subject:"\[CGUYS\] Redefining history"


On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:34 AM, Jeff Miles wrote:

	Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People are  
going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy  
usage.


Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct,  
energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its  
plentiful on demand nature.  How we get there is the issue.


Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended) into  
changing what we use as energy. Very large cities were created due  
to trade. These huge cities, due to modern transport are no longer  
necessary.


Other way around - modern transport makes huge cities possible -  
without it we can not supply the food and consumables the denizens  
require.  In our past, city size was a function of available food  
supply from the local country side via road, river, only occasionally  
via sea (think Rome).  Modern economic theory - that would be free  
trade - when combined with  modern transport made it possible to have  
large cities where the city owners did not control the source of the  
food.



They're just a remanent of the past that's struggling to hold on.


Struggling to hold on?  The rate of urbanization is increasing last I  
heard.


How many cities are going broke trying to sustain their population  
and infrastructure?


How many are spending huge amounts of money on stuff other than core  
city services?



Bigger isn't always better. Didn't computers prove that?


It is also irrelevant, because sometimes bigger is better or more  
efficient.


	Also, industrial capacity is a bit of a misnomer. It's relevant  
if you hope to sustain the world with no change. But the world with  
no change in its' past structure is becoming less relevant everyday.


Industrial capacity refers to the ability to make stuff - industry -  
that people want.  I don't know what that will be next year, let alone  
next decade, with enough precision to get rich off the knowledge, but  
I do know people will want industrial products.


	We, as a country or world, didn't start using electricity or oil  
over night.


But no one ever went back on electricity once it was available to them.

It's going to take time, acceptance and a means of profitability for  
those who help to make it viable for the industrialized world as a  
whole. There have been many great ideas put forth over the years to  
help jump start this. There has been next to no $ put forth compared  
to what's been spent to keep the oil flowing. And the oil, as anyone  
can plainly see, is a finite resource. But like our economy is  
showing today, we love to put stuff off.


Thank our progressive hide the true cost of things tax structure in  
part for that.  We subsidized oil through our indirect taxes (income,  
business pass through taxes).  Subsidies always distort the market -  
always.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread Jeff Wright

   Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People
 are
 going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy
 usage. Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended)
 into changing what we use as energy. 

The easiest way to do this is for the state to stay out of the energy
pricing business.  Let high energy prices do their job.

When gas hit $4/gallon last year, people's habits changed.  They drove less
and they purchased more fuel efficient vehicles, so much so that auto
companies that depended on large truck/SUV sales as a large part of their
profit margin are on the skids (and for a number of other reasons too).

People used significantly less energy, period.

To add onto the conversation about being more energy efficient, you do what
you can.  I replaced all but 3 bulbs in the house, 3 dozen in total, with CF
bulbs over 3 years ago.  The 3 daylight-temp incandescent bulbs are in our
bathroom, for grooming purposes, natch.  We're replacing our 48 year old
wooden windows with much better vinyl windows a few at a time, to avoid
taking on a home equity line.  We keep the thermostat at 67 degrees max with
a programmable unit and it goes down during the day and at night.  Even
then, we still get a $300 gas bill for our 1,800 sf house (I need to
insulate the attic more, but I haven't had time.  I may just pay someone to
do it so it gets done.)

Oil, coal and gas will eventually be replaced as primary energy generation
sources when other energy sources become either economically (I'm looking at
you, solar) or technologically (fusion) viable and also as consumers
increase demand for alternative energy sources.  While high energy prices
can do good, artificially forcing consumers to pay even more, by the state
interfering in the market by creating net-negative boondoggles such as
ethanol or mandating x% of non-hydrocarbon generation, won't help and will
only slow the natural evolution of the market towards a less carbon
dependent state.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread Chris Dunford

 Oil, coal and gas will eventually be replaced as 
 primary energy generation sources when other energy 
 sources become either economically (I'm looking at
 you, solar) or technologically (fusion) viable and 
 also as consumers increase demand for alternative 
 energy sources

This is correct in terms of economic theory; the problem is that it isn't
forward-looking. As long as oil prices remain low, there's little incentive
for the private sector to invest a lot of capital in alternative sources,
especially in carbon-neutral alternative sources. By the time there is
sufficient incentive, it may be too late.

Last summer's high prices had no natural cause. They were created by
speculation, not by supply/demand issues--in fact, supply was up and demand
was down. My understanding (and this is something that I've heard but
haven't researched) is that, with prices back down, already the ratio of
efficient to inefficient vehicle sales has dropped, and people are driving
more. Consumer memory appears to be very short.

Given this situation, it's entirely possible that, if left to market forces
only, development of alternatives won't come in time to avoid some very
nasty consequences. This is why government support for research might not be
a bad thing; one of the functions of good government is to support things
like this when it's necessary and the private market isn't going to cut it. 

It just has to be smart enough to avoid foolishness like ethanol, hydrogen,
and biodiesel.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread Jeff Wright

 This is correct in terms of economic theory; the problem is that it
 isn't
 forward-looking. As long as oil prices remain low, there's little
 incentive
 for the private sector to invest a lot of capital in alternative
 sources,
 especially in carbon-neutral alternative sources. By the time there is
 sufficient incentive, it may be too late.

It is forward looking in that it is implicit that prices will not always
remain low.  Eventually, supply will run low enough to have a permanent
effect on price.  Price contains a good amount of information, beyond what
it costs the consumer, and anyone with half a brain paying attention to
those early signals will be researching suitable replacements; research is
going on now.  My own prediction is that we'll shift long before that, at
least in the first world.

 Last summer's high prices had no natural cause. They were created by
 speculation, not by supply/demand issues--in fact, supply was up and
 demand
 was down. My understanding (and this is something that I've heard but
 haven't researched) is that, with prices back down, already the ratio
 of
 efficient to inefficient vehicle sales has dropped, and people are
 driving
 more. Consumer memory appears to be very short.

Speculation only works as long as you have an infinite supply of money or a
buyer willing to pay a speculative price.  The commodity markets worked as
they were supposed to.  They based a good deal of the price on the
expectation of the artificially stimulated demand from the artificially
elevated economies continuing.  When those economies naturally went into
reverse, lowering the expectation of demand, prices collapsed.  

 It just has to be smart enough to avoid foolishness like ethanol,
 hydrogen,
 and biodiesel.

Good luck with that.  Foolishness should be recognized as an alternative
fuel, since our federal government seems to run exclusively on it.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread Elaine Zablocki


At 07:57 AM 2/14/2009, Matthew Taylor wrote:
Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct,

energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its
plentiful on demand nature.  How we get there is the issue.


Could you please give names, references, something I could read? I 
haven't read anyone who says energy will be something we hardly 
think of at all due to its  plentiful on demand nature.
If there are intelligent people who think that could be a 
possibility, that would sure cheer me up.

(Plentiful energy that doesn't increase global warming??)

Recently I've been remembering an early Robert Heinlein story ... I 
bet lots of folks on this list know it... the one where they discover 
a way to capture energy from the sun at no or very little cost... 
(and fight big companies that don't want this information made 
public) ... the usual Heinlein interplay between a smart scientist 
guy and an equally smart wise-cracking woman... I can't recall the 
name of the story, or find it on my shelves.


But I find myself remembering it these days, and thinking if that is 
ever going to become a reality, now would be a real good time.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread Jeff Miles

	From what I've heard hydrogen is the best source. It is everywhere  
after all. Then there's the moon with it's helium 3. I really don't  
know much about it except for the teasers on the science shows. I also  
saw on these science shows they are building a fusion reactor  
somewhere. I guess they hope to have it running in the next 4-5 years.  
But commercial application wouldn't come for another 10-25 years? I  
guess it all depends on how this one works.
	I'm going to ramble a bit here. I can understand the problems with  
creating this thing. Blowing something up is easy. Creating a  
sustainable artificial sun ain't. I mean look at what it's cost and  
taken to possibly create micro black holes. The LHC has been one huge  
effort. And even then it breaks down as soon as they turn it on. Of  
course I understand this, seeing all that's involved. For those who  
don't know what that is, you can see it here. http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
	Anyway, back to your comments and something someone else wrote. I  
truly believe in hydrogen research. It's global warming friendly. And  
I don't know why that other someone said it was foolish. In fact was  
also wondering why they called biodiesel foolish. A friend uses it  
with no problems. Of course he's a math professor geek who completely  
tore apart Mercedes station wagon and put it back together to his  
liking. Yes, he's a perfectionist. To a detrimental point in some  
instances.
	As to Heinlein, I've read many of his books, and your description  
sounds familiar, but I can't think of the exact piece your describing.  
He was one weird dude. Last one I remember was about an old guy having  
his brain transplanted into a young female body. You can probably  
imagine the rest.


Jeff M

On Feb 14, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Elaine Zablocki wrote:


At 07:57 AM 2/14/2009, Matthew Taylor wrote:
Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct,

energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its
plentiful on demand nature.  How we get there is the issue.


Could you please give names, references, something I could read? I  
haven't read anyone who says energy will be something we hardly  
think of at all due to its  plentiful on demand nature.
If there are intelligent people who think that could be a  
possibility, that would sure cheer me up.

(Plentiful energy that doesn't increase global warming??)

Recently I've been remembering an early Robert Heinlein story ... I  
bet lots of folks on this list know it... the one where they  
discover a way to capture energy from the sun at no or very little  
cost... (and fight big companies that don't want this information  
made public) ... the usual Heinlein interplay between a smart  
scientist guy and an equally smart wise-cracking woman... I can't  
recall the name of the story, or find it on my shelves.


But I find myself remembering it these days, and thinking if that  
is ever going to become a reality, now would be a real good time.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **

*


The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you.
- Elbert Hubbard





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

But we are not doing that now - we subsidize oil prices heavily by  
spending other tax dollars on deployments to the Gulf to keep the  
market stable, and the price down.


Matthew

On Feb 14, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Chris Dunford wrote:


it's entirely possible that, if left to market forces
only, development of alternatives won't come in time to avoid some  
very
nasty consequences. This is why government support for research  
might not be
a bad thing; one of the functions of good government is to support  
things
like this when it's necessary and the private market isn't going to  
cut it.


It just has to be smart enough to avoid foolishness like ethanol,  
hydrogen,

and biodiesel.




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread Chris Dunford

 Anyway, back to your comments and something someone else wrote. I
 truly believe in hydrogen research. It's global warming friendly. And
 I don't know why that other someone said it was foolish. In fact was
 also wondering why they called biodiesel foolish. A friend uses it
 with no problems

That was me. Whether it works as a fuel is not the only issue.

