Paul Buchheit reports via AlterNet
While Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and John Kiriakou are vilified for revealing vital information about spying and bombing and torture, a man who conspired with Goldman Sachs to make billions of dollars on the planned failure of subprime mortgages was honored by New York University for his "Outstanding Contributions to Society".
This is one example of the distorted thinking leading to the demise of a once-vibrant American society. There are other signs of decay:
- A House Bill Would View Corporate Crimes as "Honest Mistakes"
- Almost 2/3 of American Families Couldn't Afford a Single Pill of a Life-Saving Drug
- Violent Crime Down; Prison Population Doubles
- One in Four Americans Suffer Mental Illness; Mental Health Facilities Cut by 90 Percent
- The Unpaid Taxes of 500 Companies Could Pay for a Job for Every Unemployed American ...for two years ...at the nation's median salary of $36,000 ...for all 8 million unemployed.
Citizens for Tax Justice reports that Fortune 500 companies are holding over $2 trillion in profits offshore to avoid taxes that would amount to over $600 billion. Our society desperately needs infrastructure repair, but 8 million potential jobs are being held hostage beyond our borders.
Previous: Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times
Related Stories
Medicine that costs $1 to make raised in price from $13.50 to $750.00
The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company's decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%. Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August.
CEO Martin Shkreli has said that the company will use the money it makes from sales to research new treatments. The drug is used treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems.
After Turning's acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750. The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution.
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised By Over 50 Times
BBC is reporting on a massive price hike of an essential drug used by AIDS patients:
The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company's decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%. Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August. CEO Martin Shkreli has said that the company will use the money it makes from sales to research new treatments.
The drug is used treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems. After Turning's acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750. The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution. "We needed to turn a profit on this drug," Mr Shkreli told Bloomberg TV. "The companies before us were just giving it away almost." On Twitter, Mr Shkreli mocked several users who questioned the company's decision, calling one reporter "a moron".
Why not switch to a generic pyrimethamine tablet? They don't exist right now, according to the New York Times (story includes examples of other recent price hikes):
With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim's distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing.
The switch from drugstores to controlled distribution was made in June by Impax, not by Turing. Still, controlled distribution was a strategy Mr. Shkreli talked about at his previous company as a way to thwart generics.
The drug is also used to treat malaria and appears on the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines. Toxoplasmosis infections are a feline gift to the world.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Cornwallis on Tuesday December 08 2015, @02:39PM
"Picky, picky, picky..."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:18PM
Other people would just point out that the US was never "the country it used to be".
Built on slavery and by extermination of the locals, fought a bloody civil war, which still left a large portion on the population unconvinced and another chunk riding at the back, robber barons, interning the Japs, nuking the Japs, invading or causing coups all over the place, cutting down major forests into deserts, agent-oranging some other yellow people, profiting from toxic stuff right around or inside major cities, nuking American or natives to measure the effects, setting rivers on fire, lying about the extent of industrial damage (both at home and abroad) to avoid paying for it, using any dirty trick to rig elections...
Most Americans I deal with daily are good people trying to navigate the system. But collectively, that is one fucked-up system with a great "internal PR" department.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 08 2015, @07:00PM
Why do you think the glasses are rose colored? Helps hide the bloodstains...
(Score: 1) by meustrus on Tuesday December 08 2015, @08:34PM
Most of what you say was bad for all the not-Americans. Which is not good. But this article's problem is life for the Americans. And sure, that life was always problematic for non-WASPS. But things aren't getting any better anymore for our ethnic minorities, even as those minorities are starting to not be "minorities" anymore. All the while the power of the average White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male has declined measurably (that's what most of the middle class used to be). What I'm saying is that it was better for more people when privilege went to an ethnic class of Americans rather than a (much smaller) financial class of multi-nationals based in [not America] wherever taxes are cheapest.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:41PM
It feels as though "a billion seconds of Unix" [zork.net] was a watershed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @11:45PM
At least in the 1950's people looked pleasant and wholesome while they screwed you over.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:50AM
So which nations or peoples do have a squeeky-clean past free of revolutions, oppression, or genocide?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:59AM
I'm gonna go for "none" and hope someone can prove me wrong.
My point was about the marketing department, though. The "chosen people" was reserved a while back, but that doesn't seem to deter belief in American Exceptionalism.
While most people find ways of thinking about themselves as special, it takes the Almighty French or Brits, to compete with USA obnoxiousness and disdain levels on that topic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @02:46PM
Challenge: For the benefit of everyone, why don't we try to make this a different discussion?
A reasonable person might conclude that today's societal ills aren't exclusively the result of bad policies created by $PARTY_X or $PARTY_Y, but through a mixture of different measures enacted by politicians of various stripes over the years.
Heck, a reasonable person might even conclude that these ills aren't exclusively the province of government activities, but also include a measure of judgement against society as a whole.
However, if this descends into the predictable and tired false binaries of "Conservative vs. Liberal" (or Republican/Democrat, etc.), it will be disappointing.
We can do this!
Good luck.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Tuesday December 08 2015, @02:55PM
Heck, a reasonable person might even conclude that these ills aren't exclusively the province of government activities, but also include a measure of judgement against society as a whole.
I'd go as far as argue it's exclusively a measure of judgement against society. Societies get the governments they deserve.
However, if this descends into the predictable and tired false binaries of "Conservative vs. Liberal" (or Republican/Democrat, etc.), it will be disappointing.
Inevitable, gotta keep the plebs fighting each other otherwise they might realise the truth
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @02:58PM
OP here, glad you see things my way--the "Meta way."
Now I guess we'll see if anyone else does. :)
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:17PM
That's some nice just world fallacy there. The majority of voters in 2014 voted for democratic representatives and senators, and we still ended up with a republican dominated house and senate because of old, irrelevant constitutional compromises coupled with systemic abuse of the districting system.
We sometimes eat the ass end of whatever 35-45% of the country thinks is tolerable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:20PM
"old, irrelevant constitutional compromises"
Seems relevant to me. Even current. Topical, in fact.
The real question is the degree to which the result relates to the intended compromises. For instance, the founding fathers knew damn well that when you count votes, populations with few votes would be railroaded with tiresome monotony. This is why states have two senators each (and it's funny that the senate is so close to well balanced, on average). The legendary filibuster-proof majority isn't at all a given.
If you don't like the districting scheme, by all means change it. Multiple states already have, and require either bipartisan or nonpartisan agreement on districting. But that's the House for you. And yeah, the current republican-dominated House of Representatives is at least partly a creature of the prior, widely loathed democrat-dominated House of Representatives. So obviously a particular electoral outcome isn't predestined. The pendulum can, and does swing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:29PM
Oh, yes, I'm sure the state legislature of my state that made the most unbalanced districts in the nation, while simultaneously cutting voting rights is interested in my petition for reforming that process.
I'm noise-making because it's among the biggest issues of the era and the apathy people have towards it compared to relatively minor things means all I can do is agitate.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday December 08 2015, @07:04PM
Dammit! I had a finger-check on the moderation - please excuse me!
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 08 2015, @07:41PM
All fixed. No worries.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday December 08 2015, @08:44PM
Muchas gracias!
I HATE it when I do that :).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:03PM
On the other hand, rejecting partisan interpretation when one major political party has had overwhelming success with pushing an agenda that actively promotes each of the indicators in the summary is perhaps more than a bit simplistic, and refuses answers simply because they are divisive.
To say that all the answers lie in partisan politics is naive, but your attitude is equally naive, as it's a dismissal of the nature and behavior of a national government in shaping the long term economic and social trends in a country. Fundamentally I'd even say that your attitude is partisan, though it's cloaked in neutrality, as a narrative of governmental irrelevance has become something of a right-wing obsession.
Now, if I came in here and rightly stated that Donald Trump is an out-and-out fascist with policies barely distinguishable from the Nazis in early 1930s Germany, that would be pointless contentious political debate that adds nothing to the discussion.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:21PM
The US is a fascist state already. Trump is simply taking it to the next logical step - Nazi.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:31PM
On what grounds do you deem the core ideology of the United States fascist?
I do see the currents of nationalism and militarism carried all over the place, but that's not all it takes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:36PM
The "Core ideology of the United Sates" and what the United States actually does are two very different things. On paper, the US is all about freedom, justice, peace and prosperity. In practise.... not so much.
I mean if I declare my "core ideology" to be pacifist and then immediately go about killing and eating people, would you judge me on my words or my actions?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:47PM
The thing is that fascism is an ideology. You can be shitty and militaristic and violent without actively subscribing to fascism. You could certainly make the case that fascist ideologies is embedded in places of power rather than the citizenry or national identity, but I'd still be curious to where exactly you think that is.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:56PM
You've lost me. Who is the self-declared fascist here?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:00PM
Self-description isn't (strictly) important. Believing in the core elements of the ideology is. I want to know who you think the fascist believers are.
(Score: 5, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:43PM
The biggest fascists in the USA are in government, the military and in the boardrooms of the biggest (admittedly multinational) banks and businesses. They are all so closely intertwined that it's hard to pick them apart, to be honest.
