disprove the "climate change" theory, like there is with the term "global warming."

I assume that the government does nothing to subsidize the oil industry?

Government shouldn't subsidize the oil industry either.

I probably phrased that poorly.

Ah, duh.

Of course, since 1998, as even the chart Zonk linked to in #4110 shows, the planet has not warmed -- but I don't claim that's enough data for a trend.)

Wrong!! That data only extends out to 2004. 2005 was the warmest year on record, with 2007 in secod place. Check this more recent one out:

Average Global Temperature by Decade, 1880-2007

Again, please don't post falsehoods. It smacks of dishonesty when you do that.

No, my point was that the climate is always changing, so when we see data points that are in the opposite direction of warming (the temperatures since 1998, the increased snowfalls in Maine this year, etc.),

Wrong again, on two counts:

1) A 1 year spike in snowfall doesn't have anything to do with warming trends. It has more to do with relative moisture.

2) Data points are NOT going in the opposite direction. If anything, they're trending more aggressively towards warming.

Of course, since 1998, as even the chart Zonk linked to in #4110 shows, the planet has not warmed -- but I don't claim that's enough data for a trend.)

Wrong!! That data only extends out to 2004. 2005 was the warmest year on record, with 2007 in secod place. Check this more recent one out:

Average Global Temperature by Decade, 1880-2007

Again, please don't post falsehoods. It smacks of dishonesty when you do that.

Kevin, I'm not sure what you were trying to show with that link; the charts in there show that my assertion that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998 was correct. Look at the temperatures for the individual years. Do you see warming since 1998? I don't:

1998 14.72
1999 14.46
2000 14.42
2001 14.57
2002 14.69
2003 14.67
2004 14.60
2005 14.76
2006 14.66
2007 14.73

7 of the 9 years are below 1998, and the remaining 2 are at 1998's level.

The second thing to note is that you've misunderstood the temperature by decade chart:

1880-1889 13.81
1890-1899 13.69
1900-1909 13.74
1910-1919 13.79
1920-1929 13.90
1930-1939 14.02
1940-1949 14.06
1950-1959 13.99
1960-1969 13.96
1970-1979 14.02
1980-1989 14.26
1990-1999 14.40
2000-2007* 14.64

The temperature trended up from 1992-1998. Then it essentially plateaued at a lower level than 1998. The reason 2000-2007 has a higher average temperature than 1990-1999 is that 1990-1999 was trending upwards and so there were a lot of single data points that were lower than the plateau that 2000-2007 settled on. But the upward trend stopped.

7 of the 9 years are below 1998, and the remaining 2 are at 1998's level.

But two of the years, two of the 3 most recent years, are above 1998, which was a record up to that point. So yes, the upward trend is continuing. 1998 represents an unusually warm spike in a trend that was already going north. The intervening years, the temp approached but did not match that spike, unitl 2005. Now the 1998 spike has been buried again (twice!) by a new high.

You have to learn how to analyze trend data, Ray.

The temperature trended up from 1992-1998. Then it essentially plateaued at a lower level than 1998.

??? How could you possibly interpret the data that way????? The difference between 1990-1999 and 2000-2007 is greater than the difference between 1980-1989 and 1990-1999!! And that despite the fact that this decade is not yet complete (which, if current trends continue, will widen the difference even more) and the 1990-1998 includes the 1998 spike year.

Again, Ray, it's no wonder you are confused about global warming. You can't even read a graph or a column of numbers correctly without badly misinterpreting them.

But two of the years, two of the 3 most recent years, are above 1998

No. They're at 1998's level. They're not "above" anything. Differences of .01 and .03 are not meaningful on that chart. Please with this.

So yes, the upward trend is continuing. 1998 represents an unusually warm spike in a trend that was already going north. The intervening years, the temp approached but did not match that spike, unitl 2005. Now the 1998 spike has been buried again (twice!) by a new high.

No. Again, differences of .01 and .03 are not significant on that chart, much less do they "bury" anything.

Not even if you use exclamation points.

??? How could you possibly interpret the data that way????? The difference between 1990-1999 and 2000-2007 is greater than the difference between 1980-1989 and 1990-1999!! And that despite the fact that this decade is not yet complete (which, if current trends continue, will widen the difference even more) and the 1990-1998 includes the 1998 spike year.

Um, you don't get to pretend that the missing data supports your assertion.

Again, Ray, it's no wonder you are confused about global warming. You can't even read a graph or a column of numbers correctly without badly misinterpreting them.


That, or he is squinting at the data to read it in the best possible light for his preconceived agenda. I am generally conservative, but I understand that the data strongly suggests that global warming is an established trend and measures need to be taken* to offset it. This is one of the reasons I like McCain (and have since the start of the primary season).

* - These need to be worldwide measures (including China and India, etc.)

By the way, you gotta love the temperature projections to the year 2100 in that link you presented in #4136. The "lower bound" for their projection is for the warming trend over the last century to stay the same, rather than to either plateau or decrease. The "upper bound" projects temperatures into the stratosphere.