Hydrogen is a near-perfect fuel, but there's no obvious way to produce it
efficiently. All the methods we know about either produce greenhouse gases,
are too expensive, require more energy than you get from the hydrogen, or
aren't practical for large-scale production. We'd need a cheap,
nonpolluting, energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen on a massive scale,
and there are no immediate prospects of this (none that I've heard of,
anyway). Maybe someone will come up with one, but so far it doesn't look
good.

Biodiesel creates essentially the same greenhouse gases that oil does when
it's burned. It could theoretically replace oil, but it does nothing to help
with the climate change problem, so it's not the solution either.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread Chris Dunford

 But we are not doing that now - we subsidize oil prices heavily by
 spending other tax dollars on deployments to the Gulf to keep the
 market stable, and the price down.

I think many of us are hoping that the new administration is a little
smarter about this kind of thing and doesn't regard science and scientists
with deep suspicion.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

Been a while since I spent much time on it so I can't recall the  
specific references.  I will see what I can find in my library as time  
permits.  All are in the general class of hard science fiction  
essayists (i.e. they right fiction, but also right non-fiction on the  
underpinnings of their fictional works).


I can give you some examples from memory though.

Fission - expensive now, but the theoretical knowledge is already out  
there for more efficient designs that are safer still.  The worry  
about waste products is a stalking horse for anti nuclear scare  
groups.  We don't have to keep it around for 10,000 years.  We have to  
keep it around for 100 year, 200 year max, maybe much less.  Why?   
Because by that time we will have the technology to at a minimum toss  
it into the sun.  More likely to recycle it for some productive use.   
Any prediction that assumes no material advance in capabilities that  
are only in degree, not in kind is belied by the history of the human  
race.


Solar Power collection - expensive now, but it will get much, much,  
cheaper.  It will get cheaper still in orbit which solves the current  
problem of waste heat - space is the great heat sync (ok, technically  
it is not, but you can radiate waste heat there all you want).  Power  
can be beamed down to receptors in suitable places with little impact.


Hydrogen fuel - we have no shortage of sea water.  Using focused solar  
or nuclear power we can crack sea water and get what we need for  
portable power generation.  Right now it is not cheap enough, but it  
will become so.


None of these have  notable heat producing effects on a global  
climactic scale.


The real challenge is consumption efficiency - can we avoid waste heat  
from all this plentiful energy.  I am not up on the current science in  
that regard, but what I understand is that if it becomes a problem we  
will have to be producing a lot more power than we project for the  
next 50 years.


Matthew

On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Elaine Zablocki wrote:


At 07:57 AM 2/14/2009, Matthew Taylor wrote:
Right - eventually, if most non-dystopian futurists are correct,

energy will be something we hardly think of at all due to its
plentiful on demand nature.  How we get there is the issue.


Could you please give names, references, something I could read? I  
haven't read anyone who says energy will be something we hardly  
think of at all due to its  plentiful on demand nature.
If there are intelligent people who think that could be a  
possibility, that would sure cheer me up.

(Plentiful energy that doesn't increase global warming??)

Recently I've been remembering an early Robert Heinlein story ... I  
bet lots of folks on this list know it... the one where they  
discover a way to capture energy from the sun at no or very little  
cost... (and fight big companies that don't want this information  
made public) ... the usual Heinlein interplay between a smart  
scientist guy and an equally smart wise-cracking woman... I can't  
recall the name of the story, or find it on my shelves.


But I find myself remembering it these days, and thinking if that  
is ever going to become a reality, now would be a real good time.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **

*



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-14 Thread b_s-wilk


  Oil, coal and gas will eventually be replaced as
  primary energy generation sources when other energy
  sources become either economically (I'm looking at
  you, solar) or technologically (fusion) viable and
  also as consumers increase demand for alternative
  energy sources


This is correct in terms of economic theory; the problem is that it isn't
forward-looking. As long as oil prices remain low, there's little incentive
for the private sector to invest a lot of capital in alternative sources,
especially in carbon-neutral alternative sources. By the time there is
sufficient incentive, it may be too late.


While I don't like the subsidies for oil, gas and nukes, having higher 
fuel tax has worked well in Europe. The goal is to price the petrol and 
diesel high enough so that people will drive more efficient vehicles, 
while having a tax base that can cover the cost of having excellent 
roads and cleaning up pollution. It seems to be working more or less, 
except, of course in the UK where any opportunity to tax is doubled only 
because they can. I'm amazed at the improvements in roads even in poorer 
countries like Portugal, Greece and Croatia. Market forces have made 
gasoline prices fluctuate wildly, and it will eventually go back up over 
$4, probably $5. I'd rather see the higher price as a tax to be used for 
road improvements and pollution abatement than as pure profit for the 
price-gauging oil cartels.


There's one subsidy that is working very well. In Germany, people get 
grants to put photovoltaic tiles on their roofs. Their electric bills 
remain the same as before installing the PV tiles with the grant making 
up the difference, until 5 years when the payback for the roof tiles is 
complete, after which the energy cost goes down significantly and the 
grant ends, http://tinyurl.com/dgn4c8.


Gotta have some incentive for most people--either carrot or stick.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

Ding!  You win the prize for the obvious - the bills threatened the  
availability of abortion without consequences and had to be opposed -  
even if this meant tolerating infanticide.  The final bill that Obama  
voted against contained the same language as in a Federal law he said  
he preferred.  Then he voted against in anyway.


And no, I did not read about this in any smear site.  All of this is  
in the public record - you just object to the logical conclusion.



On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Jordan wrote:


Matthew Taylor wrote:


I have not seen MM's take on Obama's support of infaticide, but it  
is real.  I have read the original bill.  I have read the final  
bill after it was modified to meet Obama's and other's objections.   
At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants  
to be allowed to die with no medical or pallitive assistance and  
that was a position Obama preferred as a matter of law.  In what  
way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide?  It  
matters not at all to the question of O's views that some R's also  
supported it.
Obama and other opponents said the bills posed a threat to abortion  
rights and were unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already  
prohibited the conduct that these bills purported to address.

Read something other than right wing smear sites.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Jeff Wright

 I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and
 there are plenty of contenders) the winner of the Legend in His Own
 Mind award.  I congratulate you.

It's called a discussion Ray.  It's when 2 or more people share their
experiences, thoughts and ideas.

I see that you have nothing to add to it, tragic for a lurker's first post,
so thanks for playing. 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Jordan


Ray Rheault wrote:

I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and there are plenty of 
contenders) the winner of the Legend in His Own Mind award.  I congratulate 
you.
  

Well put Ray!
The way this discussion died reminds me of a conversation at a picnic 
of my wife's stamp club. It was a few years ago and we were talking 
about the Iraq war. Some thought it was a good thing, some knew it was 
a disaster. Then the wife of one of the members said something like we 
can trust Bush because he is a man of god. Conversation stopped. 
There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with 
someone with blind faith.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread mike

Apparently you missed the O's last town hall with people nearly prostrating
themselves before him.  Blind faith is not just a republican trait.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Jordan jor17...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ray Rheault wrote:

  There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with
 someone with blind faith.





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Jeff Wright

 There's not much sense in trying to have a rational discussion with someone 
 with blind faith.

By George, Jordan, I think you finally have got it!

Others can beat their heads against the unyielding wall of incurious
partisanship, but me?  Nah. Life's too short.

Have a nice day.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Elaine Zablocki


At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote:
-- Original message from Matthew Taylor 
taylorsmatt...@gmail.com:

 On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote:

  and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so
  to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing
  American scarcity and diminishing prospects.

 What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what
 way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if
 there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe
 that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed.


We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil.

U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970.  World oil production is at 
its peak about now.


This doesn't mean there is no more oil... there is still lots 
left but it means we probably face declining amounts of available 
oil, plus increased competition from other countries for what is available.


While various substitutes for oil have been suggested, my 
understanding is that none of them have the same amount of available 
energy as oil does.  People talk about oil shale, or substitutes 
based on coal... but it TAKES a lot of energy to start with those 
substitutes and transform them into something that can perform the 
same functions as oil.  They may be helpful, but they aren't enough 
to replace the amount of oil that we depend on.



Most libertarians believe that if
 there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity


If there were huge amounts of oil still buried in the ground, then we 
could go look for them then the scarcity would become a new 
opportunity.  However, people have been doing a lot of looking and 
they haven't come up with new oil fields equivalent to the ones we've 
been pumping for the last 100 years or more.  So... they MIGHT find a 
lot more but also they may not, and we need to start getting our 
minds used to this unpalatable fact.


I've been reading about this over the past couple of months, and I 
find it's very difficult to take in this information... because it 
means our lives are going to change a lot over the next 
decades.  This is depressing information. I keep wanting to put down 
the book and go read something more pleasant. However, as I keep 
reading, the facts do seem to be that we're going to face oil 
shortages, and our lives will have to change.  If this is the truth, 
better to face up to it now.


It may seem odd to say this today, when oil is at such a low price 
per barrel... but that doesn't affect our long-term prospects.


Here's one book on the subject:
The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial 
Societies by Richard Heinberg


I've also been reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips.  The two books 
together help me understand what has been happening over the past few 
months, and what to expect (and prepare for) in future years... but 
as I said, this isn't pleasant reading.  Necessary, though.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread mike

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Elaine Zablocki
elainezablo...@ezab.netwrote:

At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote:

-- Original message from Matthew Taylor
taylorsmatt...@gmail.com:
On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote:

and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so
to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing
American scarcity and diminishing prospects.

What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what
way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if
there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe
that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed.

We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil.

U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its
peak about now.

This doesn't mean there is no more oil... there is still lots left but
it means we probably face declining amounts of available oil, plus increased
competition from other countries for what is available.

While various substitutes for oil have been suggested, my understanding is
that none of them have the same amount of available energy as oil does.
People talk about oil shale, or substitutes based on coal... but it TAKES a
lot of energy to start with those substitutes and transform them into
something that can perform the same functions as oil. They may be helpful,
but they aren't enough to replace the amount of oil that we depend on.

Most libertarians believe that if
there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity

If there were huge amounts of oil still buried in the ground, then we could
go look for them then the scarcity would become a new opportunity.
However, people have been doing a lot of looking and they haven't come up
with new oil fields equivalent to the ones we've been pumping for the last
100 years or more. So... they MIGHT find a lot more but also they may
not, and we need to start getting our minds used to this unpalatable fact.

I've been reading about this over the past couple of months, and I find
it's very difficult to take in this information... because it means our
lives are going to change a lot over the next decades. This is depressing
information. I keep wanting to put down the book and go read something more
pleasant. However, as I keep reading, the facts do seem to be that we're
going to face oil shortages, and our lives will have to change. If this is
the truth, better to face up to it now.