I'm sure if you asked any of them they would describe themselves as definitely not fascist, but the fact is:
1 - They believe in government run by business, for business, to the extent that democracy has been effectively reduced to accountability theatre.
2 - They believe that war is just another way to make a profit.
3 - They believe that the population made to support their agenda via propaganda, using a combination of fear, fantasy and mental hackery (aka advertising) to make common people believe black is white and thereby fight against their own best interests.
4 - They promote the belief that the USA is the unrivalled, indisputable, eternal champion of everything. All others are ipso facto inferior.
5 - They promote the belief / attitude that "our way is the only way", or if you prefer, "with us or against us".
6 - They believe that no punishment is too harsh for those that don't fit into their worldview.
Is that fascism? Maybe not by the book, but it's pretty bloody close.
The real irony is that what the USA is supposed to stand for, and what most Americans believe it actually does stand for, is the exact opposite of what it currently is.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:55PM
I can tacitly accept that interpretation as valid.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by TobascoKid on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:21PM
2 - They believe that war is just another way to make a profit.
Just another way to make a profit? Opening a restaurant is just another way to make a profit. War is second only to banking as a way to make a profit (third is the reconstruction business after a place has been rubbleized).
(Score: 4, Funny) by MrGuy on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:24PM
Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism. At least it's an ethos.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:26PM
Actually no, fascism isn't an ideology, it is a societal model or form of governance based on absolute alignment of the populace behind the leadership and brutal suppression of any dissent. For practical reasons it has to be based on some form ideology (racist, socialist, whatever) but AFAIK it's inventors in the roman empire had no such thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Non Sequor on Wednesday December 09 2015, @01:20AM
Actually no, fascism isn't an ideology, it is a societal model or form of governance based on absolute alignment of the populace behind the leadership and brutal suppression of any dissent. For practical reasons it has to be based on some form ideology (racist, socialist, whatever) but AFAIK it's inventors in the roman empire had no such thing.
This is the most accurate characterization of fascism that I've seen in an online discussion. If you look at Germany, Italy, and (don't forget) Spain in the 30s, plus movements other places that didn't get a foothold, the common theme of the fascist movements was that they believed that the world needed their particular strain of thought to seize control. To them, brutality was just a sign of strength and will, which they viewed as needed to advance [INSERT GOAL HERE].
Fascism is what you get when people abandon the idea that they need to, in some manner, manage the level of disagreement over public policy.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @08:59PM
That depends. If you are a muslim then we would be forced to say that you are a "lone wolf" and not representative of the other billion or so people who believe, or are forced to go along, with a social system which condones rape, theft, murder, slavery, subjectification of women, pedophilia, and worse who want to inflict this on the rest of the world.
I judge a person by their actions. Not by why they performed the action. I also judge people for their choices and reasoning.
(Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:52PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism [wikipedia.org]
Emilio Gentile pretty much hits it on the node. Flynn, all the same.
Note that its a mistake to think shrill SJWs represent contemporary thought. They get attention precisely because they are so far from mainstream thought. Admittedly they control the irrelevant academic sector and journalism, but much like Russians under communism, nobody actually believed any of it, but went along silently. So thats how you fit something like "a civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility, comradeship, and the warrior spirit" vs SJW doctrine... if the opposition is a fringe view, then mainstream must not be the opposition.
Not all the SJWs are anti-fascist. Paxton's definition is absolutely insane if you read it in the spirit of the Missouri BLM protesters. Like they literally cut and pasted him. Its crazy accurately it fits. Its insane that if you found someone under a rock who has no idea whats going on with BLM, you could just give them Paxton's quote in the linked article and they'd be totally accurately up to date on what they're doing and why. Its worth reading the article just to read the Paxton quote while thinking "BLM".
Politically I can't think of anyone domestically who I like less than FDR, but I can respect genius in the opposition when I see it, so I present:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"
Now read FDR's "group" as leadership by corporations and protesters, and you have America in a nutshell.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:05PM
I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but it seems like you took one of the least specific definitions on that page(I've found Umberto Eco's definitions to be much better and more respected in that regard) and then stretched it to target your clearly personally disliked political opponents.
I can't help but feel that your statements are more axe-grinding and less anything resembling a coherent point about fascism in the US.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:31PM
I didn't have to stretch very hard. Not because they as a little group are almost there, but because the whole country is almost there so naturally that little group I dislike fits under an only mildly stretched moniker. That's the interesting part, that our extreme left is none the less far right.
Its a display of absolute vs relative. In a relative sense the left is to the left of our right and they traditionally use "fascist" as a pejorative against those to the right but hilariously the whole country in an absolute sense is so incredibly far right fascist that even our most extreme brothers in the far extreme relative left are none the less so far right in an absolute sense that academic descriptions of fascism fit their behavior to a tee. Which is no surprise, they live in an ultra far right fascist country so even if they are far outliers toward the left, they will none the less still be to the right compared to reality or whatever.
Its like debating how Lenin could be to the left or the right of Marx in an abstract sense, but they're both kinda lefties no matter how far apart they may be from each other.
Rather than discussing relative extremes, we could just look at how theoretically moderate soccer mom style normie independent voters would none the less categorize somewhat fascist by any of a bazillion definitions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:19PM
I think that's pretty fair.
Fascism, by its nature, is populist. Thus all populism is likely to reek a bit of it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 08 2015, @08:14PM
You didn't have to stretch very hard because that definition is so vague it's completely meaningless. It sounds like it was written by one of those nonsense paper generators:
Seriously, WTF does this even mean?
a culture founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived of as the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer of history, and on the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the model of life and collective activity;
(Score: 2) by NoMaster on Tuesday December 08 2015, @11:06PM
It sounds like something Heinlein would've written and creamed himself over.
And if they'd turned that book into a movie, that phrase would be followed by "Would you like to know more?"...
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:20PM
The corporate crony capitalism that defines a fascist regime has been incrementally crafted via lobbying and "campaign contributions" since the 1960's, giving us a fascist government in fact if not law. We differ from Il Duce's Italy in that A) we have two corrupt parties, not one and B) we have a judicially-neutered Constitution instead of an impotent monarch.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:30PM
Tell me, what do you expect the campaign contributions are used for?
As I see them, they're used by politicians to pay political consultants, craft fancy messages, and put out advertisements. Campaign contributions are used to persuade. They're not paying for jackbooted thugs to force you to vote for someone, or for retribution against enemies. Yes, politicians are corrupt for large donors, but they do so to fund campaigning.
And you know what? That means WE'RE the problem. If enough advertising dollars and slick messaging can get the "wrong" person elected, then shame on us for not being an informed electorate. Shame on us for being swayed by a cheap soundbyte. Shame on us for not knowing enough about major policy decisions affecting our country to be able to judge the merits of various approaches for ourselves.
You know how we reduce the influence of money on politicians? By NOT LISTENING. You don't need a handgun to protect you from morally bankrupt politicians. You simply need to identify them and vote against them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:50PM
It doesn't work that way. You aren't allowed to actually vote against someone, you can only vote for someone else. Not helpful when your choice is bungee or death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:22PM
If only Candidate A was any less beholden to Wall $treet than Candidate B you might have a point. Hobson's Choice and all that. The mythical unicorn viable independent candidate doesn't exist in this universe. Key word: viable.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:06AM
Why aren't they viable? Because people don't vote for them. Quit being a coward and stop following things simply because they are popular. The only wasted vote is a vote for evil.
(Score: 3, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:11AM
1960s? Try 1760s.
This country was founded by a mercantilist sea empire. Initial expeditions were financed by the British East India Company, Dutch East India company, and agents financed by European trade consortium. The tea trade, the tobacco trade, the wood from the vast North American wilderness fueled the rising industrialism in Europe.
For more modern examples before the 1960s, start with "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler. That book should be required reading in every high school History class.
(Score: 1) by hulk smash on Tuesday December 08 2015, @08:12PM
...and so is the fate of democracy :[
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:54PM
I strongly disagree with you. It's greatly needed political debate (although not really political) and most certainly adds to the discussion. Trumps policies are fascist by definition, and are reminiscent of Nazi ideals. Trump is the officially endorsed candidate for white supremacy groups right now, calling him the "The Ultimate Savior" already.
I agree with you that most discussions involving Trump would devolve into divisive political discourse, but what you've mentioned is something we should have bipartisan support on; Trump is a dangerous bigot and racist. His most recent statements indicate a complete disconnect with reality, common sense, or an understanding of history. Trump is perfectly willing to bring back the Japanese internment camps, which is completely insane and deserving of the reactions it has received. Dick Cheney, who most consider to be pretty evil (popular), has come out and said Trump represents everything that the Republican party, and America, represent.
At this point I honestly think we can diverge from politics completely and just speak of Trump as what he is. A dangerously sociopathic bully willing to repeat the mistakes of history with blind aggression and hubris.
None of my comment here is intended to be political whatsoever. I don't consider Trump to be a real politician, or a serious contender for President. Just a bully, bigot, and racist that has no business in politics, much less a Presidential debate.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:56PM
minor correction. Cheney has condemned Trump as not representing Republican ideals or American values.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:20PM
Cheney has condemned Trump as not representing Republican ideals or American values.
