Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

[John Williams]

> Not even if they asked and you told them?

How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
And how to know how much of the "happiness" is due to
the government and how much is the result of other
causes?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[John Williams]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that unemployment hit 25% during his
> first year in office and declined (for the most part) thereafter.

I'll rephrase. After 6 years of FDR, unemployment was still 19%.
Unemployment only went down to normal levels after the US entered
World War 2.  So if you include going to war as part of the New Deal,
then yes, the New Deal brought down unemployment.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:25 AM, John Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And sent unemployment to nearly 25%. Good intentions are no substitute
> for good
> > decisions. Roosevelt's policies were disastrous for the poor.
>
> Cite please.  I'm pretty sure that unemployment hit 25% during his
> first year in office and declined (for the most part) thereafter.
>


Wikipedia:

"Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he
took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course, long before the war had
any effect on employment.

"The U.S. economygrew
rapidly during Roosevelt's term.
[55] However,
coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied by
continuing high levels of
unemployment;
as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was 17.2%. Throughout his
entire term, including the war years, average unemployment was 13%."

John had it exactly right, except backwards.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Franklin Delano Bush

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I'll rephrase. After 6 years of FDR, unemployment was
> still 19%.
> Unemployment only went down to normal levels after the US
> entered
> World War 2.  So if you include going to war as part of the
> New Deal,
> then yes, the New Deal brought down unemployment.

So John, are you suggesting that the New Deal had little to do with bringing 
America out of the Great Depression, and crediting the war economy?  At the 
same time, are you blaming FDR for causing the Great Depression, instead of the 
preceding Republican administrations?


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Alberto Monteiro]

Nick Arnett wrote:
> 
> Wikipedia:
> 
> "Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% 
> when he took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course, long 
> before the war had any effect on employment.
> 
Of course, you know you can't trust Wikipedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionism

oops, wrong link. Try this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

Alberto Monteiro

PS: I was wrong about "Obama is a pedophile". It's "Obama is green".

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Alberto Monteiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> >
> Of course, you know you can't trust Wikipedia:


According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is completely trustworthy.  For more than
200 years, IIRC.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Franklin Delano Bush

[Jon Louis Mann]

> "Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's
> first term, from 25% when he
> took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course,
> long before the war had
> any effect on employment.

> "The U.S.
> economygrew
> rapidly during Roosevelt's term.
> However,
> coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied
> by continuing high levels of unemployment.
> as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was
> 17.2%. Throughout his
> entire term, including the war years, average unemployment
> was 13%."
> John had it exactly right, except backwards.
> Nick

he needs to be careful when using his favorite tactic, to cite a reference...
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

WikiPEDia

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Of course, you know you can't trust Wikipedia:

right, you have to be wary of trolls making shite up!~)
jon

> http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionism
> oops, wrong link. Try this:
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia 
> Alberto Monteiro


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: WikiPEDia

[Alberto Monteiro]

Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>
>> Of course, you know you can't trust Wikipedia:
> 
> right, you have to be wary of trolls making shite up!~)
> jon
> 
The difference is that, in this mailing list, trolls sign the
messages, so it's easy to spot them after 2 weeks. OTOH, Wikipedia
edits are harder to spot. I always suggest that you look at the
_history_ of any Wikipedia article. If the article is stable, then
it's probably reliable. If it has suffered many anonymous edits ("IPs"),
then go back to before the vandalism. And always do a "diff" of
two recent versions.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Franklin Delano Bush

[Dan M]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:44 AM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Franklin Delano Bush
> 
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:25 AM, John Williams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > And sent unemployment to nearly 25%. Good intentions are no substitute
> > for good
> > > decisions. Roosevelt's policies were disastrous for the poor.
> >
> > Cite please.  I'm pretty sure that unemployment hit 25% during his
> > first year in office and declined (for the most part) thereafter.
> >
> 
> 
> Wikipedia:
> 
> "Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when
> he
> took office to 14.3% in 1937."  This was, of course, long before the war
> had
> any effect on employment.
> 
> "The U.S.
> economygrew
> rapidly during Roosevelt's term.
> [55] 
 54>However,
> coming out of the depression, this growth was accompanied by
> continuing high levels of
> unemployment

;
> as the median joblessness rate during the New Deal was 17.2%. Throughout
> his
> entire term, including the war years, average unemployment was 13%."
> 
> John had it exactly right, except backwards.