It may seem odd to say this today, when oil is at such a low price per
barrel... but that doesn't affect our long-term prospects.

Here's one book on the subject:
The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies by
Richard Heinberg

I've also been reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips. The two books together
help me understand what has been happening over the past few months, and
what to expect (and prepare for) in future years... but as I said, this
isn't pleasant reading. Necessary, though.

** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*

--
Make sure you support your local CarbonONset programs!

*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Vicky Staubly

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

That's a ridiculous headline (World Not Running Out Of Oil). I can
see World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted, or even World
Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century. But, as I'm not aware of
new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out
eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner

than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion
years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next
decade.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Elaine Zablocki
elainezablo...@ezab.netwrote:

At 09:01 PM 2/12/2009, Ray Rheault wrote:

-- Original message from Matthew Taylor
taylorsmatt...@gmail.com:

On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote:

and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so
to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing
American scarcity and diminishing prospects.

We are running out of oil, and our entire economy is based on oil.

U.S. oil production hit its peak in 1970. World oil production is at its
peak about now.

[...]

--
Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com

*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall

One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in the
coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can not
generate enough power from them.

I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological) have
been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues.

Where wind makes sense do wind. Where solar makes sense do
solar. Do not make a round peg fit into a square hole. (Solar
works much better down here than wind)

But most of all we need to develop power generating methods that do
not rely solely on oil.

My brother-in-law works at the Tar sands in Ft. McMurray, AL. What
had been a boomtown the past few years is shrinking fast.

One of the side effects of low oil prices is that it makes searching
for alternative energy sources highly expensive which in turn makes
it highly speculative.

I do not think there are any easy answers, but the doom and gloom
sayers do not help the situation either. They just drive up
speculation which was part of the problem in the last run up of oil.

Stewart

At 01:09 PM 2/13/2009, you wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion
years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next
decade.

Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL SL 82

*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Jordan


Vicky Staubly wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece 



That's a ridiculous headline (World Not Running Out Of Oil). I can
see World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted, or even 
World

Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century. But, as I'm not aware of
new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out 
eventually. And, I feel safe in saying, we will run out of oil sooner

than we will run out of solar power (something on the order of 5 billion
years from now). Even the article itself really only addresses the next
decade.

Many countries in the world are developing rapidly. (China in 
particular) They tend to want to live like we do, meaning in particular, 
many millions more cars. The article doesn't seem to address that.

To say nothing of the pollution that these new oil extraction methods cause.
Anyone who is well informed about this subject understands the 
precarious energy era we are heading into.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Elaine Zablocki

At 10:54 AM 2/13/2009, mike wrote:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

The article Mike recommends mistates the peak oil hypothesis. It sets
up a straw man and then knocks it down... a well-recognized debating
technique.

It says:
Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off
the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark ...
Typically, Peak Oil theorists believe that the output of oil
reserves can be plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak
and then falling rapidly.

Come on, folks on this list know what a bell curve is, don't they?

Peak Oil theorists do believe that the output of oil reserves can be
plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling
SLOWLY falling at about the same rate as they rose, in fact.

No one is saying that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the
edge of a cliff. The people I'm reading say that we're probably
entering a period of gradual decline in oil production.

This article says that
The Cera analysis targeted oilfields producing more than 10,000
barrels a day of conventional oil and concluded that overall output
was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year and that field decline
rates were not increasing. This is much lower than the 7 to 8 percent
average rate that is generally assumed in the industry.

Overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year
That sure sounds like a decline to me.

*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Chris Dunford

 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural
 _resources/article3207311.ece
 
 
 That's a ridiculous headline (World Not Running Out Of Oil). I can
 see World Not Running Out Of Oil As Quickly As Predicted, or even
 World Not Running Out Of Oil In This Century. But, as I'm not aware
 of new reserves of oil being generated underground, we will run out
 eventually.

Amen.

And, of course, it completely ignores the real point: it wouldn't make any
difference if the oceans themselves were filled with oil instead of water.
We still have to replace fossil fuels with clean energy. 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-13 Thread Matthew Taylor


On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:

One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in  
the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can  
not generate enough power from them.


True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating  
the collection points and transmitting the electricity.



I think a lot of Armageddon preachers (cultural not theological)  
have been beating the drums and not addressing the real issues.


And this is new how?



Where wind makes sense do wind.  Where solar makes sense do solar.   
Do not make  a round peg fit into a square hole.  (Solar works much  
better down here than wind)


And where Nuclear makes sense do that, and where coal makes sense, do  
that.



But most of all we need to develop power generating methods that do  
not rely solely on oil.


Agreed.  Using solar and nuclear to crack sea water for hydrogen has  
promise in the long run.




Matthew


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-13 Thread b_s-wilk


One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in
the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can
not generate enough power from them.


True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating
the collection points and transmitting the electricity.


No, it's not true. You are thinking about renewable energy in a very 
narrow way. Around 30% of all energy used in this country is wasted 
through lack of energy efficiency. Efficiency is cheap. It's easy and 
doesn't require a much of a change in your lifestyle--energy meter, 
insulation, timers, smart switches, replace a broken water heater or 
refrigerator or AC with an efficient one; you're going to do it anyway, 
so get a good one and reduce your energy bill. Same for other appliances 
including transportation. Increasing the availability and use of mass 
transportation where possible also saves energy.


However one of the big misconceptions is that solar and wind have to be 
part of the power grid. Passive solar doesn't at all. Photovoltaics can 
be but don't have to be unless you don't produce 100% of your own power. 
The NIMBYs and CAVEs [citizens against virtually everything] are a small 
but very loud contingent and often can be tempted by the money they'll 
be saving. Offshore wind farms can be several miles out to sea where 
they can barely be seen, where the wind is steadier.  Other wind farms 
are in the mountains, and on private farms where owners are paid rent by 
the turbine companies. Turbines run slowly enough that they're not a 
significant danger to migrating birds according to recent reports on 
newer turbines. Individuals in remote locations can generate their own 
off-grid power.


As with much of science and technology, the facts and details are often 
lost in the news blips that are released to the general public.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-13 Thread Matthew Taylor


On Feb 13, 2009, at 7:45 PM, b_s-wilk wrote:


One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in
the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can
not generate enough power from them.

True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating
the collection points and transmitting the electricity.


No, it's not true. You are thinking about renewable energy in a very  
narrow way.


No, I am not.  I am thinking about industrial scale industry production.

Around 30% of all energy used in this country is wasted through lack  
of energy efficiency.


Probably true.

Efficiency is cheap. It's easy and doesn't require a much of a  
change in your lifestyle--energy meter, insulation, timers, smart  
switches, replace a broken water heater or refrigerator or AC with  
an efficient one; you're going to do it anyway, so get a good one  
and reduce your energy bill. Same for other appliances including  
transportation.


Been there, done that where I can, will do that where I can not yet  
afford when I can.


Increasing the availability and use of mass transportation where  
possible also saves energy.


Sometimes, and sometimes at the cost of lost freedom and lost time.



However one of the big misconceptions is that solar and wind have to  
be part of the power grid.


They do if they are going to replace industrial capacity currently  
provided by fossil fuels.



Passive solar doesn't at all.


Try smelting or running electrified rail off passive solar.

Photovoltaics can be but don't have to be unless you don't produce  
100% of your own power.


Which won't help folks living in dense cities where they can not  
produce their own power.


The NIMBYs and CAVEs [citizens against virtually everything] are a  
small but very loud contingent and often can be tempted by the money  
they'll be saving. Offshore wind farms can be several miles out to  
sea where they can barely be seen, where the wind is steadier.


Other wind farms are in the mountains, and on private farms where  
owners are paid rent by the turbine companies.


And you still have to have transmission lines. if you are not  
consuming the energy produced on site.


Turbines run slowly enough that they're not a significant danger to  
migrating birds according to recent reports on newer turbines.  
Individuals in remote locations can generate their own off-grid power.


Agreed, and insufficient to our national needs.

Matthew


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-13 Thread Eric S. Sande


Efficiency is cheap.


You're right.  I happen to be a bicycle commuter.  In fact I don't
even own an internal combustion powered vehicle.  I've been car
free for twenty years, and I don't miss it.

It takes me ten minutes to get to work.  No parking hassles or
expenses, I park my bike in my office.  Yes there's an art to 
doing this, but practice makes perfect.


Of course it costs more to live in the city center but this is offset
by low transportation costs.  It IS possible to game the system
in an ecologically and personally beneficial way.

My lifestyle wouldn't (maybe) work for everyone, but I'll bet
it would for some.  I'm an American conservative with a
European socialist lifestyle.  Too bad I don't get a big bailout
check for acting responsibly.

I pay my bills and taxes, I'm kind to strangers, and I always
try to give more than I take.  I'm sure that there are many
others that do the same.

And I don't ask for much.  Personally I'd settle for a nice
pair of English dress shoes and a new preamplifier, as long
as the Democrats are hell-bent on giving away my money.

I figure that would about cover it.






*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-13 Thread Matthew Taylor

I hear you.  I would love to bike to work.  I also want my kids to  
have a house and property where they could to play in the woods and  
breath air relatively free of gasoline and diesel fumes.  Avoiding  
drive by shootings was a plus as well.  I made the choice in favor of  
my kids and live an hour by car from where I work by the back roads.   
Offer me a job with a comparable salary a 10 minute bike ride away and  
I am there.





On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:


Efficiency is cheap.


You're right.  I happen to be a bicycle commuter.  In fact I don't
even own an internal combustion powered vehicle.  I've been car
free for twenty years, and I don't miss it.

It takes me ten minutes to get to work.  No parking hassles or
expenses, I park my bike in my office.  Yes there's an art to doing  
this, but practice makes perfect.


Of course it costs more to live in the city center but this is offset
by low transportation costs.  It IS possible to game the system
in an ecologically and personally beneficial way.

My lifestyle wouldn't (maybe) work for everyone, but I'll bet
it would for some.  I'm an American conservative with a
European socialist lifestyle.  Too bad I don't get a big bailout
check for acting responsibly.

I pay my bills and taxes, I'm kind to strangers, and I always
try to give more than I take.  I'm sure that there are many
others that do the same.

And I don't ask for much.  Personally I'd settle for a nice
pair of English dress shoes and a new preamplifier, as long
as the Democrats are hell-bent on giving away my money.

I figure that would about cover it.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-13 Thread Eric S. Sande

I made the choice in favor of  my kids and live an hour by car 
from where I work by the back roads.


Well, there are some compromises involved everywhere but
you've got your priorities straight.  I can do what I do because
I'm single and have no kids (that I know of).