Uh-huh.

I am generally conservative, but I understand that the data strongly suggests that global warming is an established trend and measures need to be taken to offset it. This is one of the reasons I like McCain (and have since the start of the primary season).

Better retract that, before Joey calls you a RINO and questions your patriotism.

Given the trend throughout the last 100 years of industrialization and burning of fossil fuels, and the very large population segments currently joining that trend, isn't a plateau or a decrease wildly optimistic?

I don't see how that's entirely surprising, unless you dispute that the various emissions that are grouped under the heading 'greenhouse gasses' cause warming, or unless you believe that those emissions are about to sharply decrease. Why the surprise?

I am a total lay person here (and please don't anyone say So's Your Mom). But isn't it the case that many scientists predicted that the Antarctic and Arctic (including Greenland) ice caps would start shrinking, and indeed melt faster and faster as less of the earth and sea were covered with water, a trend that would reinforce itself – and that such melting has been observed by various measures, including plain old satellite pictures? Or is this a vast conspiracy to delude me? I haven't been on any polar-orbiting satellites to see for myself.

Obviously, massive losses of polar ice can be explained by natural fluctuations rather than by greenhouse-gas-caused global warming. But that's rather like people predicting that Mark Prior would break down this season because his arm has been observed by many measures to be hanging by a thread, and then someone saying after he does break down that no, Prior's arm is really fine, it's just a random groin pull that could happen to anyone and it's even money he'll be back to striking out 200 batters again next season. It could be true, but when all the predictions keep being confirmed in one direction, doesn't that make you stop and think?

I realize that about 99.9% of scientists agree with me here, I'm just trying to reality-check :)

As for DMN on Paul - I don't see his platform as having actual "ideas," just a vague nostalgia for the 1920s - or even earlier. He says nothing positive, all he wants to do is turn back the clock.

I'm not a big fan of Paul personally or his brand of libertarianism (paleo), but to the extent "turn back the clock" is a meaningful metaphor, he wants to "turn back the clock" on government, not society.

Firstly, Paul isn't the Republican nominee, nor did he even come close. He is not the libertarian Barry Goldwater (at least yet). He got his name out there in the primaries, he created a lot of buzz, he lost, he now needs to suck it up and wait for next time. In the meantime he is free to keep professing his beliefs and saying "$0", but hijacking the convention is not part of that. Causing trouble for the Republicans simply creates ill will against him and his followers.

Ill will among whom? Unless it turns into a riot -- and since Republicans aren't Democrats, it ain't gonna happen -- the general public couldn't care less about a platform fight at a political convention.

Secondly, I don't agree that people aren't exposed to libertarian ideas. Not only do Republicans often talk a libertarian game,

I wish. But not since Reagan claimed that government isn't the solution, government is the problem has the GOP sounded at all libertarian. Simply campaigning for lower taxes, or talking about smaller government -- something Republicans rarely do anymore anyway -- is not sufficient to be libertarian. Libertarians don't want a more efficient government health care policy, or one which concentrates more on private sector solutions; we want no government health care policy.

but in fact the libertarian take on most problems is, essentially, "this isn't a problem," "this will sort itself out" or "the cure is worse than the disease," and the libertarian solution is that the government should do nothing about it. People are very familiar with the idea of doing nothing, this is not an idea in need of additional exposure.

People are very familiar with doing nothing. People are not very familiar with the idea of doing nothing. Republicans may not do something in a given situation, but when they don't do it, they either obfuscate or apologize for it.

The responses you give help illustrate that point. The libertarian take on most problems is not any of the things you cite; rather, the libertarian take is usually, "None of your business."

To take your example, the reason that all three major party candidates think the government should step in over PEDs in sport is because the government stepping in is a vote-winner. People want the government to step in. It's not that they haven't considered the idea of the government doing nothing, or think it's crazy. They think it's unsatisfactory. They want Something To Be Done. In short, your problem is the critical mass of Helen Lovejoys in America.

The reason that it's a vote-winner is because there is no candidate out there standing athwart history yelling "Stop!"

Many Americans do want the government to take care of them and to outlaw everything they don't like; I don't dispute that. But there is nobody out there in the two main political parties making the case against that, so the only choice that the non-Lovejoys out there are confronted with in the media and in government is which things they want subsidized/banned.

1) lying about the data doesn't help one's credibility,

And if there's anybody who knows anything about lies costing him his credibility, it's Kevin.

Scoring didn't increase in the late 90s, it just plateaued at 1987 levels.

Scoring didn't increase in the late 90s, it just plateaued at 1987 levels.

You know, I think Steve Treder sort of actually made this argument on a thread here not so very long ago.

Libertarians don't want a more efficient government health care policy, or one which concentrates more on private sector solutions; we want no government health care policy.