I think that the drop in unemployment from 1933 to 1937 is not the subject
of much argument.  It's the reason for the following year's rise back up to
19% that sparks the arguments.  Those who think that FDR did more harm than
good cite problems with profits, new labor laws that made it easier to
strike, etc.  Keynesians would argue that the balancing of the Federal
budget in 1938 was the cause, since deficits were still needed.

What is undisputed is that, as WWII started, the US rate dropped down to
9.9% in 1941, and dropped down below 2% from 43-45...as we were firmly in
the war.  I'd argue that these data tends to favor Keynesian analysis, since
the war involved overwhelming government intervention in the economy,
massive federal deficits, etc.  Indeed, from a purely economic point of view
this is wasteful government spending at its worth, spending billions upon
billions on things that either blow themselves up or get blown up.  Yet, it
was the foundation of the US  being the economic powerhouse that it was
during the next 60 or so years.


Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

[Wayne Eddy]

From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing 
week!~)


>> Not even if they asked and you told them?
>
> How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
> I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
> in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
> know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
> And how to know how much of the "happiness" is due to
> the government and how much is the result of other
> causes?

Surely you would be happier in a juristiction with a constitution that 
forbade government involvement in those activitiess you believe to be much 
better run by the private sector?

Surely if you were aware that you were being poled on your happiness in 
order to assess whether the existing constitution was to be retained or 
replaced by one that encouraged wild government spending, you (and all right 
minded citizens) would score themselves 10 out of 10 for hapiness to avoid 
the change?

Regards,

Wayne.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Franklin Delano Bush

[Dave Land]

On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Dan M wrote:

> I think that the drop in unemployment from 1933 to 1937 is not the
> subject of much argument.  It's the reason for the following year's  
> rise
> back up to 19% that sparks the arguments.  Those who think that FDR  
> did
> more harm than good cite problems with profits, new labor laws that  
> made
> it easier to strike, etc.  Keynesians would argue that the balancing  
> of
> the Federal budget in 1938 was the cause, since deficits were still
> needed.
>
> What is undisputed is that, as WWII started, the US rate dropped  
> down to
> 9.9% in 1941, and dropped down below 2% from 43-45...as we were firmly
> in the war.  I'd argue that these data tends to favor Keynesian
> analysis, since the war involved overwhelming government  
> intervention in
> the economy, massive federal deficits, etc.  Indeed, from a purely
> economic point of view this is wasteful government spending at its
> worth, spending billions upon billions on things that either blow
> themselves up or get blown up.  Yet, it was the foundation of the US
> being the economic powerhouse that it was during the next 60 or so
> years.


I have long used this as an argument for more, rather than less  
government
spending. When the government spends money like it did during WWII, the
economy soars. And that's just buying things that you KNOW are only  
going
to be destroyed. Imagine if the government spent like that for things we
need that will last. We'd have had something like Japan's G-Cans project
to protect New Orleans (http://budurl.com/97zp) instead of a bunch of  
ill-
maintained levees.

Or we would have a high-speed cross-country rail network. Or homeland
defense that actually works. Or ... well, you get the idea. And perhaps
you think the idea is ludicrous. Fine with me. At least it's not the
same old old "gummint bad, money mine" tripe.

And we'd have a highly stimulated economy.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

WikiPEDia

[Jon Louis Mann]

> The difference is that, in this mailing list, trolls sign
> the messages, so it's easy to spot them after 2 weeks.
> Alberto Monteiro

but how do we know they are using their real name, alberto?
some of us have tried to track dopwn "john williams", and even offered him 
cash, but it seems he prefers to reamin anonymous...
not me:
jon mann
139 1/2 hart ave.
santa monica, ca
(310)664-3712




  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same topic all week!~)

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 02:26 PM Monday 11/3/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote:
>From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:18 AM
>Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing
>week!~)
>
>
> >> Not even if they asked and you told them?
> >
> > How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
> > I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
> > in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
> > know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
> > And how to know how much of the "happiness" is due to
> > the government and how much is the result of other
> > causes?
>
>Surely you would be happier in a juristiction with a constitution that
>forbade government involvement in those activitiess you believe to be much
>better run by the private sector?
>
>Surely if you were aware that you were being poled on your happiness in
>order to assess whether the existing constitution was to be retained or
>replaced by one that encouraged wild government spending, you (and all right
>minded citizens) would score themselves 10 out of 10 for hapiness to avoid
>the change?S



So what do you do if the present system is badly flawed but the only 
proposed alternative does not seem any better?