My brother has a similar situation to yours and is if possible
more conservative than either of us, he also has said that he
doesn't see how a city lifestyle could work.  Maybe a little
bit stronger comments.

The shootings have calmed down in my neighborhood, there
was a bit of a gang war here for a while but it tapered off
after a while, I don't think we've had a gun battle on the streets
for some time, not since the late '90s anyway.

The area has calmed down and gentrified considerably since
then.  :-)





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history

2009-02-13 Thread Jeff Miles

	Your arguments are valid, but kind of missing the point. People are  
going to have to change, period, in the way they think of energy  
usage. Or we're going to have to pour money and energy (pun intended)  
into changing what we use as energy. Very large cities were created  
due to trade. These huge cities, due to modern transport are no longer  
necessary. They're just a remanent of the past that's struggling to  
hold on. How many cities are going broke trying to sustain their  
population and infrastructure? Bigger isn't always better. Didn't  
computers prove that?
	Also, industrial capacity is a bit of a misnomer. It's relevant if  
you hope to sustain the world with no change. But the world with no  
change in its' past structure is becoming less relevant everyday.
	We, as a country or world, didn't start using electricity or oil over  
night. It's going to take time, acceptance and a means of  
profitability for those who help to make it viable for the  
industrialized world as a whole. There have been many great ideas put  
forth over the years to help jump start this. There has been next to  
no $ put forth compared to what's been spent to keep the oil flowing.  
And the oil, as anyone can plainly see, is a finite resource. But like  
our economy is showing today, we love to put stuff off.


Jeff M


On Feb 13, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Matthew Taylor wrote:


On Feb 13, 2009, at 7:45 PM, b_s-wilk wrote:


One of the problems with Solar and Wind is that at present and in
the coming future (I have heard at least a decade) is that we can
not generate enough power from them.

True - and we have a nimby problem as well when it comes to locating
the collection points and transmitting the electricity.


No, it's not true. You are thinking about renewable energy in a  
very narrow way.


No, I am not.  I am thinking about industrial scale industry  
production.


Around 30% of all energy used in this country is wasted through  
lack of energy efficiency.


Probably true.

Efficiency is cheap. It's easy and doesn't require a much of a  
change in your lifestyle--energy meter, insulation, timers, smart  
switches, replace a broken water heater or refrigerator or AC with  
an efficient one; you're going to do it anyway, so get a good one  
and reduce your energy bill. Same for other appliances including  
transportation.


Been there, done that where I can, will do that where I can not yet  
afford when I can.


Increasing the availability and use of mass transportation where  
possible also saves energy.


Sometimes, and sometimes at the cost of lost freedom and lost time.



However one of the big misconceptions is that solar and wind have  
to be part of the power grid.


They do if they are going to replace industrial capacity currently  
provided by fossil fuels.



Passive solar doesn't at all.


Try smelting or running electrified rail off passive solar.

Photovoltaics can be but don't have to be unless you don't produce  
100% of your own power.


Which won't help folks living in dense cities where they can not  
produce their own power.


The NIMBYs and CAVEs [citizens against virtually everything] are a  
small but very loud contingent and often can be tempted by the  
money they'll be saving. Offshore wind farms can be several miles  
out to sea where they can barely be seen, where the wind is steadier.


Other wind farms are in the mountains, and on private farms where  
owners are paid rent by the turbine companies.


And you still have to have transmission lines. if you are not  
consuming the energy produced on site.


Turbines run slowly enough that they're not a significant danger to  
migrating birds according to recent reports on newer turbines.  
Individuals in remote locations can generate their own off-grid  
power.


Agreed, and insufficient to our national needs.

Matthew


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **

*


The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you.
- Elbert Hubbard





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

If you are so limiting your news source I can understand how you come by
your viewpoints.

 If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and 
 Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched 
 reports.

Didn't notice him saying that he limited his sources to these, did you?

The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a left wing smear
site. The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says with
links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty hard to
call something a smear when it uses original documents to prove that what
you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since O'Reilly and
others do it constantly.  Repetition-makes-truth in action.

The conservative commentators keep talking about how the rescue bill
includes $4.something billion for ACORN; MM documents the falsity of this
using links to the bill itself. Bernie Goldberg butchers the Brokaw/Rose
interview; MM provides links to the actual interview so you can see what
Brokaw really said. Limbaugh keeps saying that Obama favors infanticide
(seriously); MM provides links to the original Illinois bill, Obama's
comments, and the recorded vote showing that many Republicans took the same
position. It goes on and on and on.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

Every source I can recall him mentioning has been a left wing ax  
grinder.  I did not say he reads nothing else, I said IF.


I have not seen MM's take on Obama's support of infaticide, but it is  
real.  I have read the original bill.  I have read the final bill  
after it was modified to meet Obama's and other's objections.  At the  
end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants to be  
allowed to die with no medical or pallitive assistance and that was a  
position Obama preferred as a matter of law.  In what way is that not  
support for at least passive Infanticide?  It matters not at all to  
the question of O's views that some R's also supported it.


Matthew

On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Chris Dunford wrote:

If you are so limiting your news source I can understand how you  
come by

your viewpoints.


If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker,  
and

Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched
reports.


Didn't notice him saying that he limited his sources to these, did  
you?


The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a left wing smear
site. The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says  
with
links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty  
hard to
call something a smear when it uses original documents to prove  
that what
you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since  
O'Reilly and

others do it constantly.  Repetition-makes-truth in action.

The conservative commentators keep talking about how the rescue bill
includes $4.something billion for ACORN; MM documents the falsity of  
this
using links to the bill itself. Bernie Goldberg butchers the Brokaw/ 
Rose
interview; MM provides links to the actual interview so you can see  
what
Brokaw really said. Limbaugh keeps saying that Obama favors  
infanticide

(seriously); MM provides links to the original Illinois bill, Obama's
comments, and the recorded vote showing that many Republicans took  
the same

position. It goes on and on and on.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **

*



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread mike

Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left wing/progressive
site, it does NOT monitor all news, only what it considers as 'right wing'
disinformation.

This from their site verbatim.

*Media Matters for America* is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the
U.S. media.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Chris Dunford ch...@covesoftware.comwrote:



 The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a left wing smear
 site. The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says with
 links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty hard to
 call something a smear when it uses original documents to prove that what
 you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since O'Reilly and
 others do it constantly.  Repetition-makes-truth in action.




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]


Thank you Chris,
Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't 
look at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking 
about. If they are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee 
jerk responses and never look or understand, no matter how many times 
you tell them.


By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right 
manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are 
talking about here.

http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz

Chris Dunford wrote:

Didn't notice him saying that he limited his sources to these, did you?

The conservatives love to refer to Media Matters as a left wing smear
site. The problem with this is, MM documents *everything* it says with
links to external materials, often to original sources. It's pretty hard to
call something a smear when it uses original documents to prove that what
you said was wrong. Well, I guess it's not *that* hard, since O'Reilly and
others do it constantly.  Repetition-makes-truth in action.

The conservative commentators keep talking about how the rescue bill
includes $4.something billion for ACORN; MM documents the falsity of this
using links to the bill itself. Bernie Goldberg butchers the Brokaw/Rose
interview; MM provides links to the actual interview so you can see what
Brokaw really said. Limbaugh keeps saying that Obama favors infanticide
(seriously); MM provides links to the original Illinois bill, Obama's
comments, and the recorded vote showing that many Republicans took the same
position. It goes on and on and on.

  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Jeff Wright

I've stayed out of this thread until now, because over the years I have
learned the utter futility in having political discussions with hardcore
liberals.  It's simply not worth it.  Conservatives sometimes have a
somewhat better grip on reality and can actually have a discussion where it
doesn't immediately devolve into a puddle of histrionics, but not always.  

If you are actually interested in learning what libertarians believe, there
are many fine and reliable sources all over the internet.  RTFM.

David Bergland's Libertarianism in One Lesson is an excellent primer, but
it isn't free.  Liberals  Libertarians, even though it hasn't been updated
in years, is a good starting place for its FAQs, including one from open
source maven Eric Raymond: http://www.impel.com/liblib/FAQs.html.  Take the
world's smallest political quiz, tho' the site is a bit cluttered:
http://www.theadvocates.org/index.html.  If you find the female form
interesting and need further persuasion to join Team Purple, Libertarian
Hotties is a fun site:  http://libhotties.com/.   I'll, of course, plug
Reason magazine too.  http://www.reason.com.  Plenty of sites out there. 

I'm happy to answer any actual factual inquiries about libertarianism, and
I'm sure Matthew is too, but no, I won't be dragged into a pointless,
partisan, bickering, political argument.  If anyone actually wants to learn,
rather than wallow in self-rationalizing ignorance, please do ask questions,
but otherwise, don't bother with a response.

 -Original Message-
 To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government,
 free trade concepts are just me me me first types trying to make
 sure nobody gets in the way of them getting theirs and they have been
 increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and
 selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and
 diminishing prospects.
 
 I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a sinking
 ship with any of these types around.
 
 That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just
 superficial and insincere BS propaganda ... a slim cover for an
 otherwise socially unacceptable self serving philosophy. I'm convinced
 that by nature they subjectively don't really give a functional damn
 about the good of the whole so debating the economic and governance
 points with them makes about as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out
 of eating meat.
 
 If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories of
 governance, I don't know what ever will.
 
 But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so I
 guess our string is worthwhile.
 Betty. for one... you are a treasure trove of information and reason!


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread mike

Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal
friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time
at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie.  Very open
minded.  Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already
hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a
human trait, not a left or right wing one.



On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jordan jor17...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thank you Chris,
 Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't look
 at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking about. If they
 are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee jerk responses and
 never look or understand, no matter how many times you tell them.

 By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right
 manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are talking
 about here.
 http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]


Matthew Taylor wrote:


I have not seen MM's take on Obama's support of infaticide, but it is 
real.  I have read the original bill.  I have read the final bill 
after it was modified to meet Obama's and other's objections.  At the 
end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living infants to be 
allowed to die with no medical or pallitive assistance and that was a 
position Obama preferred as a matter of law.  In what way is that not 
support for at least passive Infanticide?  It matters not at all to 
the question of O's views that some R's also supported it.
Obama and other opponents said the bills posed a threat to abortion 
rights and were unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already 
prohibited the conduct that these bills purported to address.

Read something other than right wing smear sites.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]


mike wrote:

Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal
friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time
at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie.  Very open
minded.  Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already
hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a
human trait, not a left or right wing one.



On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jordan jor17...@gmail.com wrote:

  

Thank you Chris,
Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't look
at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking about. If they
are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee jerk responses and
never look or understand, no matter how many times you tell them.