To me that almost sounds like a reason to support Trump.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:36PM
Trump is the officially endorsed candidate for white supremacy groups right now, calling him the "The Ultimate Savior" already.
You are woefully misinformed.
The official title is " God Emperor Trump [imgur.com]".
(Score: 5, Touché) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:01PM
Now, if I came in here and rightly stated that Donald Trump is an out-and-out fascist with policies barely distinguishable from the Nazis in early 1930s Germany, that would be pointless contentious political debate that adds nothing to the discussion.
Well thank goodness that you did not come here and state that Donald Trump is an out-and-out fascist with unAmerican policies that were last seen in Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow South, because that would be pointless even though very true, and a clear and present danger to the continued existence of the United States of America as a Liberal Democratic country, and it would add nothing to the discussion. So thank you, ikanreed, for not bringing up that Trump is a fascist and member of the One Percent who makes money by fake bankruptcy and avoiding his fair share of taxes. This whole discussion could have gone sour. We dodged the bullet by not mentioning that Donald Trump is a fascist and the the likely winner of the Republican primaries to be the party's Presidential Candidate. It was a near thing. We are so lucky.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:22PM
Imagine what basic income would do to this widespread corruption. Suddenly more people would have nothing better to do than pay attention to what their government is doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:38PM
Nazi = National Socialist Party.
Fascinating overlap between fascism/communishm/socialism in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.
Difficult for our sound-byte-driven world to grok at times.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:32PM
Thats kinda like how North Korea(DPRK) isn't Democratic or a Republic right?
Just cause its in the name doesn't make it true.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:07PM
That's a hackneyed right-wing canard. Nazis hijacked the term "socialist" because it was the hot new word of that time. They were in no way socialist or communist. They were fascist, and bitterly hated the socialists and communists.
Note that this is not a defense of socialism or communism, but a fervent wish that Soylentils, even ACs, would not post such drivel here. We here all ought to have read our history and know better than to perpetuate these falsehoods.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:34PM
Not so fast, Quickdraw Sam. The Nazis were quite happy with many aspects of socialist approaches to things, and in fact co-opted them quite handily. They weren't communists, and didn't do the collective farming thing, but they had lots of employment and upliftment programmes, budgeted for schooling and social benefit programmes. They spent quite aggressively on favoured industries, and used the government purse to do exactly that. If you hop across the alps, Mussolini was even more up front about co-opting the large unions, while drowning some of the more rowdy little ones. The main difference is that nationalistic aspect of their ideology, and the racism and expansionism that went with it.
It's no coincidence that the old aristocracy loathed Hitler with an incredible venom, and many of them actually turned against him when push came to shove. Hitler loved him some class warfare - by the simple expedient of creating a new hierarchy.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:47PM
Kind of like how the far-right corrupted the worthy grassroots goals of the Tea Party, and made conservatives think they were libertarians even as they were dragged further and further right...
To Trump and his irrational supporters, the aristocracy are the career politicians, including the already far-right Cruz, Bush, Cheney. With his latest outburst even they have turned on Trump, at least on specific issues, yet supporters still refuse to see the light, believing the less-far-right are RINOs... hell, some already thought GWB was a RINO years ago.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @10:46PM
already far-right Cruz, Bush,
This is some top notch comedy, matey.
'Far right' has truly lost all meaning.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 08 2015, @11:27PM
As someone already pointed out. Obama is pretty far right by most of the world's standard.
And every time Obama decided to consider some right-wing ideas, the GOP had to go further right to keep the Absolute Opposition Stance.
Most of the GOP would now make Le Pen (the extreme-rightist who just won the French local elections) feel either at home, if not a bit too commie.
And still, the media doesn't call them on what everyone else can see.
Almost anywhere else in the world, Clinton would get elected with better than 82/18 (Le Pen dad's loss in the presidential run-off)
(Score: 1) by TobascoKid on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:42PM
Suddenly more people would have nothing better to do than pay attention to what their government is doing
And a whole lot more reason not to pay attention.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 08 2015, @07:32PM
If religion is the opium of the people, CSPAN is the Prozac.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by inertnet on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:00PM
It's not just America, Europe is on a very similar slope, and I'm not so sure about the others.
I believe that a lot of young people must be disgruntled with how society is working for them. Add the lack of control they're feeling, and many can be reeled in by any ideology that promises them a better world. Some will take the flower power or the occupy route, but others will join some terrorist group. It's not just the ideology that attracts them, it's also the society we have created that pushes them away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:40PM
this will persist.
it is the realization in the young mind that she or he will be responsible for the world / infrastructure / government that the forfathers have build.
even though they might be gone they are still around urging us to polish and clean their monuments ... its like being born on a huge ship ark only to realize later on that it is a prison that one has to mend from the inside else it sinks.
or sumething.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:46PM
I recently read an article that showed that the chance of a bill passing was entirely unrelated to its popularity. That is, until you look at the bill's popularity amongst the hyper-wealthy, where there was a very strong correlation.
What this shows is that the USA does not have a functioning democracy.
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:32PM
> However, if this descends into the predictable and tired false binaries of "Conservative vs. Liberal" (or Republican/Democrat, etc.), it will be disappointing.
That's exactly what I'd expect a Republican to say.
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:32PM
> However, if this descends into the predictable and tired false binaries of "Conservative vs. Liberal" (or Republican/Democrat, etc.), it will be disappointing.
That's exactly what I'd expect a Democrat to say.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:47PM
I'm a fan of the multi-party system, which is practiced a lot in European countries.
I have had this weird thought that Americans don't get exposed much to how voting works in most other countries (I say most on purpose, bear with me).
Americans speak English (mostly); the international news they absorb will most likely be of other English speaking countries because it's easier; and due to a trick of fate, several English speaking countries have inherited this "British Commonwealth" system, with
"first past the post" voting. So, even if you're interested in how it all works, chances are you'll be exposed to the only other 2 o three countries where *THEY DO IT EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS IN THE USA*.
There has been a mathematical study (sorry no link) that first past the post leads to a stable situation with two parties.
Proportional representation, on the other hand, means that everybody gets the feeling that they're alowed to vote for the party that represents them, and that parliament *sometimes* listens to the wishes of small parties with 5% representation, if they deem that a sane idea. It makes politics a bit more "real". It makes single-issue parties viable. And sometimes parties just split or disappear.
It is my belief that in the USA (where I've never visited, so take that with a grain of salt) you have a stagnated situation between the Right-Wing Party of Power, and the Extreme-Right-Wing Party of Power. How does that benefit the actual Americans doing the voting? Politicians will never say what is needed but impopular; they don't have to, there's about a 50-50 chance they'll be voted in anyway, whatever they say. It doesn't work like that in politics in other countries. If you piss off voters, you'll get less voters next time. No political party has eternal life.
Several years ago I thought the situation would be remedied in the UK when the Lib-Dems got into a coalition with the Tories. They could have made it dependent on just 1 issue: electoral reform. Would have bennefitted them tremendously forever after (as a small "third party"). But noooo... Pity..
(Score: 3, Informative) by art guerrilla on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:29AM
insofar as both the dem'rats and rethugs are two heads of the same Korporate Money Party hydra, Empire's continued raping and pillaging is paramount to both...
from TPM blog by way of example :
A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.
Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by isostatic on Tuesday December 08 2015, @02:49PM
Comrade _gewg is at it again with his anti-american rants.
The American Dream is to fuck your fellowcountryman in the ass, that's why you're so obsessed with buttsex.
Of course John Paulson is honoured, he embodies that dream, a son of immigrants, survived public school, an entrepreneur. What's not to like? He won the gamble, comopounded his winnings, did nothing to contibute to society and everything to contribute to his own gain. The embodiment of a Perfect American.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:03PM
What is troll about this? The fact that someone who is probably 'succeeding' in this adversary, finds it so? It does sound angry or a little tense but that doesn't mean its not a accurate representation for one little part of the travesty of voting for only what you are given.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:54PM
I'm guessing it was a case of "you're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:09PM
He gambled many people's money to enrich himself. Fuck him. That's whats not to like. I can waste my money on my own.
(Score: 3, Touché) by isostatic on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:34PM
Even better, that's just what a good capitalist does, minimal risk, maximum profits. America! Fuck Yeah!
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:33PM
And what's wrong with that? If he can convince people to invest in his ideas (as long as there's no deception involved), then he deserves the profit he negotiated. Just because one party gets a larger share of the profit doesn't mean that all parties aren't better off or those that got less were slighted.
The thing that's a real disservice to those who start with minimal capital is the marketing and social pressure to spend beyond your means. If we valued sound financial planning rather than who can accumulate the most flashy crap, then there wouldn't be so many people living paycheck to paycheck just to keep up with rent and the minimum payments on their seven maxed out credit cards. Heck, just teach people how to use debt effectively and how/why to avoid it otherwise and we'd be much better off. But Home Economics classes are sexist, so we can't teach those anymore. :eyeroll:
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:51PM
There's nothing wrong with it, that's my point. It's the american dream in action. Not everyone wins, in fact most will lose, but everyone has a chance.
Home Economics classes are sexist, so we can't teach those anymore.