That's one thing I always appreciated about the libertarian think tanks when I worked in health policy. While the conservative think tanks claimed tax shelters like HSAs would help the poor and uninsured, the libertarians just said it was unjust for the government to take their money.

Critics of the "global-warming consensus" (as opposed to legit climate science) point to several things:

1) in the industrial era, there have been several sharp cooling periods. In fact, global temperature, however defined, goes up and down and can do so sharply. If increased atmospheric CO2 is entirely responsible for the warming observed in the last 20-30 years, how did global temperature cool in the industrial cooling periods when CO2 was already above natural levels and increasing?

2) there have been some serious warm periods outside the industrial era. Likewise with cool periods. How did these warm periods, the equal of the current one, occur without man-made CO2 emissons? What is the evidence that this warming trend isn't a natural one?

3) moving goal-posts (or endpoints, or start points, etc.). The IPCC will make a prediction and then, several years later, when that prediction didn't come true, will subsume the intervening years in their next model and make another prediction.*

4) The arctic/antarctic ice close to the oceans is melting, true. But the interior temperatures of the antarctic are decreasing and ice is building. Many glaciers are melting; others are growing. Either side can point at examples and say, "ah-ha" but only those that support "warming" have gotten traction in the MSM.*

* These are really examples of politics and represent what is wrong with the entire debate. It isn't either/or. Is there a widespread conspiracy to push a "warming" agenda? Yes, but it doesn't include everyone (or even most) of those who are concerned. Is there an industrial agenda set in opposition? Yes, but, again, it doesn't include everyone who is skeptical.

There is a lot the climatologists and modelers can't explain/don't know. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, of course, but it makes claims of "every scientist has reached a conclusion" off-putting. If, for no other reason, that science never reaches a final conclusion.

In the short-term, the way I see it is this: if this is a natural cycle, tied in (most likely) with the solar cycle, the skeptics will have good evidence on their side in a few years. If, at that point, the scientists who are predicting doom are still at it, they will clearly not be making a good faith effort. The last few years worth of data have not been what the doom-sayers have predicted (and, note, not many of the loud ones are scientists - it's spokesmen who have assumed a mantle of knowledge they don't really possess - the true scientists readily admit there is a lot of error and uncertainty) but I wouldn't, yet, say it is enough to conclude the warming-warners are totally wrong.

I really, really, really, really hope Ray and Joey are right about global warming.

You know, I think Steve Treder sort of actually made this argument on a thread here not so very long ago.

Yeah, and I was actually against Steve in that debate :-)

Re-thinking it, and in fairness to Kevin, I can see his argument: if we ignore 1998 completely, or consider it just a spike from an already high level, then we do see that the temperature has been trending up from 1990s levels even during 2000-2007. (Edited for clarity.)

So to that extent, I'll concede that Kevin has a point.

But to the extent that Kevin claims that 14.73 or 14.76 "bury" 14.72? No. All of those data points are essentially the same.

That's one thing I always appreciated about the libertarian think tanks when I worked in health policy. While the conservative think tanks claimed tax shelters like HSAs would help the poor and uninsured, the libertarians just said it was unjust for the government to take their money.

I do want to clarify slightly my response to Alou. I wrote, "Libertarians don't want a more efficient government health care policy, or one which concentrates more on private sector solutions; we want no government health care policy." In fact, libertarians generally (**) do prefer more efficient, more market-based approaches to less efficient, less market-based ones; when given the choice, we'll certainly take HSAs (*) over government takeover of the health care sector. I'm talking about libertarianism as a philosophy, which is not primarily about efficiency, but about liberty.

(*) HSAs, of course, do reduce taxes, so to that extent they're libertarianish. But they only reduce taxes to the extent that one spends one's money the way the government wants one to, so the extent of their libertarianish qualities is limited.

EDIT: (**) There are libertarian fundamentalists who don't, for one reason or another. For instance, Ron Paul opposes/d NAFTA. Why? Because it's not free trade. I don't disagree with his critique -- but it was free-er trade, and the only choice on the table. Opposing it for the sake of purity meant less free trade.

I wish. But not since Reagan claimed that government isn't the solution, government is the problem has the GOP sounded at all libertarian. Simply campaigning for lower taxes, or talking about smaller government -- something Republicans rarely do anymore anyway -- is not sufficient to be libertarian. Libertarians don't want a more efficient government health care policy, or one which concentrates more on private sector solutions; we want no government health care policy.

Which is essentially why "true" libertarians continue to occupy such a slim slice of the electorate.

Which is essentially why "true" libertarians continue to occupy such a slim slice of the electorate.

I think this is exactly right. Libertarians, or those with strong lib sympathies, were common in both parties for a long time. They lasted longer in the Republican party but the big gov Republicans, through Bush I, pretty much demolished the gains Reagan made in this area. And those gains were small enough. The bureaucracy has a lot of power to stall reform and hold their territory so they were (and are) able to withstand 8 years pretty easily. And, at this point, the US is not made up of citizens with strong libertarian tendencies. I think this is bad for the country, but regardless, it is what it is.