(e.g., the named in the previous subject line)


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: WikiPEDia

[William T Goodall]

On 3 Nov 2008, at 23:37, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

>> The difference is that, in this mailing list, trolls sign
>> the messages, so it's easy to spot them after 2 weeks.
>> Alberto Monteiro
>
> but how do we know they are using their real name, alberto?
> some of us have tried to track dopwn "john williams", and even  
> offered him cash, but it seems he prefers to reamin anonymous...
> not me:
> jon mann
> 139 1/2 hart ave.
> santa monica, ca
> (310)664-3712

I wouldn't be completely surprised if some of the current posters on  
the list were sock puppets or previous list members under a pseudonym  
but the joke is on them really since they still, at the end of the  
day, are judged on being able to make their case. And if they can't do  
that honestly then they fail.

lolz fail maru


-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

When nuns attack

[William T Goodall]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/04/rutino-nuns-aniello-esposito-italy

"Nuns beat me, says restaurateur
• Tom Kington in Rome
• The Guardian,
• Tuesday November 4 2008
• Article history
An Italian man has claimed he was beaten up by two 83-year-old nuns  
and a priest in a row over the ownership of a restaurant in a small  
southern town.

Aniello Esposito, 49, told police he arrived at the restaurant he runs  
in Rutino in Campania to find the three throwing furniture into the  
street and smashing plates.

When he tried to intervene the priest knocked him to the ground with a  
chair and the two nuns began to kick him, he claimed.

Esposito was taken to hospital in an ambulance after the incident a  
month ago, where doctors found neck and abdominal contusions,  
according to his hospital file.

The mother superior of the local convent of the Disciples of Saint  
Teresa, home to the nuns, yesterday said the nuns had started to  
remove furniture from the restaurant because the premises were owned  
by the convent and had been occupied illegally by Esposito.

But a lawyer representing the nuns, Gaetano Di Vietri, denied his  
clients had attacked Esposito.

"The nuns and the priest arrived to find a wall had been knocked down  
and seating installed. I don't know how this man was hurt, but the two  
nuns are both 83 and did not cause any injury."

Esposito said he had rented the premises in good faith. "But I was  
giving out receipts, which didn't suit the nuns, who wanted everything  
under the counter," he said."

God's protection racket Maru

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great  
evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. -  
Richard Dawkins



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

State of Discourse

[Doug Pensinger]

I'd like to make a few comments on the state of the discourse on the
list.  I'm not a conservative, far from it, but I wouldn't for a
second try to get someone to shut up and go away because they were
more conservative (or libertarian or whatever) than I was.  I wouldn't
call anyone names because they continued to argue with me and I
wouldn't conduct an inquisition if they wanted to keep parts of their
lives private.

I have no problem with telling other members that they were full of
sh** (in so many words) if that's what I thought about something they
posted as long as I substantiated my opinion, but I'd like to suggest
that we remain focused on attacking the argument rather than the
person that posted it.  If the list was even more politically
homogeneous than it is now it would be a pretty boring place.

So let's have hearty arguments, strong opinions, good research,
interesting insight and a diverse set of opinions, but lets lay off
the sarcasm, the name calling and the nagging.

IAAMOAC

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same topic all week!~)

[Doug Pensinger]

Ronn!  wrote:

> So what do you do if the present system is badly flawed but the only
> proposed alternative does not seem any better?
>
> (e.g., the named in the previous subject line)

If you're talking about heath care, maybe having tried the one system
and pretty much universally come to the conclusion that it sucks, I'd
say its time to try something else.  We pay 24% more per capita (2003)
 than anyone other country and not only isn't our care the best; we
don't even cover 1 of every 6 people in the country.  We pay much
higher administrative costs (and _not_ mostly for lawyers), more for
medicine (even though we take less) and when one of the 40 million
uninsured get sick they have to wait till they're so ill that they end
up in the emergency room where care is much more expensive.

The alternative might not seem any better, but for the money I'm
pretty sure it couldn't be much worse, and I think its high time we
try something else.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing week!~)

[Doug Pensinger]

John Williams

> How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
> I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
> in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
> know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
> And how to know how much of the "happiness" is due to
> the government and how much is the result of other
> causes?

Why would it have to be restricted to a numerical scale?  Couldn't you
be polled on a range of issues to determine where the government was
succeeding and where it wasn't?