They were renamed to "Family and consumer science" [aafcs.org] in one of those bullshit left-wing feel-good policies.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:17PM
They were renamed to "Family and consumer science" in one of those bullshit left-wing feel-good policies.
Except they forgot to actually include anything about how to manage your personal finances in the curriculum. Instead you can learn about how self-esteem is the most important thing in child development and how any form of corporal punishment is child abuse which should be reported to the police immediately.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:43PM
Were those facets ever in home economoics? In the past you had a job, earned a wage, and spent it on things you needed. Simples.
Nowadays you're supposed to have investment portfoilos.
As a rich capitalist, in order to make more money, I need the rest of the world to buy shiny things which give me a hugh markup for little risk.
Why would I fund a government that teaches people they don't need to buy new trinkets?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday December 08 2015, @07:02PM
If the government teaches them how to earn more money and then use that money to acquire even more money, after a while they can afford many more or higher cost trinkets. I don't think sales of shiny things would stop, just slow temporarily until the purchasing power caught back up and then would accelerate faster and faster after that. Everyone likes shiny things and they'd definitely buy more if they had the money. A bit of collective delayed gratification would go a long way to fixing the economy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @02:58PM
"One in Four Americans Suffer Mental Illness;"
I call bullshit. People are diagnosed with mental illnesses primarily for the purpose of selling them drugs for that illness. Ever notice that drugs don't cure those mental illnesses, they only "control" the illnesses?
Worse, people have been told that "normal" people don't get depressed, don't suffer from anxiety, never get hyperactive, etc, ad nauseum. They are told this crap incessantly, until they begin to self-diagnose with illnesses. "I'm nervous, there must be something wrong with me - I'll go find my symptoms on the internet, find out what it is, and tell my doctor that I need some drugs. THEN I'll feel better!" A little bit of something to release some dopamine into the brain, and you still have reason to be nervous, but you feel good about it. YOU MUST BE NORMAL!!
Yeah, I guess you're normal, if being brainwashed by advertisers is normal.
Let me guess - some of you think that I'm the one who is full of shit? Well - check this out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0K2kWqFVFI [youtube.com] Ten minute video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC34j2hTnvA [youtube.com] Fifty three minute video
We just touched peripherally on this a few days ago -
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/28/landmark-study-suggests-most-psychology-studies-dont-yield-reproducible-results [insidehighered.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:07PM
FUD FUD FUD. Shill Shill Shill Shill. Sure and why are those drug ads now legal? Lack of personal representation and more corporate graft, ahem lobbying. It all comes down to lack of control of a few and a large amount of people who have given up on a uncomfortable truth.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Alfred on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:25PM
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:45PM
Yeah - but - what's it cost? I don't want just any old placebo! If the alcohol content is high enough, I'll consider it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheLink on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:06PM
According to scientific research the expensive placebos work better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/health/research/05placebo.html [nytimes.com]
https://today.duke.edu/2008/03/placeboprice.html [duke.edu]
Follow up study with similar results:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-expensive-placebos-work-better-20150127-story.html [latimes.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tempest on Tuesday December 08 2015, @07:02PM
So only the rich can afford expensive placebos to treat their non existent mental illness? Damn you 1%. Damn you!
(Score: 1) by TobascoKid on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:53PM
I prefer a homeopathic remedy, where I add a small amount of sugar to water and it remembers the Placebo molecules. It certainly get me through the day.
Not that it makes any difference to the science behind it, but I tend to use hot water and add coffee granules for flavour.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:45PM
Actually, the medical ads that I'd love to see, but never will: "Ask your doctor if eating right and exercising is right for you!" Because both of those things have far greater effect than all the pharmaceuticals a lot of people are on.
That said, I agree that there's probably a lot of over-diagnosis going on. I doubt that it's a grand conspiracy involving pharmaceutical companies though, because there are plenty of other reasons for it:
1. We haven't figured out how to make best use of people who have certain behaviors. As an example, if I'm a hominid on the plains of Africa, I want to make damn sure that somebody in my group is easily distracted by little things around them - because they'll probably notice the lion hiding in the grass before anybody else does. That's now called "ADHD", but it's an evolved useful trait, and we would be wise as a society to find jobs for them where the primary skill is noticing subtle things like tiny cracks in dams or unusual behavior in front of security cameras.
2. Those with diagnosed mental illness have access to services and assistance that those without that diagnosis lack. So, for example, there's a strong incentive to be diagnosed with something prior to taking the SAT/ACT, because that diagnosis can give you extra time to take the test. This is appealing to parents who want their kids to use whatever resources they have at their disposal to get good grades.
3. We're better at diagnosing and treating mental illness than we used to be. Our name for people with many mental illnesses used to be "stupid", "moronic", "simpleton", "village idiot", and so forth. And most of the rest of them were simply termed "loonies" and locked up somewhere or simply left out in the woods to die.
And the strong evidence against the "pharma conspiracy" theory is that there are enough people working in mental health right now that if there were a big pharma conspiracy, you'd expect that a significant number of them would have squealed.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:05PM
1. The last thing you want is a person with ADHD acting as a lookout. We tend to get bored with a dull task and intensely focus on something else that piques our interest. It's why studying is almost impossible.
2. Depends on the needs. I used to get the extra time but in some cases they wanted to see a school record that listed you as learning disabled. That meant that your chances of getting into a decent uni were slim to none as it put a black mark on your transcript. I got a 1060 out of 1600 on the SAT and didn't study a single second. Meanwhile a straight A honor roll student only got an 800 even after intense preparation. We were both rejected from our uni of choice, his SAT score and my shit grades. My grades were in the toilet and a bunch of my report card averages were below 65, the minimum passing grade. Though for the most part I was able to maintain a 65-70 in my junior and senior years. Technical classes that interested me? Aced them and either never studied or studied a bit before a test for a hour or so, just to review and make sure I knew the formulas and steps. Boring classes? Flunked.
3. I was originally diagnosed with ADD around 1990. Though, I'm sure if I went back I would probably be re-diagnosed with ADHD and/or possibly another autism spectral disorder. My grades alone would prompt people to think I was some kind of idiot. Once they got to know me they asked how I could possibly be flunking. I never had an answer.
When I was 10, I was diagnosed and put on ritalin. Didn't really work for me and only made me lose my appetite which affected me more. Later that year I also tried dexedrine, an amphetamine like adderall. I have recently lightly experimented with adderall but stopped after one day as I immediatly knew I could develop an addiction. Once the high wore off I was anxious to get another hit. I tapered it off with half a dose and when that wore off, a big cup of coffee. Now I self medicate with caffeine via coffee though it's temporary and only really gets me through >50% of the day. I will be honest and say I am very weary of medication. The side effects and possible addition are what put me off.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:31PM
The conspiracy doesn't go any further than "hey employees, get sales to go up, by what ever means, or you're fired!" Cross this with some loose morals, lacking consideration of human well-being, short sightedness and a big mortgage payment or debt and they are probably no worse than congressmen.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:59PM
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:51PM
But what are the common side effects of using Placebo? Are there any generic versions of it?
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:58PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:27PM
I got the torrent. Oh - I thought I was still seeding it, but not . . . Oh, I got stupid and moved it to a DVD instead of copying it.
But, yeah, that documentary is enlightening!
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:46PM
Heh, I saw one in five recently and thought that was a load of BS. One in four is even more ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @11:37PM
I call bullshit too. Given your posting history and that of many other Soylentils that number must be higher than one in four...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:12AM
You're just an intolerant radical who presumes that anyone who disagrees with him must be crazy.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:54PM
Yeah, Runaway, you aren't mentally ill. That would give you an *excuse.* No, you're stone-cold sane and sober, just soulless. I get it; there are people like you in every time period. There truly is nothing new under the sun...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:12AM
"There truly is nothing new under the sun..."
If you truly understand that, then you should know that the barbarians are at the gates.
(Score: 1) by Snort on Tuesday December 08 2015, @02:59PM
If you put InforWars and AlterNet in an arena in a fight to the death, who wins?
Besides society if both died.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:15PM
Of course this isn't an exclusively american problem, it's just that you lot are well ahead in the race to the bottom.
The only way out of this - notice I say "way out" instead of "solution" - involves pitchforks, flaming torches, firing squads, civil unrest, maybe even civil war. Might be next year, might be fifty years hence, but i think it will be in my lifetime.
This is the only way not because there exist no other solutions, but because greed only knows one way. They will take more, push harder, squeeze ever tighter until eventually society snaps. And when it dust like the overprivileged victims of other peasant revolutions throughout history, they will be completely surprised and uncomprehending when it comes. People advocating things like minimum wage, basic income, socialist healthcare - we are actually trying to save you megarich guys and your families from the guillotine. Bear that in mind next time you call me a pinko leftist hippy muslim raghead anti-american layabout terrorist socialist freedom-hating nazi commie thief.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by TobascoKid on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:38PM
like the overprivileged victims of other peasant revolutions throughout history
On the whole, it's the peasants who tend to be the victims of peasant revolutions. The Rich™ tend to win peasant revolutions more often then they lose.
they will be completely surprised and uncomprehending when it comes
They're more prepared than you think.