In fact, libertarians generally (**) do prefer more efficient, more market-based approaches to less efficient, less market-based ones; when given the choice, we'll certainly take HSAs (*) over government takeover of the health care sector.

While I'm well aware of the quibbles with the math (and that the quibbles come from groups with a vested interest in the issue) -- how do you sqaure this with the fact that Medicare administrative costs are FAR lower than private insurance administrative costs?

The quibbles are about the degree to which Medicare is more efficient than private insurance -- but I know of no credible source that actually claims that private insurance is more efficient than Medicare.

While I'm well aware of the quibbles with the math (and that the quibbles come from groups with a vested interest in the issue) -- how do you sqaure this with the fact that Medicare administrative costs are FAR lower than private insurance administrative costs?

They care much more about whether it's "market-based" than if it's efficient. They only like the efficiency of government programs because it costs them less in taxes, but private programs cost them nothing (theoretically).

I really, really, really, really hope Ray and Joey are right about global warming.

And I really, really, really, really, really hope so, too. Of course since I won't be around to enjoy too many balmy Washington Januarys, what the hell.

I think this is exactly right. Libertarians, or those with strong lib sympathies, were common in both parties for a long time.

I think that there are still plenty of people in both parties with varying degrees of libertarian sentiments, but in the case of the Democrats, those sentiments come a cropper when libertarians persist in their state of denial about the damage that unchecked corporate activity can wreak on society---either by the fantasy that it's all self-correcting, or the defiant attitude of "maybe, but since you don't own the corporation, what it does is none of your business." We see both of these attitudes here on a regular basis, usually masquerading as some sort of contrarian insight that the dimwitted majority can't understand.

A perfect example would be the 1964 Civil Rights Act, where libertarians consider the rights of property owners trump any other societal or individual considerations. It's this sort of callous contempt for the real world consequences of their ideology that usually leaves them on the margins of any serious discussions.

In my little fantasy world - the government exists to protect the weak from the strong. As my wife puts it - "you should pay for other peoples' kids to be educated so that they don't break in to your house and steal your TV"

Libertarianism seems extraordinarily fair - we have a common currency, the dollar - if we want something, we pay. If there is demand, there will be supply. Everyone makes their own bed, and lies in it.

The problem is, this philosophy discounts the fact that we are not all born 21 year-old college graduates. And what happens in the first 21 years (give or take) has a big bunch to do with what our parents did and didn't do.

In summary, Libertarians are mean.

They're not "above" anything. Differences of .01 and .03 are not meaningful on that chart. Please with this.

Again, WTF????

Why are you cherrypicking the data?????? Why is the 0.03 difference between 1998 and 2007 not meaningful but the 0.03 between 1998 and 2002 meaningful? Explain that to me please. Why is the difference of 0.31 between 1997 and 1998 not indicative of an upward trend but the lesser difference of 0.26 a stabilizing trend? And why are you discarding all the data in between 1998 and 2005, when the trend creeped towards, then exceeded, the previous high? That is just mindboggling simpleminded, Ray.

And Christ, can't you recognize an outlier when it kicks you in the shins? Every year from 2001 on ((that's 7 times in a row, mind you)) the average global temp. is higher than every year in the 1990's save one-1998. And since 1998 has subsequently been exceeded twice, without the spike required of what happened in 1998 to establish a new high, then the trend is clear, at least to anyone who isn't being willfully blind, or just doesn't have a clue on how to interpret statistics.

Um, you don't get to pretend that the missing data supports your assertion.

Even more so, you don't get to pretend that the available data supports yours!!!

Look at the ####### graph, man. There's no ####### way anybody could not interpret that graph as anything but an upward trend. Even the one datapoint you cherrypicked from 10 years ago has been exceeded twice. And we still have 2 more years to go. Criminy, how can you be so statistically challenged? This is pretty mickey mouse #### we're discussing here.

Ray, let me make it easy for you. I'll rearrange the list, this time listing the top 10 average global temps since 1880 (that's 128 years) in descending order, starting with the warmest:

2005 14.76
2007 14.73
1998 14.72
2002 14.69
2003 14.67
2006 14.66
2004 14.60
2001 14.57
1990 14.48
1999 14.46
1995 14.46

Yes, Ray. That's right. Of the top 8 alltime, 7 of them have occurred this decade. The other one missed this decade by 2 years.

You're being willfully obtuse, you know.

Re-thinking it, and in fairness to Kevin, I can see his argument: if we ignore 1998 completely, or consider it just a spike from an already high level, then we do see that the temperature has been trending up from 1990s levels even during 2000-2007. (Edited for clarity.)

Even if you include the spike, it doesn't change the trend, Ray.

However, since you are now admittng you're wrong, I'll let you exit this argument gracefully without further ado.

I really, really, really, really hope Ray and Joey are right about global warming.