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Obama and the 'Drug Killer'

[Doug Pensinger]

John Williams wrote:

> Drug development is an industry with high fixed costs. Once those fixed,
> or sunk, costs have been committed, the drugs are sold for the price that
> the market will bear. According to the expert who wrote the article, the
> more socialized markets settle on a lower price than the less socialized
> markets. If all markets were socialized, then all the prices would be lower.
> Then companies would not be able to justify committing the fixed costs
> on future development of some drugs, and some drugs would not be
> developed.

What if there were government incentives/grants to develop the pharms?
 It seems to me that the free market does a poor job in this regard;
emphasizing  stuff like boner pills because they're wildly profitable
and in recycling previously developed drugs with slight adjustments in
formulation or in combination with other drugs.  There is a huge
disincentive to develop something like a cure for the cold because
over the counter remedies are a hugely profitable industry.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Balancing the bad actors (was Re: Health Care (the same topic all week!~))

[Doug Pensinger]

John Williams wrote:


>> If less government regulation is better, why do are national health
>> systems prevalent in many parts of the world?
>
> Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world?

Why do women love shoes?

Doug
non sequiturs r us
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: WikiPEDia

[Dave Land]

On Nov 3, 2008, at 5:51 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

> On 3 Nov 2008, at 23:37, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>
>>> The difference is that, in this mailing list, trolls sign
>>> the messages, so it's easy to spot them after 2 weeks.
>>> Alberto Monteiro
>>
>> but how do we know they are using their real name, alberto?
>> some of us have tried to track dopwn "john williams", and even
>> offered him cash, but it seems he prefers to reamin anonymous...
>> not me:
>> jon mann
>> 139 1/2 hart ave.
>> santa monica, ca
>> (310)664-3712
>
> I wouldn't be completely surprised if some of the current posters on  
> the
> list were sock puppets or previous list members under a pseudonym but
> the joke is on them really since they still, at the end of the day,  
> are
> judged on being able to make their case. And if they can't do that
> honestly then they fail.


About this, we completely agree, even if I have been called out on my  
own
inability to construct a valid argument from time to time... I can call
myself Abraham Lincoln if I want to, but if I consistently write  
nonsense
on-list, people will -- and should -- rightly call me out on it.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

When Atheists Attack (another in our endless series of cut-n-paste screeds)

[Dave Land]

Man threatens two Christians, may lose an eye
(http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10464829)

COLORADO SPRINGS — A man who came to the home of two women whom he had  
threatened to decapitate with a knife received a blow to the head that  
could cost him an eye, according to Colorado Springs police.

Russell Bowman, who claims to be an atheist, threatened the women  
because they are Christian on Sept. 8. On Friday, he arrived at their  
apartment and stood in a hallway, according to a police report.

"Another resident of the apartment retrieved a shotgun and approached  
Bowman, who was by then walking away. The resident ordered Bowman to  
put the knife down," according to the report.

Bowman refused and approached the resident, who hit him with the butt  
of the shotgun, injuring his eye.

"Bowman was treated at Memorial Hospital where it was determined the  
injury to the eye was so severe, the eye would need to be surgically  
removed," the report said.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Obama and the 'Drug Killer'

[Andrew Crystall]

On 3 Nov 2008 at 21:48, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> John Williams wrote:
> 
> > Drug development is an industry with high fixed costs. Once those fixed,
> > or sunk, costs have been committed, the drugs are sold for the price that
> > the market will bear. According to the expert who wrote the article, the
> > more socialized markets settle on a lower price than the less socialized
> > markets. If all markets were socialized, then all the prices would be lower.
> > Then companies would not be able to justify committing the fixed costs
> > on future development of some drugs, and some drugs would not be
> > developed.
> 
> What if there were government incentives/grants to develop the pharms?
>  It seems to me that the free market does a poor job in this regard;
> emphasizing  stuff like boner pills because they're wildly profitable
> and in recycling previously developed drugs with slight adjustments in
> formulation or in combination with other drugs.  There is a huge
> disincentive to develop something like a cure for the cold because
> over the counter remedies are a hugely profitable industry.

Frankly, sounds like a reasonable use of cash. Offer money for drug 
development with the caveat that any compounds developed would be 
jointly owned by the drug company and the government, or if the drug 
company backed out from that drug, they'd have to transfer the rights 
entirely to the government.

AndrewC
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l