People advocating things like minimum wage, basic income, socialist healthcare
You mean the people who intend to become the overprivileged after a successful peasants revolt?
we are actually trying to save you megarich guys and your families from the guillotine
No you're not. You need the mega rich to fail so that you can replace them. What you're actually trying to do is raise the rabble in an effort to better your chances should that day ever come (I don't think it'll help much - there are plenty of drones for all of you)
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:06PM
Your butthurt is showing, as is your lack of reading comprehension.
Where in my post did I say that I thought violent revolution was a good thing? Where did I say that after the revolution there will be a peaceful socialist workers paradise rather than decades of infighting and warfare and new shit floating to the top? Where did I say that I plan to overthrow the rich and sit on their thrones? All I said is that if you oppress and impoverish long enough, an uprising is inevitable, and I stand by that.
(Score: 1) by TobascoKid on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:32PM
And I'm saying that any uprising is highly likely to fail, and even if successful it would still ultimately fail those for whom the uprising was notionally supposed to help.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:50PM
You said quite a bit more than that.
(Score: 2, Funny) by TobascoKid on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:09PM
Now your butthurt is showing.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:40PM
In your 50 year scenario we will be so drugged up that the only way we will be moving pitchforks is if there is a historical pitchfork/unrest simulator for PlayStation 12.
Do americans know what an actual pitchfork is? Would they recognize it? This might be the only one most have seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gothic [wikipedia.org]
I think that already Americans are too far into bread and circuses to do anything. Write an email to your senator? Nope too hard. Read into the text of a bill? Also too hard. Soon it will be too difficult to listen to the daily propaganda news and just complain about it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DNied on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:32PM
You guys need an amendment to your Constitution introducing the right to bear pitchforks.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:37PM
Also, everyone agrees that the 2nd amendment refers to guns. I would rather have a gun than a pitchfork. But you can bring a pitchfork to a gun fight if you want.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 08 2015, @08:50PM
Important to distinguish between hayforks and manure forks, and for grain a large aluminum shovel is used.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:10PM
I'll make it easy for you:
You're a fucking plhmraaltsfhnct.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:50PM
The only way out of this - notice I say "way out" instead of "solution" - involves pitchforks, flaming torches, firing squads, civil unrest, maybe even civil war. Might be next year, might be fifty years hence, but i think it will be in my lifetime.
Way out of what?
This is the only way not because there exist no other solutions, but because greed only knows one way.
Greed won't go away just because there is a revolution.
They will take more, push harder, squeeze ever tighter until eventually society snaps.
And how is that going to be even a little bit different after the revolution?
And when it dust like the overprivileged victims of other peasant revolutions throughout history, they will be completely surprised and uncomprehending when it comes.
Or just not around, like most peasant revolutions of history.
People advocating things like minimum wage, basic income, socialist healthcare - we are actually trying to save you megarich guys and your families from the guillotine.
No, I think you'll dig the hole deeper. Minimum wage doesn't employ people who aren't worth minimum wage. Socialist healthcare doesn't do shit when your society is overpaying for ineffective health care (including single payer!) rather than maintaining basic services. Basic income is irrelevant when the income is worthless. At some point, you need to provide for the future, not just bread and circuses.
And there's no reason to worry about the megarich guys, they have their own airplane. They'll do fine somewhere else.
The weird thing is, this is the start of the golden age of human labor. Globally, our labor is better off than it has ever been before. All these complaints are made in a vacuum, completely ignorant of rising standards of living throughout most of the world.
Of course this isn't an exclusively american problem, it's just that you lot are well ahead in the race to the bottom.
And what is actually happening at the bottom? One of the remarkable things about this debate is the myopic outlook of the developed world which is on display with the term, "race to the bottom". Ok, let's look at the actual "bottom", countries like China and India which have greatly improved the quality of their citizens' lives. Sure, the US may be racing hard for the bottom, but the bottom is also rising quite rapidly. At some point, they'll meet (I wager by 2050, the difference will be small enough that most current competition pressure will have gone away) and US labor will start to increase (unless we've implemented really disastrous anti-employment policies by then). The bottom isn't perfect, it has a lot of pollution, for example. But it's rising, The bottom shows the same centuries-old synergy with automation that developed world countries used to have before they started punishing the act of employment.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 09 2015, @10:12AM
> Greed won't go away just because there is a revolution.
Never said it would. All a revolution does is hit a big "reset" button and begin the cycle all over again. When the dust settles (read: After a decade or two of bloody civil war and unrest) the constitutions are drawn up, the elections are held and for a while it's all good. Then the idealists get ousted and over generations, corruption seeps in until you're right back where you were.
> Or just not around, like most peasant revolutions of history.
We'll see. I think this might turn out to be the flip-side of globalism. If the shit really hits the fan in one country, it's likely that it will follow in others, like the Arab Spring. If things get really bad, there may be nowhere left for them to hide.
> completely ignorant of rising standards of living throughout most of the world.
I disagree. Sure, my parents didn't grow up with mobile phones or double glazing or flat screen TVs, but they had a few things that are almost completely unheard of in today's brave new world:
1- Job security. If you had a job and were good at it, then you could reasonably expect to have an income for your family until you retire. Nowadays workers are thrown on the scrap heap the second the stock market wobbles, through no fault of their own. Hopping jobs every three years is the norm, not the exception. Good luck getting a new job if you're 50+.
2 - Incomes in proportion to living expenses. Once upon a time a person could work a full week and provide for the family, leaving the partner to stay home and raise the kids, or maybe get some work to pay for luxuries. You could probably get by on two part-time incomes, sharing the domestic work. Now it is almost obligatory for both parents to work full time. It's impossible to afford a house otherwise, let alone energy bills, taxes etc. This means that an increasing number of grandparents are now full-time carers.
3 - A pension. As above, you need two moderate incomes just to survive. You want a pension as well? Only the rich can have a retirement. The rest of us are expected to drop dead like good little worker ants the second we stop becoming productive cogs in the economic machine. State pension? Hahahahahahah!
4 - A longer life expectancy. Despite improved healthcare technology now, and despite the fact that everyone smoked like a chimney back then, people born in the 40s-60s will probably die older than their kids and grandkids will. Partly because all that fancy new healthcare is rapidly being priced right up to the limits of what a desperate person can afford (and make no mistake, the good old basic healthcare will soon follow), but mostly because of the new high-stress, perpetual work lifestyle that forces people to make hard choices between family time, exercise, good diet and relaxation. You can't have them all any more, not unless you are very highly paid or otherwise wealthy.
The common theme here is the hoovering up of all surplus time, energy and money to the top of the pyramid. Why should the plebs have free time when they could be working? Why should they keep the fruits of that extra work when we can hike energy / house prices another 30% and take it from them? Why should old folks get a peaceful retirement when they could be looking after the grandkids 24/7, freeing up more workers to be sacrificed on the altar of Mammon? Those at the top accumulate more and more of the wealth (which they can never spend or use, they just get hard seeing ever bigger numbers on their bank statements) while appeasing the rest of us with bread (cheap, shitty food will always be affordable), circuses (TV, iGadgets) and propaganda (You never had it so good! Look how cheap the new smartphone is! Never mind that someone else is raising your kids and you haven't had a proper day off in six years.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:50PM
Never said it would. All a revolution does is hit a big "reset" button and begin the cycle all over again. When the dust settles (read: After a decade or two of bloody civil war and unrest) the constitutions are drawn up, the elections are held and for a while it's all good. Then the idealists get ousted and over generations, corruption seeps in until you're right back where you were.
So why do you keep fantasizing about it then? It sounds an awful lot to me like arguing that we need to do some incredibly retarded things which make the situation worse in order to avoid global revolution. Sorry, if I can't bring myself to hop on your happy train.
We'll see. I think this might turn out to be the flip-side of globalism. If the shit really hits the fan in one country, it's likely that it will follow in others, like the Arab Spring. If things get really bad, there may be nowhere left for them to hide.
Why would that happen? a lot of the world is doing great. And frankly, why the obsession over rich people anyway? They're just scapegoats. They didn't create the worst problems of developed world societies, like overpriced labor, pyramid scheme-based social programs, and an aging labor force.
Note that overpriced labor explains your first two points adequately. And point three, pensions are useless when the pension fund goes bankrupt due to excess obligations and the society falls apart because they valued pensions over basic services. All the unicorns in the world don't provide a solvent pension fund. That only happens by very disciplined investments and conservative payouts.
Finally, I gather from point four you think there's a problem with rich people living longer? Doesn't sound like a problem at all, much less one that I should care about. It is completely retarded to complain that life isn't fair because everyone doesn't die at the same time.
The common theme here is the hoovering up of all surplus time, energy and money to the top of the pyramid.
Not at all. There are plenty of unemployed people. Their surplus time and energy isn't getting hoovered up. Your narrative is false. Maybe you should ask why?
My view is that all this drama will end when workers in the developed world are in near wage parity with the rest of the world. Fantasizing about global revolution, even if it happens, won't change that outcome a bit.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 09 2015, @05:22PM
> So why do you keep fantasizing about it then?
What? Please point to the part where I "fantasize" about bloody revolution.