Me too. I really, really, really hope that my car starts emitting jelly beans out of it's tailpipe and my boss doubles my salary and tells me I can take an extra day a week off.

Me too. I really, really, really hope that my car starts emitting jelly beans out of it's tailpipe and my boss doubles my salary and tells me I can take an extra day a week off.

You work for the government now, right, kevin? If so, the second one may well happen. Good luck. :)

In my little fantasy world - the government exists to protect the weak from the strong.

The problem is that the government is the strong.

On a citizens level, "the strong" (to the extent that means "the rich") aren't beating up on "the weak"; on the contrary, "the strong" provide opportunity to "the weak" (along with part of their income after government re-distributes it).

In any event, in my little fantasy world, government exists to provide the basic structure of society (a court system, a treasury, defense, etc.) and then get the hell out of the way so that individuals have the opportunity to grow and prosper.

As my wife puts it - "you should pay for other peoples' kids to be educated so that they don't break in to your house and steal your TV"

Or, other people should pay for their own kids to be educated, and if those kids break into my house to try to steal my tv, I can call the cops.

Done, and done.

But, of course, it's more than "paying" for education. Money alone doesn't solve education problems.

Even if you include the spike, it doesn't change the trend, Ray.

However, since you are now admittng you're wrong, I'll let you exit this argument gracefully without further ado.

Thanks for being so concerned :-)

I'll try to roll up my sleeves later and respond to your #4161, since I don't agree with all of it.

In any event, since I've always agreed that the planet has warmed over the last century, the slice of time from 1998-2008 has little to do with my overall point.

In my little fantasy world - the government exists to protect the weak from the strong.

In any event, in my little fantasy world, government exists to provide the basic structure of society (a court system, a treasury, defense, etc.)

In MY little fantasy world, the Reds don't suck every year. BOTH of you are closer to reality than I am.

Or are we allowed to mention baseball on this thread?

The problem is that the government is the strong.

Because it is in the thrall of the rich and the corporations. Because it's not 1 person 1 vote, it's $10/vote.

"the strong" provide opportunity to "the weak" (along with part of their income after government re-distributes it).

One man's "provided opportunity" is another's exploitation.

This argument might hold water if people didn't inherit their wealth. How did Mr. Opportunity Provider, CEO get his start? I'm sure it was all clean living, elbow grease and good ol' american know-how (received at the School of Hard Knocks)

and then get the hell out of the way so that individuals have the opportunity to grow and prosper.

Yay Feudalism!

Or, other people should pay for their own kids to be educated, and if those kids break into my house to try to steal my tv, I can call the cops.

Believe it or not, I thought of this. You could also put up a 30' concrete wall with barbed wire and search lights. You could also booby trap your TV, or just plain shoot the ###### when he comes in.

You tell me which is the nicer way to play with your neighbors.

But, of course, it's more than "paying" for education. Money alone doesn't solve education problems.

Good point. Ergo, education is a pointless waste of time.

This argument might hold water if people didn't inherit their wealth. How did Mr. Opportunity Provider, CEO get his start? I'm sure it was all clean living, elbow grease and good ol' american know-how (received at the School of Hard Knocks)

A portion of rich people do inherit their wealth. But (1) only a portion, and (2) so what? One of the incentives people have to do well is so that they can provide for and leave money to their children. I don't see where the problem is, exactly.

I don't see where the problem is, exactly.

Exactly.

I don't see where the problem is, exactly.

Well, on a personal level, I can see where the problem is, I just don't feel anyone has any right to address that issue. Hatemongers all over the political spectrum are a problem, too, but again, hateful speech isn't a problem that we have any right to "fix."

People mistakingly assume that libertarians don't see problems. But we do, but in general, we don't think it's the role of others to be coerced at gunpoint into fixing my personal problems or me being coerced at gunpoint into fixing the problems of others.

I volunteer a lot of time and money to help those less fortunate and think everyone should do their best to help others, but I won't coerce anyone.

If government could only do good, libertarians would probably feel a lot different about government, but that's not the world. Every bad thing our government does, whether executed by a Republican or Democrat, derives from a power we granted government to do for good.

While I'm well aware of the quibbles with the math (and that the quibbles come from groups with a vested interest in the issue) -- how do you sqaure this with the fact that Medicare administrative costs are FAR lower than private insurance administrative costs?

The quibbles are about the degree to which Medicare is more efficient than private insurance -- but I know of no credible source that actually claims that private insurance is more efficient than Medicare.

Ah, Paul Krugman's favorite claim. Well, let's unpack that. When you say "more efficient," you mean something like "higher ratio of payout to overhead costs." But there are two problems with that: the mis-classification of overhead costs for Medicare, and the choice of metric itself.