By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right
manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are talking
about here.
http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz


Perhaps you missed the post below. Try actually going to and reading 
left and right sites and see if and how they back up what they say. Then 
decide who is more legitimate.


The way things work on the right blogosphere, some radical winger will 
say something twisted or half true or just fabricated. Then 3 other 
right wing sites will repeat the lie and site each other as sources. 
Then this lie will appear in the mainstream press as if it were an 
established fact. Check former conservative David Brock's web site Media 
Matters to see occurrences of this and lots of other shenanigans that 
are going on.


The legendary example is Chalabi and the White House Iraq group telling 
Judy Miller that there were WMDs, she puts a story about it in the NY 
Times, and Chaney sites it as fact.
Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News do this all the time. It's called 
the echo chamber.
If you do any reading at these places, try to check their sources down 
to verifiable research, studies, or reports.


If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and 
Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched 
reports.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]


Jeff Wright wrote:

 libertarians

There are many fine elements to the libertarian point of view.
They are also the party of I've got mine, screw you way of thinking. 
That is not what this country should be about and it would be disastrous 
in our current economic situation.

Maybe you've forgotten how this topic started:
I've mentioned before, the common knowledge that the people in countries 
there the taxes are high tend to feel more satisfied with life. So I dug 
up an article and a study with charts and graphs that show this. One 
talks about measures of well being, and is a pdf from Deutche Bank: 
http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD00202587.pdf 
The other is an article from MSN Money that lists tax burdens of 
industrialized countries. (I know, it might be another Microsoft plot)


http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

 Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left
 wing/progressive site, it does NOT monitor all news, 
 only what it considers as 'right wing' disinformation.

Mike, of course it is a left wing site. It does not pretend to be anything
else. That does not, however, make it a *smear* site, which is what I was
complaining about. Everything they say is scrupulously documented. Stating
facts is not smearing.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Steve at Verizon

What makes you think that libertarians aren't generous? The difference 
is that they are generous with their own money. Liberals are generous 
with other peoples money.


Jordan wrote:

Jeff Wright wrote:

 libertarians

There are many fine elements to the libertarian point of view.
They are also the party of I've got mine, screw you way of thinking. 
That is not what this country should be about and it would be 
disastrous in our current economic situation.

Maybe you've forgotten how this topic started:
I've mentioned before, the common knowledge that the people in 
countries there the taxes are high tend to feel more satisfied with 
life. So I dug up an article and a study with charts and graphs that 
show this. One talks about measures of well being, and is a pdf from 
Deutche Bank: 
http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD00202587.pdf 
The other is an article from MSN Money that lists tax burdens of 
industrialized countries. (I know, it might be another Microsoft plot)


http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread mike

I am corrrected, I took your statement about MM documenting everything
as meaning they document both the right and left disinformation.  They
take no pains at all to check left wing disinformation.

On 2/12/09, Chris Dunford ch...@covesoftware.com wrote:
 Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left
 wing/progressive site, it does NOT monitor all news,
 only what it considers as 'right wing' disinformation.

 Mike, of course it is a left wing site. It does not pretend to be anything
 else. That does not, however, make it a *smear* site, which is what I was
 complaining about. Everything they say is scrupulously documented. Stating
 facts is not smearing.


 *
 **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
 **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
 *



-- 
Make sure you support your local CarbonONset programs!


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

Actually one of the time honored smear tactics is to stick to the  
facts, meticulously, but SELECTIVELY reported, and devoid of important  
context.   In my experience both the left and right excel at this, of  
late the left more consistently.


Matthew

On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Chris Dunford wrote:


Sorry Chris but you are wrong on this one, MM is a left
wing/progressive site, it does NOT monitor all news,
only what it considers as 'right wing' disinformation.


Mike, of course it is a left wing site. It does not pretend to be  
anything
else. That does not, however, make it a *smear* site, which is what  
I was
complaining about. Everything they say is scrupulously documented.  
Stating

facts is not smearing.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]


Jeff;

One of the consistent trends of our recent political history is that  
the broadly conservative and libertarian thinks the left is badly  
misguided but educable, while the left thinks conservatives and  
libertarians are evil and selfish.


On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Jeff Wright wrote:

If you just want to be a political bigot and jawbone about how  
those people are just shiftless and no good, good for target  
practice but not much else, then have a nice day.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

 Actually one of the time honored smear tactics is to stick to the
 facts, meticulously, but SELECTIVELY reported, and devoid of important
 context.   In my experience both the left and right excel at this, of
 late the left more consistently.

It doesn't sound like you've spent much quality time at the MM site.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

 At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living 
 infants to be allowed to die with no medical or pallitive 
 assistance 

See, this is wrong.

I guess you are saying this because the final bill did not contain language
making this practice illegal. You're right; it did not. But neither did it
have any language making drunk driving, embezzlement, or kidnapping
illegal--does that make them legal? Of course not. The fact is, this
practice was -already- illegal; it is homicide according to existing
Illinois law.

So, the statement that it's legal is just plain wrong.

 In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide?  

Well, in the way that it is not support for infanticide at all.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

 I am corrrected, I took your statement about MM documenting everything
 as meaning they document both the right and left disinformation.  They
 take no pains at all to check left wing disinformation.

No, they don't, but why should they? That's like saying that firefighters
never check for embezzlement schemes at the local bank. It's true that they
don't; but it's also not their job.

MM's stated purpose is to expose conservative media misinformation. There
are plenty of others who cover both sides.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread b_s-wilk


Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal
friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time
at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie.  Very open
minded.  Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already
hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a
human trait, not a left or right wing one.


No. There's an excess of political opinion, with roadblocks to finding 
accurate objective information. How many times do you seek something in 
a search engine and find the top results are not for data, but for 
opinion? Blogs may be entertaining, but you can do better when you have 
facts and can form your own opinions instead of bloggers yelling from 
all sides.


There are plenty of good factual news sources across the spectrum. I 
subscribe to the Financial Times of London because it has detailed news 
that I rarely see in any US-based media. I read the Wall Street Journal. 
FT has an interesting cross-section of writers on the editorial pages, 
but it's generally quite conservative [small 'c']. WSJ has excellent 
news reporters, but the editorial page, especially since Alexander 
Cockburn's column ended, continues to decline into the depths of greed.


I also read/subscribe to The Economist, The Atlantic Monthly, Time, 
Newsweek, Wired, Conde Nast Traveler, Make, and anything I can get my 
hands on in the library. My main concern is the media consolidation by 
large corporations, the near death of local media, and the fractured 
nature of news on the Internet. I generally gravitate to the more 
liberal sources because they first provide news with facts, and then 
opinions. My friend keeps sending me links to articles at TownHall.com 
and similar sites, and I see a lot of opinion but with a dearth of 
news/facts/links.


I want news and information. I can decide which is useful to me, and can 
decide what makes sense for me, only when I can get facts. We need news 
organizations that we can trust to give accurate news, then we supply 
the opinions ourselves. However, it helps to read/hear/see many sides. 
Can't do that with radio most of the time, and television isn't much 
better. We need a path to all points of view on the Internet, without 
being hindered by corporate owners, or broadband providers that limit 
access to information by price or by censorship.


Betty


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Jeff Wright

 One of the consistent trends of our recent political history is that
 the broadly conservative and libertarian thinks the left is badly
 misguided but educable, while the left thinks conservatives and
 libertarians are evil and selfish.

IME, what most non-libertarians seem to think is that libertarians are born
as libertarians.  From my own observations, most people start out as
liberals and a good many stay that way for the rest of their life, never
re-evaluating their beliefs.  Some do, and turn into conservatives and the
truly reformed turn into libertarians.  I think that this is where the above
dynamic comes from.

Throughout my youth and well into college, I was a solid Kennedy Democrat.
I barely missed voting in 1980 and would have voted for Anderson; I never
even heard of Ed Clark.  Later on, I worked with hard-line conservatives for
years (doing their IT).  So, I'm very familiar with the arguments from both
the left and right.  A former list member (old listers may remember JB) is
the one who turned me onto libertarianism many years ago (and after years of
arguments) when we worked together.

This is to say that I've re-evaluated my beliefs many times over the years.
When I started having doubts about the correctness of libertarianism, I
would look at what the 2 dominant political powers were doing and my
admittedly non-conformist beliefs were quickly reaffirmed.  

That someone would start as a libertarian first and then morph into either a
liberal or conservative, well, that person is the proverbial unicorn.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

It is not illegal at the present time  is the problem.  The bill was  
in part an attempt to make it illegal, as the practice was ongoing in  
Illinois hospitals.  Can you point to a single case of prosecution  
that would indicate the state thought it to be illegal?


On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Chris Dunford wrote:


At the end of the day it was legal in Illinois for living
infants to be allowed to die with no medical or palliative
assistance


See, this is wrong.

I guess you are saying this because the final bill did not contain  
language
making this practice illegal. You're right; it did not. But neither  
did it

have any language making drunk driving, embezzlement, or kidnapping
illegal--does that make them legal? Of course not. The fact is, this
practice was -already- illegal; it is homicide according to existing
Illinois law.

So, the statement that it's legal is just plain wrong.


In what way is that not support for at least passive Infanticide?


Well, in the way that it is not support for infanticide at all.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **

*



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

It does sound as if time spent there is quality time.  That is besides  
the point was making though.  It is possible to convey misinformation  
without uttering a single thing that is not true.


Matthew

On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Chris Dunford wrote:


Actually one of the time honored smear tactics is to stick to the
facts, meticulously, but SELECTIVELY reported, and devoid of  
important

context.   In my experience both the left and right excel at this, of
late the left more consistently.


It doesn't sound like you've spent much quality time at the MM site.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A.

Not clear that Huffington is liberal or Liberal.  Read all her works.  

Eschew Obfuscation

This is a reply from: 
Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A. 
  Financial, Managerial, and Technical Services
for the Professional, Non-Profit, and the Entrepreneurial Organization

  703.548.1343 voice 
  703.783.1340 fax 
  

From thinking to doing, from sales to profits, from tax to investments- we
are YOUR adjuvancy


-Original Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com]
On Behalf Of mike
Sent: 02/12/2009 10:11 AM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

Well this can be said in both directions, I don't see many of my liberal
friends who populate the Kos and MM and Huffington post spending much time
at conservative blogs...these blogs are just lying liars who lie.  Very open
minded.  Generally speaking most people gavitate towards views they already
hold, it's disconcerting to spend time challanging ones own views, this is a
human trait, not a left or right wing one.



On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jordan jor17...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thank you Chris,
 Unless a person is actually broadminded, curious, or both, they won't look
 at a site like MM and see for them selves what we are talking about. If
they
 are not broadminded or curious they'll resort to knee jerk responses and
 never look or understand, no matter how many times you tell them.