I'm not going to refute your other points, our views are simply incompatible. Everything you post sounds to me like the complete opposite of reality, and I'm sure you can say the same of me.
I get the impression that you believe that market forces are holy instruments beyond human ken and control, and should therefore be left to do whatever they do, and whatever results must therefore be the right and natural state of affairs. I'm of the opinion that money & economics, as human inventions, should be treated as tools/ forces that can be harnessed to achieve specific goals to improve the human condition.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 09 2015, @08:24PM
What? Please point to the part where I "fantasize" about bloody revolution.
Ok.
The only way out of this - notice I say "way out" instead of "solution" - involves pitchforks, flaming torches, firing squads, civil unrest, maybe even civil war. Might be next year, might be fifty years hence, but i think it will be in my lifetime.
All a revolution does is hit a big "reset" button and begin the cycle all over again. When the dust settles (read: After a decade or two of bloody civil war and unrest) the constitutions are drawn up, the elections are held and for a while it's all good. Then the idealists get ousted and over generations, corruption seeps in until you're right back where you were.
The first two indicate you attribute special cultural powers to revolution. It's a "way out". It's a "reset button". It's full of relatively incorruptible idealists.
And when it dust like the overprivileged victims of other peasant revolutions throughout history, they will be completely surprised and uncomprehending when it comes.
The common theme here is the hoovering up of all surplus time, energy and money to the top of the pyramid.
Then you fantasize about the "overprivileged victims" who are "hoovering up of all surplus time, energy and money" and who will be "completely surprised and uncomprehending" when the revolution comes. One needs good, despicable villains for one's fantasy.
We'll see. I think this might turn out to be the flip-side of globalism. If the shit really hits the fan in one country, it's likely that it will follow in others, like the Arab Spring. If things get really bad, there may be nowhere left for them to hide.
Nowhere for them to hide! Globalists getting their comeuppance via globalism! This is damned exciting stuff!
People advocating things like minimum wage, basic income, socialist healthcare - we are actually trying to save you megarich guys and your families from the guillotine.
And the simplistic moral of the fantasy. Let us also note that all societies including some of the worst on Earth, implement some variation of these. We're already doing it. I wonder why there could possibly be megarich and global revolutions when we're already doing it right?
And my heart is warmed by your efforts to protect the delicate megarich from the consequences of their actions, because you know better (classic fantasy). That's so noble. Maybe they'll name the nature preserve after you. Notice, all I had to do was copy and paste your quotes from my own posts. It's like I completely anticipated your argument. Perhaps you should read quotes to understand why a poster writes what they write?
I get the impression that you believe that market forces are holy instruments beyond human ken and control, and should therefore be left to do whatever they do, and whatever results must therefore be the right and natural state of affairs. I'm of the opinion that money & economics, as human inventions, should be treated as tools/ forces that can be harnessed to achieve specific goals to improve the human condition.
That's nice that you have that feeling. Markets are after all tools and they are here to be harnessed. But the problem here is that you have to understand first how to harness them before you try. Or at least have a willingness to learn from trial and error.
The most important two things to remember about markets is that first, they exist because they already have immense collective utility. Your intention of using markets to fight fantasy revolutions is at odds with the variety of other uses for markets. Overall, such a scheme makes them less useful for everyone and perhaps hastens the advent of real revolutions.
Second, markets are one of the best truth-seeking tools we have. For example, they're better than the scientific method, the courtroom, or a well-written story in determining a price of exchange for bacon. But to repeat myself, that utility is undermined when you impose controls in order to prevent fantasy revolutions.
I'm not going to refute your other points, our views are simply incompatible.
What a copout. I think rather this is due to your inability to reason and understand other points of view, demonstrated multiple times during the course of this thread. It's a common thing on the internets, I gather.
In case, you are concerned that I may be mischaracterizing you, let us note several things. First, you spun a fantasy about revolutions, even global-spanning revolutions, attributing all sorts of powers to revolutions (like the ability to "reset" societies). You present fantasy villains and fantasy solutions (ignoring that the real world already implements what you wanted without actually doing away with the problems that those solutions were supposed to do away with). You demonstrate an inability to understand why we do things, like trade on a market. You present a list of 4 complaints which when one looks at them, turn out to have nothing to do with megarich people doing megarich stuff (but maybe have a lot to do with pointless class envy). You then complain when presented with reason that "views are simply incompatible".
Reap what you sow.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday December 10 2015, @12:48AM
Very nice. You present my quotes with your own smug commentary and think that somehow proves you right. But however much you believe you can read my mind, you can't. You are wrong. I think it's rather telling that the entire "fantasy" you cobbled together might be built from a mosaic of my words, but it all came out of your head.
This isn't something I want, but I believe it's something that will inevitably happen. A href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014">I'm not the only one/a>History is full of repeating cycles, and this one is about due.
You accuse me of copping out by refusing to refute youir points individually, but given that everything you've posted seems to be built upon this false "fantasy" you are so excited about, I'm not sure what's left to refute. However, here are a few things that I'd like to say.
1- Yes, markets have their uses. I'm not totally anti-capitalist. I believe that capitaism (like socialism) is a tool rather than a holy quest. It is a force like fire and electricity that is dangerous if left unchecked, but useful if controlled.
2 - I do understand other points of view, thanks very much. Given how badly you've misinterpreted my words, I'm tempted to throw the accusation right back at you. However, I'll let you have this: There are some points of view where I can follow the chain of reasoning presented, right the way back to the flawed assumptions that underlie them, but still completely fail to see through the eyes the other person. Take for example hardcore Rayndians. They start with some wobbly assumptions about human behaviour and build a pyramid of dodgy conclusions atop it. I can understand what they are saying and how they got there. But there is a fundamental lack of humanity there as well. Some folks seem to honestly believe that being poor is proof that you *deserve* to starve and freeze and suffer. No amount of logic can justify that, whatever your starting assumptions. Can't get my head around it and frankly, I'm not sure I want to.
3 - I'd just like to point out that up 'til now I've been nothing but civil. Your condescending tone and juvenile attempts to undermine my arguments by rebranding them as make-believe are not only rude, but reveal that you are nowhere near as confident in the strength of your arguments as you project. In addition, your anti-social arrogance demonstrates over-compensation for what are almost certainly very deep-seated and heavily repressed doubts about your own self-worth. I'm guessing your mother didn't cuddle you enough. See? Anyone can be an internet mind-reader.
4 - "nothing to do with megarich people doing megarich stuff (but maybe have a lot to do with pointless class envy)"
Oh for fuck's sake it's right there in the summary: Goldman Sachs (AKA very rich people representing megarich people) conspired to create the subprime crisis, dumping millions of hardworking people into the shit, directly and deliberately causing homelessness, family breakdowns and suicides, just so that they could afford another fleet of yachts (or as I like to call it, "doing megarich stuff"). Then the shitblankets had the gall to get world governments to hand over insane amounts of taxpayer money to "bail them out". A HRef="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405">This was not an accident. It was not a one-off. This was business as usual./A> This is the way the world is now (and arguably always has been), with A href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland">the richest 85 people in the world not content to own only 50% of the world's wealth. /a>
Read that last sentence again, carefully. The richest 85 human beings in the world have as much money as the poorest 3 or 4 billion put together. And they are working (*) to accumulate more. If you can read that without thinking that something is seriously fucked up in our economic system and in dire need of fixing, then I stand by my earlier statement: Our points of view are competely incompatible, and you are wasting your time trying to make me understand you. And frankly, that would be just fine with me.
(*) And when I say "working" I mean bribing, threatening, sleazing, abusing, corrupting, polluting and killing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @06:17AM
You present my quotes with your own smug commentary and think that somehow proves you right.
Excellent summary.
But however much you believe you can read my mind, you can't. You are wrong. I think it's rather telling that the entire "fantasy" you cobbled together might be built from a mosaic of my words, but it all came out of your head.
It was all words you wrote. Want me to reach different conclusions? Write something different.
1- Yes, markets have their uses. I'm not totally anti-capitalist. I believe that capitaism (like socialism) is a tool rather than a holy quest. It is a force like fire and electricity that is dangerous if left unchecked, but useful if controlled.
Agree.
2 - I do understand other points of view, thanks very much. Given how badly you've misinterpreted my words, I'm tempted to throw the accusation right back at you. However, I'll let you have this: There are some points of view where I can follow the chain of reasoning presented, right the way back to the flawed assumptions that underlie them, but still completely fail to see through the eyes the other person. Take for example hardcore Rayndians. They start with some wobbly assumptions about human behaviour and build a pyramid of dodgy conclusions atop it. I can understand what they are saying and how they got there. But there is a fundamental lack of humanity there as well. Some folks seem to honestly believe that being poor is proof that you *deserve* to starve and freeze and suffer. No amount of logic can justify that, whatever your starting assumptions. Can't get my head around it and frankly, I'm not sure I want to.
My fundamental point of view on this is that the policies you've advocated so far, such as minimum wage, pensions and basic income, and socialist medicine, are for the most part counterproductive and work against the very goals of not having people starve, freeze, and suffer.