As to the choice of metric: I can cause Medicare to score even higher on that metric: add an extra zero onto the checks Medicare sends out to health care providers. All of the sudden overhead as a percentage of payout drops even further. Would that mean Medicare would be even more "efficient" than it is now? Well, by some definition -- but not a meaningful one. (It would be like sacrifice bunting every time a leadoff runner gets on first, and then claiming to have a more efficient offense because the ratio of runs/runners is higher.) Medicare covers much sicker people (because older) than private plans, so it pays out a higher figure per beneficiary, but the overhead per beneficiary doesn't go up a comparable amount. This makes its overhead lower as a percentage of expenditures -- but that's not meaningful. (A more relevant metric, one never cited by Medicare defenders, would be overhead per beneficiary.)

Relatedly, one could improve the efficiency ratio of any private insurer simply by paying out every claim that's made by an insured, without checking whether the treatment is needed, or justified, or even non-fraulent. This would have the dual effect of (a) increasing the payment/overhead ratio, and (b) decreasing overhead, since you could fire all sorts of staff. But again, that would increase "efficiency" without actually providing a meaningful benefit.

As to the computation of the metric: the "administrative" costs being used for Medicare are only those that the federal budget explicitly allocates to Medicare. Other costs -- e.g., fraud investigations, rent -- buried in other line items, are not being properly attributed to Medicare when they should be.

And finally, there's taxes. Medicare doesn't have to pay any, while private insurers do. (Other than the not-for-profit ones, but those still have to do all the compliance work.) But that doesn't mean Medicare is more efficient just because the government imposes costs on its competitors.

When all of the above issues are factored in, the numbers come out pretty similarly for Medicare and private insurers. Of course, private insurers provide choice, and Medicare doesn't.

I think this is exactly right. Libertarians, or those with strong lib sympathies, were common in both parties for a long time.

I think that there are still plenty of people in both parties with varying degrees of libertarian sentiments, but in the case of the Democrats, those sentiments come a cropper when libertarians persist in their state of denial about the damage that unchecked corporate activity can wreak on society---either by the fantasy that it's all self-correcting, or the defiant attitude of "maybe, but since you don't own the corporation, what it does is none of your business." We see both of these attitudes here on a regular basis, usually masquerading as some sort of contrarian insight that the dimwitted majority can't understand.

A perfect example would be the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

Really? What on earth does the CRA have to do with "unchecked corporate activity"? The CRA is not about Phillip Morris or ExxonMobil or any of your usual bogeymen.

where libertarians consider the rights of property owners trump any other societal or individual considerations.

Yes, exactly. Rights trump non-rights.

It's this sort of callous contempt for the real world consequences of their ideology that usually leaves them on the margins of any serious discussions.

In short, Democrats are libertarian as long as they approve of how people are acting. That's not "libertarian" by any stretch, Andy. Supporting actions you like is merely common sense. Supporting the right of people to behave in ways you vehemently disapprove of is libertarian.

I think that there are still plenty of people in both parties with varying degrees of libertarian sentiments, but in the case of the Democrats, those sentiments come a cropper when libertarians persist in their state of denial about the damage that unchecked corporate activity can wreak on society---either by the fantasy that it's all self-correcting, or the defiant attitude of "maybe, but since you don't own the corporation, what it does is none of your business." We see both of these attitudes here on a regular basis, usually masquerading as some sort of contrarian insight that the dimwitted majority can't understand.

What on earth does the CRA have to do with "unchecked corporate activity"? The CRA is not about Phillip Morris or ExxonMobil or any of your usual bogeymen.

I agree that although there were many national chains whose southern locations were segregated (Howard Johnson's, Holiday Inn, etc.), the fact that they were corporations was essentially irrelevant in the case of the public accommodations law.

(Translation: Don't post when you have one foot out the door with no time allowed for proofreading.)

The more generic point, however, is that libertarians were oblivious to the human damage caused by Jim Crow, choosing instead to emphasize the rights of the owners of Jim Crow establishments. The fact that Lester Maddox was operating solely on his own is of little importance in this context.

where libertarians consider the rights of property owners trump any other societal or individual considerations.

Yes, exactly. Rights trump non-rights.

A point which rests entirely on the vagaries of time and place. The "non-rights" you refer to, of course, have been "rights" for nearly 44 years. The fact that they were "non-rights" prior to 1964 proves little beyond a pre-existing mix of prejudice, force and demographic numbers.

In short, Democrats are libertarian as long as they approve of how people are acting. That's not "libertarian" by any stretch, Andy. Supporting actions you like is merely common sense. Supporting the right of people to behave in ways you vehemently disapprove of is libertarian.

And if I were claiming to be a libertarian, that point would have some relevance. But all I've said is that in some cases (smoking bans, helmet laws, many eminent domain cases, etc.) I side with libertarians, and for many of the same general philosophical reasons. You might even consider the idea of not looking an occasional gift ally in the mouth, however occasional he or she may be.

EDIT: And of course you DO acknowledge, don't you, that your point about "Democrats" applies with equal force to Republicans?

Yes, exactly. Rights trump non-rights.