 By the way, there's a new article on Kos documenting how the right
 manipulates the media and scares the public in just the way we are talking
 about here.
 http://tinyurl.com/ahv9vz




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A.

I do not know which conservatives you have in mind, but once you are done
with William Buckley, who unfortunately is no longer around to keep
Conservatism honest and clean, the fold is mostly histrionic beyond all pale
(starting with the current darling- Hannity, Palin, and Coulter).
Amazing how when you inject invective and hyperbole, it's acceptable. When
others use the same terminology, it's offensive.

Eschew Obfuscation

This is a reply from: 
Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A. 
  Financial, Managerial, and Technical Services
for the Professional, Non-Profit, and the Entrepreneurial Organization

  703.548.1343 voice 
  703.783.1340 fax 
  

From thinking to doing, from sales to profits, from tax to investments- we
are YOUR adjuvancy

-Original Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com]
On Behalf Of Jeff Wright
Sent: 02/12/2009 9:58 AM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

I've stayed out of this thread until now, because over the years I have
learned the utter futility in having political discussions with hardcore
liberals.  It's simply not worth it.  Conservatives sometimes have a
somewhat better grip on reality and can actually have a discussion where it
doesn't immediately devolve into a puddle of histrionics, but not always.  

If you are actually interested in learning what libertarians believe, there
are many fine and reliable sources all over the internet.  RTFM.

David Bergland's Libertarianism in One Lesson is an excellent primer, but
it isn't free.  Liberals  Libertarians, even though it hasn't been updated
in years, is a good starting place for its FAQs, including one from open
source maven Eric Raymond: http://www.impel.com/liblib/FAQs.html.  Take the
world's smallest political quiz, tho' the site is a bit cluttered:
http://www.theadvocates.org/index.html.  If you find the female form
interesting and need further persuasion to join Team Purple, Libertarian
Hotties is a fun site:  http://libhotties.com/.   I'll, of course, plug
Reason magazine too.  http://www.reason.com.  Plenty of sites out there. 

I'm happy to answer any actual factual inquiries about libertarianism, and
I'm sure Matthew is too, but no, I won't be dragged into a pointless,
partisan, bickering, political argument.  If anyone actually wants to learn,
rather than wallow in self-rationalizing ignorance, please do ask questions,
but otherwise, don't bother with a response.

 -Original Message-
 To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government,
 free trade concepts are just me me me first types trying to make
 sure nobody gets in the way of them getting theirs and they have been
 increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and
 selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and
 diminishing prospects.
 
 I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a sinking
 ship with any of these types around.
 
 That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just
 superficial and insincere BS propaganda ... a slim cover for an
 otherwise socially unacceptable self serving philosophy. I'm convinced
 that by nature they subjectively don't really give a functional damn
 about the good of the whole so debating the economic and governance
 points with them makes about as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out
 of eating meat.
 
 If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories of
 governance, I don't know what ever will.
 
 But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so I
 guess our string is worthwhile.
 Betty. for one... you are a treasure trove of information and reason!


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

 It is not illegal at the present time is the problem. 

No, it is homicide. Homicide is illegal.

 The bill was in part an attempt to make it illegal, as 
 the practice was ongoing in Illinois hospitals. 

This is an overstatement of Homeric proportion.

There was an allegation that this occurred at one hospital. Both the state
Attorney General's office and the  Illinois Department of Public Health
investigated; neither found any evidence for it. 

Q: Why would the IDPH and the AG investigate if it wasn't illegal?

A: They wouldn't. When asked by the Chicago Tribune why there was an
investigation, an IDPH spokesman said, Because what they were alleging were
violations of existing law.

 Can you point to a single case of prosecution
 that would indicate the state thought it to be illegal?

No, because in order for there to be a prosecution, there would have to have
been an occurrence of this. No one has found any evidence that there has
been.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Jeff Wright

 I do not know which conservatives you have in mind, but once you are
 done
 with William Buckley, who unfortunately is no longer around to keep
 Conservatism honest and clean, the fold is mostly histrionic beyond all
 pale
 (starting with the current darling- Hannity, Palin, and Coulter).

I'm not talking about public polemicists.  I was referring to personal
experience with everyday people.  But yeah, I miss Bill.

If you're going to use who appears on tee-vee as the standard on either Team
Red or Blue, then you're pretty much screwed.  I stopped watching broadcast
news for some of the reasons you mention.

 Amazing how when you inject invective and hyperbole, it's acceptable.
 When
 others use the same terminology, it's offensive.

Very true, and also very normal.  I'll repost my rules of partisanship:

- Your side is brilliant, honest, forthright, righteous, of the highest
ethics and above reproach.
- The other side is evil, stupid and/or ignorant, dishonest, sleazy and
always up to something no good.
- And, above all, you are never a partisan, just the other guy.
- Most importantly though, if you don't believe in the same thing, you're
the other guy from the other side.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Ray Rheault

-- Original message from Matthew Taylor taylorsmatt...@gmail.com: 
-- 


 On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:33 PM, db wrote: 
 
  To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government, 
  free trade concepts are just me me me first types trying to make 
  sure nobody gets in the way of them getting theirs 
 
 And you determine this how? 
 
  and they have been increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so 
  to come strongly and selfishly forward by a trend of increasing 
  American scarcity and diminishing prospects. 
 
 What scarcity? What is America running out of in your view? In what 
 way are our prospects diminished? Most libertarians believe that if 
 there is a scarcity, it represents a market opportunity, and believe 
 that with the right choices made our prospects look good indeed. 
  
  
  I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a 
  sinking ship with any of these types around. 
 
 Amazing how many military who might be coming to your rescue are of a 
 more conservative or libertarian bent though. 
  
  
I think you'll find rank and file military donations to Ron Paul, Obama and the 
Dems in general dwarfed those to McCain and the Repubs.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/mccain-edges-obama-with-military-donors/

  That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just 
  superficial and insincere BS propaganda 
 
 You have some secret inside source that tells you that libertarians do 
 no believe what they are saying? 
 
  ... a slim cover for an otherwise socially unacceptable self serving 
  philosophy. 
 
 Self reliance within a greater community, a long standing American 
 tradition, is now socially unacceptable? 
 
  I'm convinced that by nature they subjectively don't really give a 
  functional damn about the good of the whole 
 
 By nature? So you are saying there is a libertarian gene? 
 
  so debating the economic and governance points with them makes about 
  as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out of eating meat. 
 
 Or say vegetarians who feed their dogs and cats vegetable diets? 
  
  
  If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories 
  of governance, I don't know what ever will. 
 
 The spendthrift Republican congress of 2001 - 2006 were hardly an 
 exemplar of libertarian fiscal policy. 
  
  
  But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so 
  I guess our string is worthwhile. 
 
 Other types. Do you mean types you already agree with? I find I 
 learn more from being challenged with demonstrable reason backed up by 
 facts. 
 
 
 * 
 ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** 
 ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** 
 * 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-12 Thread Ray Rheault

I've concluded after reading through this thread that you may be (and there are 
plenty of contenders) the winner of the Legend in His Own Mind award.  I 
congratulate you.
-- Original message from Jeff Wright jswri...@gmail.com: 
-- 


  One of the consistent trends of our recent political history is that 
  the broadly conservative and libertarian thinks the left is badly 
  misguided but educable, while the left thinks conservatives and 
  libertarians are evil and selfish. 
 
 IME, what most non-libertarians seem to think is that libertarians are born 
 as libertarians. From my own observations, most people start out as 
 liberals and a good many stay that way for the rest of their life, never 
 re-evaluating their beliefs. Some do, and turn into conservatives and the 
 truly reformed turn into libertarians. I think that this is where the above 
 dynamic comes from. 
 
 Throughout my youth and well into college, I was a solid Kennedy Democrat. 
 I barely missed voting in 1980 and would have voted for Anderson; I never 
 even heard of Ed Clark. Later on, I worked with hard-line conservatives for 
 years (doing their IT). So, I'm very familiar with the arguments from both 
 the left and right. A former list member (old listers may remember JB) is 
 the one who turned me onto libertarianism many years ago (and after years of 
 arguments) when we worked together. 
 
 This is to say that I've re-evaluated my beliefs many times over the years. 
 When I started having doubts about the correctness of libertarianism, I 
 would look at what the 2 dominant political powers were doing and my 
 admittedly non-conformist beliefs were quickly reaffirmed. 
 
 That someone would start as a libertarian first and then morph into either a 
 liberal or conservative, well, that person is the proverbial unicorn. 
 
 
 * 
 ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** 
 ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** 
 * 


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Jeff Miles


And you have all this insider information how, Dr. Who?

Jeff M


On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:

Was Ben Franklin conservative? Thomas Jefferson? James Madison?   
Not hardly.


Very different men.  Two Southern slaveholders (although Jefferson
saw the contradiction with his thought) and a Northern Puritan (that
wasn't all that pure).

The uniting factor was distrust of a strong Federal government and
a dislike of being subjects of a distant King.

Madison and Jefferson were aristocrats born and bred and Franklin
was largely a self-made man.  All were of the Enlightenment, but
that didn't make them Liberals in the modern sense of the word.

They gambled and they won.  At least a third of the people were
on their side to some extent, a third didn't care one way or the
other, and the rest were perfectly happy to be British subjects
(Brinton, 1965).

None of them had any immediate interest in sticking their heads
in a noose and none of them except the extreme radicals had any
vested interest in changing the status quo ante other than removing
what had then become a business inconvenience.

Please consider the roles an increasing commerce and consequent
taxation played in setting the conditions for the American Revolution
and I think you'll agree that the movers and shakers thereof were no
more Liberals than the government of George III was sane.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,  
privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http:// 
www.cguys.org/  **

*


The friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you.
- Elbert Hubbard





*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]


On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:36 PM, Vicky Staubly wrote:


That any state feels it can prohibit who I am as a person is  
outrageous
and should not be permitted in any civilized country, let along one  
that
claims to be as enlightened as we claim. People like you and Scalia  
belong

in the Dark Ages.


Best to put me there with them - and all others who support a  
government of laws and not of men.  The very essence of judicial  
impartiality is that a judge must rule on the law says, not what they  
wish the law to be.  In this nation there is a long established  
jurisprudence that the state can indeed legislate matters of personal  
morality when the legislature finds a compelling interest in doing  
so.  The state does it all the time.  The state regulates vice, be it  
the sex trade, recreational pharmaceuticals, or other activities it  
considers detrimental to the public good.  I don't think it should,  
certainly not in the manner it does, but that is a political choice  
the people through their representatives have made.  The state  
regulates marriage - the very act of sanctioning any form of marriage,  
of defining marriage in law is an act of legislating morality.  If you  
argue for same sex marriage sanctioned by the state you are asserting  
the power of the state to define marriage - that is legislating  
morality.