Minimum wage never works. Either it's too low, in which case almost everyone is already getting paid more than the minimum wage, or it's too high, in which case you've just thrown a bunch of people out of work because their labor is not worth more than what the employers can get through automation, exporting the work to a cheaper country, or just not doing the job in the first place. It always harms young adults, ex-convicts, the low skilled, and poor ethnicities. The more of those categories you can check off, the worse it gets. And it is as a result destructive to the future. How are you going to warrant getting paid more, if you haven't worked? How are you going to learn how to start your own business, if you've never worked and never built up any assets? My view is that holding a real job is more valuable to a person than having an education, but one that should be relatively trivial to achieve compared to the considerable effort of a good degree (and often simultaneously learned, if someone works while in college). Minimum wage makes that hard since you now have to be skilled or lucky enough to find a job worth that minimum wage. And why take chances on unknowns or ex-convicts when you can employ one of the many unemployed who have a good skill. My view is that there should never be a minimum wage. Even the bureaucratic overhead of keeping track of wages for the minimum wage regulation contributes slightly to unemployment and human suffering.
Pensions are very similar to basic income. One can reasonably think of pensions as a conditional basic income which pays out once you've reached certain age or disability conditions, depending on the pension. A very common trait of pensions (and of basic income in general) is that they promise more than they can deliver. It is cheaper to promise money in the far future and to borrow from the far future than to deliver it now. This is a straightforward transfer of wealth from young to elderly and happens in addition to the transfer of wealth from most medical systems as well. And what is most hypocritical about it at the government level is that people vote for the politicians willing to make those empty promises. This brings up the lethal threat to any public funded pension or basic income, the horde of voters falling for the most extravagant promises rather than the sanest promises. And once payouts from these things get large enough, you have the resulting problems like inability to fund basic services, inflation, and later generations getting shafted.
I don't see basic income evolving much differently. It'll be a lot of people getting basic income voting against a small number of people paying for it with a lot of people showing complete disregard for future generations. Still, if we have to have something, it's probably a better fallback than the other things that you've suggested here.
Socialist medicine is going through the same failure mode that US health care is. The fundamental problem is that consumption is disengaged to a great degree from the cost of the consumption. And once again, you have the same clueless people demand more stuff and voting for those who promise that. As I see it, end result is that every developed world country, not just the US, has had health care expenses climb considerably faster than the GDP of the country (a crude measure of the ability of the country to pay for things).
For me though, the worst aspect of counterproductive welfare systems is that they're a bribe to voters to maintain the status quo corruption which I go over in more detail when discussing your last point.
3 - I'd just like to point out that up 'til now I've been nothing but civil. Your condescending tone and juvenile attempts to undermine my arguments by rebranding them as make-believe are not only rude, but reveal that you are nowhere near as confident in the strength of your arguments as you project. In addition, your anti-social arrogance demonstrates over-compensation for what are almost certainly very deep-seated and heavily repressed doubts about your own self-worth. I'm guessing your mother didn't cuddle you enough. See? Anyone can be an internet mind-reader.
I don't agree. You think you've been nothing but civil. But let's start and end with your condescending attitude exhibited in your very first post here:
but because greed only knows one way
the overprivileged victims of other peasant revolutions throughout history, they will be completely surprised and uncomprehending when it comes
we are actually trying to save you megarich guys and your families from the guillotine
This works both ways. I guess you can dish condescension out, but you can't take it.
Incidentally, my view on this is the megarich understand quite well how welfare works. The problem with your assertions are that the people who won't revolt in exchange for welfare are cheap. They probably are already well overpaid for this supposed protection racket.
4 - "nothing to do with megarich people doing megarich stuff (but maybe have a lot to do with pointless class envy)" Oh for fuck's sake it's right there in the summary: Goldman Sachs (AKA very rich people representing megarich people) conspired to create the subprime crisis, dumping millions of hardworking people into the shit, directly and deliberately causing homelessness, family breakdowns and suicides, just so that they could afford another fleet of yachts (or as I like to call it, "doing megarich stuff"). Then the shitblankets had the gall to get world governments to hand over insane amounts of taxpayer money to "bail them out".
And this is the ultimate consequence of your welfare stuff. It allows the powerful to bribe voters to look the other way. It's a filtering out of honesty and integrity. After all, everyone who has enough integrity to do something about "too big to fail" and other corruption will also want to do something about the equally big problems of short-sighted welfare spending. Enough people want politicians to lie to them for a little bit of welfare that we get the current system of corruption.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:22PM
The one about affording pills assumes you are entitled to those expensive pills. How many yeas from any medical invention until 51% of the population could "afford" it? Many people will spend their fortunes for pills they are told will keep them alive. They forget that they are not entitled to immortality. Death at an old age is normal, get over it.
Really? Chicken or Egg
Prisons are messed up but the way this is stated doesn't prove, show or help anything.
1 in 4? Mental illness is real but how many of that 1 in 4 are pansies that need to man up? (If it is a real mental illness then that obviously isn't the solution.) You have a lot of I want attention types tying up resources for those who actually need them. Like the gluten free thing, some people actually have celiac disease but most who claim gluten free just want to be unique/special attention princesses/whores. I contend that there are fewer real mental illnesses than the statistics show. This speaks against people.
Every place is always changing, especially the USA. And hardly anything ever changes for the good. Downward spiral every time. Good people are content, greedy people are ambitious. One of those is more likely to cause change and the change will be as morally correct as their motivation.
Cute list of symptoms but we need to identify problems.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:31PM
Didn't I hear recently that Trump was polling at ~25%? Do you have a better explanation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:42PM
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @10:09PM
That's a terribly cavalier attitude to have about illness. "Oh well sucks to be you." Are you 17, a mature adult who has somehow never had someone in his family or circle of acquaintances suffering from a severe but treatable illness, or a sociopath who doesn't give a damn about the suffering of others?
Let's see how you feel about the issue of affordable medication when it's your mother or father who needs it, or worse, your child.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @02:52AM
Thank you, I wanted to respond but was too angry about it to say something useful.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday December 09 2015, @03:42PM
We all have health issues. I have my own chronic heath issues. Eventually it sucks to be any of us, some earlier than others. The earth is mostly an inhospitable place. Life is not fair. The world doesn't owe any of us anything. Given these facts people seem to never be thankful that they live in a time where they are given penicillin instead of leeches. This is the best time in the history of the earth for this topic. Every drug was once nonexistent before it was expensive but there is now a spectrum of relatively cheap drugs. Is that not awesome? How about infant mortality? You no longer just assume that half your kids will be dead in their first year. How is that not amazing?
I could state my prediction as to how I would act when my sick child would live with a pill I couldn't afford. I suspect you don't want to hear more of my thoughts though. But..we all die. Maybe I have already come to terms with my own impending mortality.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Jiro on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:46PM
A Gish Gallop is an argument tactic where the person making the argument produces so many arguments that it is impossible to address them all, so no matter what you do it looks like you can't refute them. For instance, note that prisoners don't get let go just because people aren't committing further crimes, so their stated description doesn't make any sense; a decline in the crime rate doesn't lead to the number of prisoners immediately going down. (If you actually follow their links, the rate peaked at 2007 and has gone down somewhat since then.) Furthermore, the statistic compares a decline in violent crime to an increasing number of all prisoners. And even though some of the statistic is true and just really poorly reported by alternet, it just means that the sentence length has gone up; whether prisoners should get longer sentences is something that can be debated, and they're treating a debatable issue like a settled issue.
And nobody has time to address each one of their arguments so their scattershot approach makes it look like nobody has a good response, when it just means nobody has the time to write several essays refuting each claim in detail.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:01PM
Agree, but it's the same tactic used whenever someone posts something that is non-PC relative to the site that s/he's posting. For example, if you post something against relaxation of laws against file sharing, you'll get 15 responses with 20 different types of arguments: greedy record company executives, information wanting to be free, statistics cooked by the RIAA/MPAA, Congressmen should all be sacked, live performance is the new business model, Britney Spears for $19.98, CDs with one good song, sometimes I buy stuff after I sample what the musician has done, etc. The idea is that you lose unless you provide a knockdown answer to all of them, which of course is impossible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:53PM
It could also be the case that some stances have a lot of arguments in favour of them. Not necessarily talking about filesharing here BTW.
Are you saying that if I can come up with 10 good reasons why X is a good idea then in your mind X is automatically a bad idea and I'm some kind of shill/ troll?
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:56PM
Bill riders and omnibus bills use this tactic to great (if depressingly bad for democracy) effect.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @03:52PM
There used to be laws in most locations that say freeways can't have banner adds because it was considered a traffic distraction and hazard. Businesses have managed to get around that now. Now when you drive the freeway it's inundated with bright signs, digital signs, and in some cases very bright almost blinding digital signs under some conditions. Business interests > safety.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:13PM
> There used to be laws in most locations that say freeways can't have banner adds
When?
I remember riding along interstates in the 70s and there were plenty of billboards then.
AFAIK, there are only 4 states that ban billboards and they do it for scenery (tourism), not distraction. Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont and Maine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:29PM
Here are some links
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/oac/oacprog.cfm [dot.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Beautification_Act [wikipedia.org]
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9623_26662_26679_27267_48606-182170--,00.html [michigan.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @11:25PM
So, basically for a period of a few years from the late 60s to early 70s some places had some limits.