Except, of course, that your "rights" are no less made up than any other "rights".

Once you decide what interests constitute "rights", all the arguments naturally flow from there. But, unless you claim a direct pipeline to the Creator, property rights are no different than any other rights -- they exist ONLY to the extent they are created and recognized by society as a whole, as a part of a "social contract".

The overwhelming weight of history, and of human conduct, simply does not support the notion of any "natural rights".

Libertarianism as practiced by people who claim to be "Libertarians" is, and always has been, a philosophical gloss to justify greed and selfishness.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

so when is this thread gonna get renamed - "The Lounge Without Talking About Hot Chicks, Movie Lines or Kids"

I loved that scene in Margot at the Wedding where the little boy asks Nicole Kidman "Are you stoned, Mom?" and she says "Just a little."

Nice try. Is the suggestion that Nicole Kidman is a hot chick?

Just when you think Bush couldn't do anymore favors to the Democrats, he has to go and tell the world that his personal sacrifice in the war on terror was giving up golf.

Of course, we were also told in 2003 that his big sacrifice was candy. Stephen Mansfield, in his book The Faith of George W. Bush, told us Bush "refused to eat sweets while American troops were in Iraq."
The Faith of George W. Bush

Or not: about the same time Mansfield's book was published, a story about his trip to Australia and Indonesia told us he was "chomping noisily on butterscotch candy and pretending to play a shell game with the array of tape recorders before him."

Which means we should get some pictures of G.W. playing a speed round with his father any day now.

Libertarianism as practiced by people who claim to be "Libertarians" is, and always has been, a philosophical gloss to justify greed and selfishness.

Progressivism, as practiced by people who claim to be "Progressives" is, and always has been, a philosophical gloss to justify tyranny and oppression.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Fun game.

Once you decide what interests constitute "rights", all the arguments naturally flow from there. But, unless you claim a direct pipeline to the Creator, property rights are no different than any other rights -- they exist ONLY to the extent they are created and recognized by society as a whole, as a part of a "social contract".

Actually, I do claim a direct pipeline to the Creator -- and property rights, like other rights, derive from the principle of self-ownership.

Nice try. Is the suggestion that Nicole Kidman is a hot chick?

I've seen her in person coming out of London Terrace a few times in Chelsea. Trust me, she is. Well, was. There may have been some plastic surgery since then.


Actually, I do claim a direct pipeline to the Creator

Even if you talk to the Architect, it still doesn't make you anything other than a regular Doozer.


As a shock to no one, I side with Srul in 4176. Out of curiosity, I just ran across this:

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

When Ayn Rand of all people finds you beneath her, you've got definite problems.

I'm not sure what your point is, Lassus. Rand was famously annoyed with libertarians for not having the right reasons for their views; she had her whole philosophical infrastructure (Objectivism) and people who rejected it were just people who had the right policy proposals, not people who had the right ideas. The Objectivist/libertarian split isn't exactly significant anymore, now that Rand is gone, although I'm sure she has a few acolytes left. Oodles of libertarians came to libertarianism through Rand, but are not Objectivists.

When Ayn Rand of all people finds you beneath her, you've got definite problems.

I'm not sure what your point is, Lassus. Rand was famously annoyed with libertarians for not having the right reasons for their views; she had her whole philosophical infrastructure (Objectivism) and people who rejected it were just people who had the right policy proposals, not people who had the right ideas. The Objectivist/libertarian split isn't exactly significant anymore, now that Rand is gone, although I'm sure she has a few acolytes left. Oodles of libertarians came to libertarianism through Rand, but are not Objectivists.

Echoes of the great food fights in the CCNY cafeteria among the Stalinists, Trotskyites, Lovestoneites, Shachtmanites, and all the other assorted Factionites who knew that they, and only they, were possessers of The Truth.

Good early morning news out of Mississippi. That congressional seat that the Republicans have held for the past 35 years just went to the Democrats by 54% to 46%, in spite of all the desperate GOP ads trying to link the Democrat to Rev. Wright via Obama.

Oodles of libertarians came to libertarianism through Rand

It's definitely a great system for a fictional world.

Davis ran this ad, tying Childers to Obama. If these strategies don't work in the Mississippi first, are they really going to work anywhere?

As I've said regularly in these threads, ultimately it is structural factors and not the personal qualities of the candidate that win elections. People hate the war, the economy, and the Republican party. That will determine their vote, not Obama's scary pastor or his secret faith in Allah.

Davis ran this ad, tying Childers to Obama. If these strategies don't work in the Mississippi first, are they really going to work anywhere?


I don't think they'll work all that well, but I think they'll work a little better somewhere - pinning Obama on a conservative Democrat who has never even talked to, let alone met Obama, is pretty silly on its face.

I heard an idiot at the gym trying to convince someone to be a libertarian yesterday. Here are some excerpts:

"It's just all about loving freedom, man."

"I mean, I'm really big on, like, civil rights and sh!t."