If our judges start, some would argue continue, ruling based on their  
philosophy of what the law should be, or should mean today, as opposed  
to what the drafters of a law meant at the time that they drafted it,  
then we no longer have a government of laws.  We simply have a  
government of political majority - whatever that majority might be,  
whenever and wherever assembled.  That is a recipe for tyranny, not  
liberty.


I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices  
myself.  I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my  
choices.  I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my  
choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my views that  
the laws should be changed in an orderly manner.


Finally, if Liberal isn't a bad word anymore, why do Liberals call  
themselves Progressives now instead.


I have some more bad words for you, but I don't want to subject the
nice people on this list (as opposed to you) to them.


I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most  
liberals appear to prefer progressive?  Progressive is such an  
interesting label.  It implies change is valuable for the sake of  
change itself - that the old must be dispensed with simply because it  
is the old.  It gives no weight to custom and tradition as the evolved  
wisdom of society, yet most progressives strenuously argue that  
evolution has shaped the members of society who now must change that  
society in the name of progress.  Such an interesting contradiction.


Matthew


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Chris Dunford

 I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most
 liberals appear to prefer progressive? 

Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media
comedians have managed to turn liberal into something akin to communist
in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater.  

I still use liberal because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic
America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as
usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just
says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that a
lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone
unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many words,
that he hopes Obama will fail.) 

 [Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of
 change itself 

Sez who? I still prefer liberal, but progressive doesn't have the
meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress
means improvement. That is not change for the sake of change.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread b_s-wilk


How do you preserve history and direct seekers to facts and
rational discussions instead of getting lost and entangled in a
jungle of disinformation and fantasy? How do we educate our
children so that they have the ability to know the difference and
discern truth/fact from fiction?


Yesterday's Morning Edition had an interesting interview with Matt
Miller, author of The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old
Ways of Thinking may be a good place to start.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100338745

Yet it is equally clear that the latest conservative strategy ‹
cutting taxes (mostly for the well off ), standing idle while health
costs soar and the ranks of the uninsured swell toward 50 million,
mortgaging our future to nations like China via massive trade
deficits, and deregulating our financial system with explosive
results ‹ has torpedoed our public finances and fueled a pervasive
sense of foreboding.



When I want to find information about medicine, I don't go to a florist, 
I read medical journals and talk to doctors. When I want to learn the 
rules of soccer, I go to FIFA or USSF for the rule books, and talk to 
referees. When I want to learn more about Macintosh computers, I get my 
information from Apple and from the computer user groups and Mac users.


It makes sense for me to seek Liberals when I want to learn more about 
liberal philosophy and politics, instead of some conservative whose 
pretzel logic is so twisted that he has a few people believing that a 
self-serving conservative like Scalia, whose thinking has barely made it 
out of the 18th century without acknowledging the Age of Enlightenment, 
is a liberal. You need to go to the sources of liberal thinking, rather 
than believing a cartoonish caricature that's essentially irrelevant. 
Contrary to the odd redefinition of Liberal, there are a lot of 
similarities with those in the 18th century and the 21st century. Cons 
attempt to changed the definition, while actual Liberals have not 
changed significantly in their philosophy.


How do intelligent people get tricked so easily? Just because you want 
something to be true doesn't make it true. Even though you've been 
inundated with fabrications from the likes of Raygun's deputy press 
secretary Larry Say something five times and it becomes true Speakes 
[and Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Heritage Foundation, et al], 
you should have learned in school and afterwards to discern the 
difference between fact and fiction.


Internet information and news sources range from the absurd to partisan 
rants to straight news to deliberate obfuscation and everything in 
between. It helps to choose sources carefully, and check their 
reputations. Wikipedia is a very good source for information on 
computers and electronics, however when you get to politics and history, 
those entries are often questionable and can change frequently; same for 
lesser know sites. Most important, find information and opinions from 
all points of view instead of just one, then parse and compare.


BTW, Ben Franklin wasn't a Puritan although his father was. Franklin 
retained some of the Puritan values of hard work, community, education, 
but considered himself to be a Deist. As for Jefferson and Madison, 
being exemplars of the Enlightenment, of course they were liberal. They 
were also complicated and conflicted about their politics, and used 
reason to resolve issues; that's what the Enlightenment was all about! 
They discovered that blind Tradition is usually the worst reason for 
doing anything, and grew from that.


Betty

---

Reality is that which, once you stop
believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- Philip K. Dick


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread db

You got to break some eggs to make an omelet. 
Is breaking things orderly?

Probably not from the chicken's point of view...

db

Matthew Taylor wrote:

On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:36 PM, Vicky Staubly wrote:


That any state feels it can prohibit who I am as a person is outrageous
and should not be permitted in any civilized country, let along one that
claims to be as enlightened as we claim. People like you and Scalia 
belong

in the Dark Ages.


Best to put me there with them - and all others who support a 
government of laws and not of men.  The very essence of judicial 
impartiality is that a judge must rule on the law says, not what they 
wish the law to be.  In this nation there is a long established 
jurisprudence that the state can indeed legislate matters of personal 
morality when the legislature finds a compelling interest in doing 
so.  The state does it all the time.  The state regulates vice, be it 
the sex trade, recreational pharmaceuticals, or other activities it 
considers detrimental to the public good.  I don't think it should, 
certainly not in the manner it does, but that is a political choice 
the people through their representatives have made.  The state 
regulates marriage - the very act of sanctioning any form of marriage, 
of defining marriage in law is an act of legislating morality.  If you 
argue for same sex marriage sanctioned by the state you are asserting 
the power of the state to define marriage - that is legislating morality.


If our judges start, some would argue continue, ruling based on their 
philosophy of what the law should be, or should mean today, as opposed 
to what the drafters of a law meant at the time that they drafted it, 
then we no longer have a government of laws.  We simply have a 
government of political majority - whatever that majority might be, 
whenever and wherever assembled.  That is a recipe for tyranny, not 
liberty.


I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices 
myself.  I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my 
choices.  I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my 
choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my views that 
the laws should be changed in an orderly manner.


Finally, if Liberal isn't a bad word anymore, why do Liberals call 
themselves Progressives now instead.


I have some more bad words for you, but I don't want to subject the
nice people on this list (as opposed to you) to them.


I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most 
liberals appear to prefer progressive?  Progressive is such an 
interesting label.  It implies change is valuable for the sake of 
change itself - that the old must be dispensed with simply because it 
is the old.  It gives no weight to custom and tradition as the evolved 
wisdom of society, yet most progressives strenuously argue that 
evolution has shaped the members of society who now must change that 
society in the name of progress.  Such an interesting contradiction.


Matthew


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*




*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Vicky Staubly


On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Chris Dunford wrote:

I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most
liberals appear to prefer progressive?


Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media
comedians have managed to turn liberal into something akin to communist
in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater.

I still use liberal because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic
America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as
usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just
says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that a
lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone
unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many words,
that he hopes Obama will fail.)


Thanks, Chris. I too call myself a liberal, as do my parents, my aunts
and uncles and cousins. I understand (I don't remember personally) that
I went on my first civil rights march in a stroller. :-)


[Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of
change itself


Sez who? I still prefer liberal, but progressive doesn't have the
meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress
means improvement. That is not change for the sake of change.


And, as software developers, we could point out that in contrast to
progress (good change), there is regress (bad change), as in
regression testing (testing for features in software which used to
work, but no longer do because a developer made some change).

--
Vicky Staubly   http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread db


I vote for progress over disintegration.
db

Chris Dunford wrote:

I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most
liberals appear to prefer progressive? 



Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media
comedians have managed to turn liberal into something akin to communist
in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater.  


I still use liberal because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic
America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as
usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just
says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that a
lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone
unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many words,
that he hopes Obama will fail.) 

  

[Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of
change itself 



Sez who? I still prefer liberal, but progressive doesn't have the
meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress
means improvement. That is not change for the sake of change.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A.

Actually, I think the REAL problem is letting others define who/what you
are.
The right demands characteristics that are easily vilified to be part of
Liberal.
Once you fall into that trap, you are forced to continually define who/what
you are/think/act in terms of another's definition- which is generally a
moving target.


Eschew Obfuscation

This is a reply from: 
Roy A. Ackerman, Ph.D., E.A. 
  Financial, Managerial, and Technical Services
for the Professional, Non-Profit, and the Entrepreneurial Organization

  703.548.1343 voice 
  703.783.1340 fax 
  

From thinking to doing, from sales to profits, from tax to investments- we
are YOUR adjuvancy


-Original Message-
From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com]
On Behalf Of Vicky Staubly
Sent: 02/11/2009 2:01 PM
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Chris Dunford wrote:
 I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most
 liberals appear to prefer progressive?

 Pretty simple answer: because Limbaugh and the rest of the neocon media
 comedians have managed to turn liberal into something akin to
communist
 in the fifties--an unpatriotic America-hater.

 I still use liberal because I am neither. I am a liberal patriotic
 America-lover. Limbaugh thinks this is an oxymoron, but he is wrong as
 usual. (Hard to say whether he actually believes the stuff he says or just
 says it because it makes him a lot of money--he certainly has to know that
a
 lot of his rant is factually incorrect. And if we're looking for someone
 unpatriotic, let's nominate someone who has actually said, in so many
words,
 that he hopes Obama will fail.)

Thanks, Chris. I too call myself a liberal, as do my parents, my aunts
and uncles and cousins. I understand (I don't remember personally) that
I went on my first civil rights march in a stroller. :-)

 [Progressive] implies change is valuable for the sake of
 change itself

 Sez who? I still prefer liberal, but progressive doesn't have the
 meaning you impute. A progressive is someone who wants progress. Progress
 means improvement. That is not change for the sake of change.

And, as software developers, we could point out that in contrast to
progress (good change), there is regress (bad change), as in
regression testing (testing for features in software which used to
work, but no longer do because a developer made some change).

-- 
Vicky Staubly   http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread db

To me the cutting tax (ad nauseum...), small hands off government, 
free trade concepts are just me me me first types trying to make 
sure nobody gets in the way of them getting theirs and they have been 
increasingly motivated in the last 25 years or so to come strongly and 
selfishly forward by a trend of increasing American scarcity and 
diminishing prospects.


I wouldn't want to be standing in line for the lifeboats on a sinking 
ship with any of these types around.


That they argue that such policy is best for all of us is just 
superficial and insincere BS propaganda ... a slim cover for an 
otherwise socially unacceptable self serving philosophy. I'm convinced 
that by nature they subjectively don't really give a functional damn 
about the good of the whole so debating the economic and governance 
points with them makes about as much sense as trying to talk a wolf out 
of eating meat.