Not really what the OP implied - it certainly wasnt the original condition nor was it comprehensive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:55PM
The ones on Route 66 (even though it wasn't a freeway) in the 60s-70s were entertaining. The best ones were the mysterious "what is it?" ones that eventually led to an ice cream store.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:25AM
The ones on Route 66 (even though it wasn't a freeway) [emphasis added]
There were/are tolls on Route 66? That's news to me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday December 09 2015, @11:21AM
In Oz, the term "freeway" means free of traffic lights and intersections (they have on and off ramps instead).
It has nothing to do with tolls. Many of our freeways have tolls, and almost all of the non-freeway roads do not.
Perhaps some other people/places have the same usage.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @02:51AM
> Perhaps some other people/places have the same usage.
They do. The GP is yet another manifestation of that geek trope - autistic jerk who picks one definition of a word without regard to actual usage and then judges any other use of that word to be proof that the speaker is an idiot. Its just the forum equivalent of public masturbation, don't pay any attention. Writing that post was how he got off and now he's too sleepy to care anymore.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:39PM
The real reason our civilization is toast is that due to the government schools rotting the American mind for a century most people can't read this bit of Communist propaganda and instantly see through it, dissect it for amusement and then then all laugh at the stupidity of _gewg for trying to push this crap on us.
Now lets demonstrate the idea:
A House Bill Would View Corporate Crimes as "Honest Mistakes"
Pure propaganda and contentless. So click to the linked content. Nope,equally contentless, just a link to more mental illness at huffingpaint. Best I can tell is somebody at Heritage logrolled some rollback of recent overkill vs 'evil corporate America' into the Progs (and Ronulans) precious drug legalization bill and seriously harshed somebody at HuffPo's mellow.
Almost 2/3 of American Families Couldn't Afford a Single Pill of a Life-Saving Drug
Let us ignore the fearmongering and the obvious lie, since 2/3 of Americans somehow DO get pretty much every new drug. Let us engage with the defective premise implied in the statement. That simply by being born (or naturalized or illegally, etc.) on magical American soil that one has a Right to any medicine, medical procedure, latest iPhone, etc. No, you don't. Medical science comes up with very expensive procedures (at least initially) and this trend is accelerating. The idea that every American (and why not the whole world while we are at it... and every puppy, I like dogs, don't you?) has a valid, legally enforceable claim upon every doctor and medical supplier is simply unsustainable.
Violent Crime Down; Prison Population Doubles
Yes. And the reverse headline of "Prison population cut in half by Progs..; Crime rate doubles!" would be an improvement how? Most criminals commit crimes unless they are in prison. They still tend to commit them but they aren't counted in the stats since they are only committing crimes against other criminals and breaking the rules of the institution.
One in Four Americans Suffer Mental Illness; Mental Health Facilities Cut by 90 Percent
The 1/4 is of course utter bullshit. BUt the reduction of mental health facilities is real and has been ongoing for decades. Of course we all know why, the progs decided institutionalizing the insane was somehow a human rights problem. Having otherwise useless breadeaters converted into homeless on the streets is a totally sweet racket to guilt people into ever more welfare spending. The crime they commit is an argument for ever more oppressive and all seeing government. And bonus! Because the Father of Lies taught you well, you can double down and blame the evils of Capitalism for the problem.
The Unpaid Taxes of 500 Companies Could Pay for a Job for Every Unemployed American ...for two years ...at the nation's median salary of $36,000 ...for all 8 million unemployed.
Because it doesn't currently make economic sense to bring those taxes back into the U.S. So elect a Republican next year, all of the viable ones promise reforms to change that stupidity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:58PM
The 1/4 is of course utter bullshit.
That's exactly what a crazy person would say! Hup, into the straitjacket!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:24PM
Prison is a training ground that turns minor criminals more violent, more mentally ill (see the use of solitary confinement [pbs.org]), and more hopeless. Those that do get out have trouble getting a job (see this campaign [wikipedia.org]). Gunning down the criminals might be preferable to prison.
http://www2.nami.org/factsheets/mentalillness_factsheet.pdf [nami.org]
http://www.thekimfoundation.org/html/about_mental_ill/statistics.html [thekimfoundation.org]
What exactly is unbelievable about the 25% claim? You think it's overdiagnosis? I think it's probably accurate, encompasses a broad amount of disorders of varying severity, and doesn't mean that 1 in 4 need an expensive prescription.
Agreed, Republicans will be the ones to do tax reform, although the reform will not be as catchy as the proposals seen on the campaign trail.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:45PM
No, it is bullshit by definition. If the observed data doesn't fit the model it is always the model that is broken, not reality. If a quarter of the American population varies from the model 'norm' then the norm is wrong. Period, full stop.
So stop, toss the existing models and get out and establish a more accurate baseline. Only when that is done, only when only a few percent deviate from what is defined as 'normal' can one begin to study reality as it really exists and make plans that won't collapse when it impacts objective reality.
(Score: 4, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:53PM
So two-thirds of American adults aren't overweight or obese, they're just big-boned?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday December 08 2015, @08:48PM
Compared to what norm? That is more the point I'm hammering at. It is legitimate to say Americans of today on average weigh more than they did fifty years ago. But then the Americans of fifty years ago were also far larger and healthier than Americans from fifty years before that, and so on. So on what basis does one pick one ideal and say "This is normal" and all deviation is abnormal? Give people unlimited food and most eat, what is abnormal about that is still having enough capitalism to provide almost unlimited food to pretty much everyone within the 1st World. Normally people who ate too much would begin to find it hard to continue obtaining that much food, capitalism removed that limit. Normally eating too much lowered the sexual market value enough to serve as a limit but that is fat now shaming. Oh no Shamu, you are big and beautiful and any man who won't say right here and now that he is turned on by your sexy, sexy bod and would do you right here and now is a thought criminal in need of reeducation. Boom, limit removed. But medical science establishing a 'norm' for body weight, while a lot messier than crude things like BMI imply, is at least thinkable in ways establishing a 'norm' for mental behavior in a fast changing society isn't.
All one can say is that observed norms have varied over time. But was the norm of 1950 an absolute 'correct' norm and thus observed behavior today in an entirely different society is 'abnormal' and in need of professional adjustment? No. With our current primitive level of understanding of these things it is pure hubris to declare some changes to observed behavior to cope with a changed world 'wrong' while others are 'right' or even that unchanged behaviors is either 'right' or 'wrong.'
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 08 2015, @11:40PM
Jmorris, I just love it when you talk about "norms". Please tell us some more about how lack of education can lead to total misreading of reality!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:28AM
Jesus jmorris, you talk like we are in some progressive dystopia. The truth is that progressive movements are being trotted around as emotional strawmen for people it works on. I get annoyed at some of the stupider PC bullshit, but it is simply a symptom of the pendulum swinging too far and now its heading towards center again. All the fear mongering about progressive bullshit is just the mirror for all the conservative bullshit that the "liberal" side throws around. Fox, MSNBC, same coin different sides.
For you? I think you need to reconnect with reality. Go tutor some kids, volunteer in places you normally wouldn't, and open your mind to the opinions of others. You will find the world isn't so screwy, just as its not as screwy as I sometimes fear. Just the 3% bullshit being pumped to 80% by the media for misdirection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @06:34AM
> For you? I think you need to reconnect with reality. Go tutor some kids, volunteer in places you normally wouldn't, and open your mind to the opinions of others.
Yeah. Like that would ever happen. As far as he's concerned your advice is for him to become a liberal.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 08 2015, @10:02PM
So if a quarter of the American population comes to have cancer, then having cancer becomes the new norm for health? We can simply declare that the new normal and stop trying to do something about it, and stop spending money to do anything about it?
Is it that you don't believe mental illness is a real thing, and that they're all fakers? Is it merely a crypto-liberal plot?
Me, I've had experience with severely mentally ill people who are not managing their illness. They do a lot of damage to themselves, their families, and everyone else around them. It's not bullshit.
Of course mental illness was the specific issue you were talking about, but we could extend your reasoning to other social phenomena and it wouldn't take long to see it doesn't bear out. For example, if 1/4 of American women are beaten by their husbands, should we declare that the new normal and say wife beating only matters if they lose an eye, or should we still endeavor to reduce wife-beating in general? If 1/4 of children are sexually abused by their fathers, should we declare that the new normal and say it's only bad if the daughters get pregnant?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:39PM
"The real reason our civilization is toast is that due to the government schools rotting the American mind for a century most people can't read."
Full stop.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:49PM
Amen! Well done. Short is always best.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:07PM
More straw men than a Wizard of Oz convention. My feeble brain can't even wrap itself around all the loaded assumptions in that list. I'll let other people tackle that job. For starters, those life-saving drugs did not exist in the past...
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:25AM
Elect Trump 2016. No... I'm not joking, the guy has the balls to say what every red blooded American was thinking, but was afraid to say for fear of being politically incorrect. Everyone else on the ballot is a regular run of the mill corrupt politician and nothing will change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2015, @12:30AM
Even Jeb Bush agrees! [youtube.com]