"Guantanamo Bay totally sucks. That's why there needs to be more freedom."

This conversation followed immediately on the heels of a gym employee and another member arguing about McCain and Obama. The McCain supporter repeatedly claimed that he his a "warrior and tells the truth" without responding to any criticism, mentioning any policy stances, or acknowledging any aspects of his character. The Obama supporter shouted (!!) that McCain is "more of the same," that we need to "do our duty to our country by voting for change," and that "anything is better than this clown. (Bush)" If I wanted inane and insight-less political cliche-ary, I could get it 72 hours a day on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC.

I demand a higher level of discourse from my gymrats.

Except, of course, that your "rights" are no less made up than any other "rights".

Actually, I do claim a direct pipeline to the Creator -- and property rights, like other rights, derive from the principle of self-ownership.

Yeah, but it seems dumb that "self-ownership" would prioritize owning hot dog bun warmers over the right to have a mind nurtured in critical thinking and how to participate in a democratic society.

Yeah, but it seems dumb that "self-ownership" would prioritize owning hot dog bun warmers over the right to have a mind nurtured in critical thinking and how to participate in a democratic society.

Yes, because not wanting to steal from others is the same as not having a mind nurtured in critical thinking.

But being in favor of what essentially entails modern feudalism? Critical thought baby!

FWIW, there is a pretty substative difference between positive and negative rights. While I agree with your supposition that receiving an education is more important than owning a bun warmer, I'm sure you recognize how much easier it is for a governing body to allow someone to own a bun warmer than to grant someone a good education.

not wanting to steal from others is the same

And to a libertarian, requiring a restaurant owner to serve the public without regard to race is the equivalent of "stealing" his property.

It's just this sort of One Size Fits All aspect of the libertarian ideology that prevents it from being taken seriously as a political force by many people this side of Idaho.

OTOH I suppose that the rest of us should be grateful that most libertarians are so totally clueless about how they come across to everyone outside their own little closed world when they talk like that. They're like teenaged girls who exist on an all-chocolate diet and wonder why they keep breaking out in zits.

EDIT: Aw, I see Dan edited out his slavery line. Well, I guess we agree - EX's support of early childhood education does not make him objectively pro-slavery. Good.

EDIT: Aw, I see Dan edited out his slavery line. Well, I guess we agree - EX's support of early childhood education does not make him objectively pro-slavery. Good.

It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but last thing we need is another racist fight.

And to a libertarian, requiring a restaurant owner to serve the public without regard to race is the equivalent of "stealing" his property.

It's just this sort of One Size Fits All aspect of the libertarian ideology that prevents it from being taken seriously as a political force by many people this side of Idaho.

Yup, that general public is a bunch of deep thinkers. So, I take it you now agree that people are right to be less likely to vote Obama because of his connection with Wright? After all, that's what a majority said in the Rasmussen polls. So bow down to the wisdom of the populace.

but last thing we need is another racist fight.

We haven't had one in a few hundred posts; I guess we're due!

This argument might hold water if people didn't inherit their wealth. How did Mr. Opportunity Provider, CEO get his start? I'm sure it was all clean living, elbow grease and good ol' american know-how (received at the School of Hard Knocks)

In my life, both personal and professional, I've dealt with a number of very successful people. The vast majority of them did not inherit great wealth. Rather, they tend to work very, very hard. Most people in the top echelons of large corporations are workaholics who put in a tremendous amount of hours and are "on call" virtually 24/7. There are of course exceptions... some are crony/AA hires and are unqualified. Some are at the end of their careers and are essentially retired in place. And some are just plain lazy/inept. But as a general rule, most very successful people I've known, either in my career or my personal life, whether they work for a large corporation or own their own business, worked their ass off. Including the CEOs who come from upper middle class families and attend Ivy league schools.

Yup, that general public is a bunch of deep thinkers. So, I take it you now agree that people are right to be less likely to vote Obama because of his connection with Wright? After all, that's what a majority said in the Rasmussen polls. So bow down to the wisdom of the populace.

Britney Spears's first two albums outsold the entire classical music industry the years they were released. Last year, more people watched Two and a Half Men than stepped into a museum.

I think it is safe to say that we can consider art for the last 400 years to be rejected by the wise American public. Bow down to Britney Spears and Charlie Sheen, your new Gods!

This argument might hold water if people didn't inherit their wealth. How did Mr. Opportunity Provider, CEO get his start? I'm sure it was all clean living, elbow grease and good ol' american know-how (received at the School of Hard Knocks)

My dad recently became the CEO of a company at which he started as a purchaser 20+ years ago. He grew up poor, enlisted in the Air Force in 1973, and went to college at Minnesota State- Moorhead on the GI Bill. He doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, and his main hobby is competitive cycling. He's extremely hard working, which makes me admire how much he has achieved. He reached this status after I was already out of college, so I might not be a full-on silver spooner, but I've got my fingers crossed that largesse can trickle down.