If the last decade didn't prove out the bankruptcy of their theories of 
governance, I don't know what ever will.


But I do learn a lot from other types in discussing such matters so I 
guess our string is worthwhile.

Betty. for one... you are a treasure trove of information and reason!

db

Tom Piwowar wrote:
How do you preserve history and direct seekers to facts and rational 
discussions instead of getting lost and entangled in a jungle of 
disinformation and fantasy? How do we educate our children so that they 
have the ability to know the difference and discern truth/fact from fiction?



Yesterday's Morning Edition had an interesting interview with Matt Miller, author of 
The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking may be a 
good place to start.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100338745

Yet it is equally clear that the latest conservative strategy ‹ cutting taxes 
(mostly for the well off ), standing idle while health costs soar and the ranks of the uninsured 
swell toward 50 million, mortgaging our future to nations like China via massive trade deficits, 
and deregulating our financial system with explosive results ‹ has torpedoed our public finances 
and fueled a pervasive sense of foreboding.

 



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Vicky Staubly


On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, db wrote:

You got to break some eggs to make an omelet. Is breaking things orderly?
Probably not from the chicken's point of view...


And we have some pretty stubborn chickens.


Matthew Taylor wrote:
I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices myself. 
I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my choices.  I 
certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my choices - I do 
what I can to persuade others to support my views that the laws should be 
changed in an orderly manner.


Have I advocated storming city hall and stealing marriage licenses? I'm
saying that I don't care how unjust laws get changed. Did black people
tell the supreme court after Brown vs Board of Education... no, no,
we'll wait until we can get favorable laws in all 48 states? Did slaves
after the civil war say No, no, I'll wait until my state of South 
Carolina outlaws slavery?


I wish that the people of the US would reject past injustices sooner,
but it seems that it's usually the courts and/or the federal government
that first tries to fix things. Then the bigots cry states rights!
and let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against 
activist judges) try to justify their bigotry.


It's also telling that you called it my lifestyle and a choice.
Strangely, your religion, more of a choice than my lifestyle, does more 
damage than my lifestyle, and yet no one suggests you give it up.


You also dragged marriage into the discussion, trying to say I want more
(or changed) laws, but it was Lawrence v. Texas that started this
discussion (for me anyway). That overturned a state law which made
what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom (if I lived in Texas) a
crime. How is having that law small unobtrusive goverment? You simply
brings up that excuse when it suits your bigotry.

I shouldn't have jumped into this political discussion, but I was simply
trying to show that this kind of bigotry affects real people, people you
know, but obviously don't care about.

--
Vicky Staubly   http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Reid Katan


Quoting b_s-wilk b1sun...@yahoo.es:


How do intelligent people get tricked so easily? Just because you want
something to be true doesn't make it true. Even though you've been
inundated with fabrications from the likes of Raygun's deputy press
secretary Larry Say something five times and it becomes true Speakes
[and Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Heritage Foundation, et
al], you should have learned in school and afterwards to discern the
difference between fact and fiction.


In the words of Mother Tyler* Most 'round here believe. And when most  
believe, that d' make it true.


*Dr Who Curse of the Fendal


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Chris Dunford

 let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against
 activist judges) try to justify their bigotry.

Yeah, and, as a side note, it's always interesting to note that judges are
only activist if they do stuff that the conservatives don't like. There's
apparently nothing activist about, say, five judges selecting as President
the candidate with a half-million fewer votes.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Jordan

Thank you Betty, db, Vicky, and others. It's good to read the thoughts 
of some more true patriots here.


A distillation of what Betty referred to regarding Raygun and his 
methods occurs now:
the way things work on the right blogosphere, some radical winger will 
say something twisted or half true or just fabricated. Then 3 other 
right wing sites will repeat the lie and site each other as sources. 
Then this lie will appear in the mainstream press as if it were an 
established fact. Check former conservative David Brock's web site Media 
Matters to see occurrences of this and lots of other shenanigans that 
are going on.


The legendary example is Chalabi and the White House Iraq group telling 
Judy Miller that there were WMDs, she puts a story about it in the NY 
Times, and Chaney sites it as fact.
Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, and Fox News do this all the time. It's called 
the echo chamber.
If you do any reading at these places, try to check their sources down 
to verifiable research, studies, or reports.


If you read on the left blogosphere, Media Matters, TPM Muckraker, and 
Huffington Post you'll typically see links to legitimate researched reports.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Steve at Verizon

You keep forgetting that we do not elect a president by popular vote. 
Get the Constitution changed if you want it that way. And it was 7 
Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts decision (The 5-4 vote was 
for remanding it back to them).


Chris Dunford wrote:

let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against
activist judges) try to justify their bigotry.



Yeah, and, as a side note, it's always interesting to note that judges are
only activist if they do stuff that the conservatives don't like. There's
apparently nothing activist about, say, five judges selecting as President
the candidate with a half-million fewer votes.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


  



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Jordan


Steve at Verizon wrote:
You keep forgetting that we do not elect a president by popular vote. 
Get the Constitution changed if you want it that way. And it was 7 
Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts decision (The 5-4 vote 
was for remanding it back to them).

Oh, OK. It's better if there were 7 crooked judges.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Rev. Stewart Marshall


We never elect a president by Popular vote.

A president is elected by the Electoral College.

Rules can be changed and other things done to alter this end result.

That was what Florida in 2000 was all about.

Stewart


At 05:13 PM 2/11/2009, you wrote:
You keep forgetting that we do not elect a president by popular 
vote. Get the Constitution changed if you want it that way. And it 
was 7 Justices who overruled the Fla Supreme Courts decision (The 
5-4 vote was for remanding it back to them).


Chris Dunford wrote:

let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against
activist judges) try to justify their bigotry.



Yeah, and, as a side note, it's always interesting to note that judges are
only activist if they do stuff that the conservatives don't like. There's
apparently nothing activist about, say, five judges selecting as President
the candidate with a half-million fewer votes.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*






*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*


Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL  SL 82


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]


On Feb 11, 2009, at 2:34 PM, Vicky Staubly wrote:

Matthew Taylor wrote:
I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices  
myself. I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support  
my choices.  I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to  
suit my choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my  
views that the laws should be changed in an orderly manner.


Have I advocated storming city hall and stealing marriage licenses?  
I'm

saying that I don't care how unjust laws get changed.


And if you had greater respect for the law rather than your preferred  
outcome you would care how the laws are changed.   The constitution  
and the ordinary body of law have proscribed methods of change, the  
latter harder to change than the former.   I advocate following the  
rules to change the rules, not using judges to change the plain  
meaning of the rules or just toss them out as unpopular or  
incompatible with the judge's idea of what the law should be when it  
clearly is not that.



Did black people
tell the supreme court after Brown vs Board of Education... no, no,
we'll wait until we can get favorable laws in all 48 states?


How does this apply to our discussion?  That decision said the  
constitution (14th Amendment chiefly) meant what it said it did -  
equal protection.


Did slaves after the civil war say No, no, I'll wait until my state  
of South Carolina outlaws slavery?


Define wait - it took the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery nation  
wide.  The Emancipation Proclamation did not do that.



I wish that the people of the US would reject past injustices sooner,


As do I.


but it seems that it's usually the courts and/or the federal  
government that first tries to fix things.


I disagree.  Much change comes from ordinary citizens and interest  
groups lobbying for incremental change.  When the courts are used to  
short circuit the process before there is a consensus for change that  
usually creates a tremendous backlash.



Then the bigots cry states rights!
and let their demand for small/weak federal government (or against  
activist judges) try to justify their bigotry.


Wow, talk about a loaded, inflammatory statement.  Am I bigoted  
because I support the rule of law?  Am I bigoted because I think the  
text actually matters?  Am I bigoted because I support a republican  
form of government rather than direct democracy?


It's also telling that you called it my lifestyle and a choice.


Because everything you do, everything I do, is a lifestyle and a  
choice.  Those choices can be guided or constrained by external forces  
or internal makeup, but as an autonomous individual possessed of free  
will, your actions are a choice.


Strangely, your religion, more of a choice than my lifestyle, does  
more damage than my lifestyle, and yet no one suggests you give it  
up.


Argument by unsupported assumption.  I have no religion.  I am an  
agnostic - a militant agnostic.  This existence of the supernatural  
can neither be proved nor disproved by natural means.  And plenty of  
people do suggest I give up my agnosticism and find faith - in their  
deity naturally.  Granted a few don't care which deity, as long as  
there is one.


Did I say anything about your lifestyle was damaging, or wrong?  I do  
not think I did.



You also dragged marriage into the discussion, trying to say I want  
more

(or changed) laws, but it was Lawrence v. Texas that started this
discussion (for me anyway). That overturned a state law which made
what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom (if I lived in Texas) a
crime. How is having that law small unobtrusive government? You  
simply

brings up that excuse when it suits your bigotry.


I think that law is a terrible law and should have been REPEALED long  
ago.  The people of Texas through their elected representatives  
disagreed, as is their privilege under our constitutional system.  I  
do not want any government in my or your bedroom.  Under our present  
laws though they are allowed to be there in certain circumstances.   
That was my point - in our system the state MAY legislate morality.  I  
do not think they should absent some other compelling interest, but I  
do not argue that they may not, for our constitution and the common  
law that precedes it are clear that morality can be legislated.


You write as though you think you know me and my views on personal  
life and morality.  Clearly you do not and have chosen to project a  
straw man to denigrate.



I shouldn't have jumped into this political discussion, but I was  
simply
trying to show that this kind of bigotry affects real people, people  
you

know, but obviously don't care about.


Again, you assume much yet know little about me.  Why is this?

Matthew


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

Now we get to the heart of the matter.  Crooked = disagrees with your  
position.


Got it.

On Feb 11, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Jordan wrote:


Oh, OK. It's better if there were 7 crooked judges.



*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Jordan


Matthew Taylor wrote:
Now we get to the heart of the matter.  Crooked = disagrees with your 
position.


Got it.

Please try to resist the impulse to say such ignorant things.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]

2009-02-11 Thread Eric S. Sande

They were also complicated and conflicted about their politics, 
and used reason to resolve issues; that's what the Enlightenment 
was all about!


I can agree with that statement.  But I can't consider anyone who
kept slaves a liberal.  And perhaps not as enlightened as you seem 
to believe, given that all three knew, as is proven by their writings,

that it was wrong and yet profited from it anyway.

No doubt that they wrote some very fine prose on the subject, but
when it came down to the money the ideals went out the window.


*
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*

Re: [CGUYS] Redefining history [was: Taxes and good life]