patrick.net

I move we retitle "The Futurist" to a more appropre "The Reactionary Demagogue". In the spirit of Fox-News style "intellectual" bullying. I can hear echos of Roy Cohn: "Answer the question! Yes or no! Are you still a communist supporter? Yes or no?"

But I’m willing to bet a lot of people don’t bother to do research when they are looking to buy stuff. We’ve all commented on how people jump into RE without any real knowledge, so why should consumer products be a different story. I bet if we asked the average Walmart customer they would say they were getting a good “deal” on what they buy.

Always look at the total cost of ownership. It is the true cost to you.

LOL, Randy is not a liberal. Don't worry.

I do not understand why Fox News is considered right-wing. Perhaps I have not been watching TV for too long.

It is fun to expose ideologues like Randy H.

Randy is not an "ideologue", trust me on this one.

Juku,

I am about as "left" as your logic is sound. You'll have to try harder if you're looking to expose me. The "Futurist" has made a number of categorically false statements which I and others have provided objective, empirical references about.

If actually thinking through issues violates your sensibilities, then by all means continue to consume knee-jerk pablum, whatever the left/right slant.

For the record, I regard all the major television "news" media equally as lowly. Fox gets singled out because of it's "new kid" status, but they're in good company with all the other infotainment circuses.

Anyone who thinks any news service is not biased is not paying attention.

Yes, if I run a news station I will be so biased that vegetarians or animal right activists may bomb me.

There is no value in san Francisco real estate at today’s prices.

But there is more value in SF real estate than SJ real estate.

For the record, I regard all the major television “news” media equally as lowly. Fox gets singled out because of it’s “new kid” status, but they’re in good company with all the other infotainment circuses.

Perhaps we should read FT, The Economist, and Foreign Affairs instead.

Only because Sf is nicer than SJ. I have to take my son to a fencing competition in San Jose in a couple of weeks, where would you take a 10 year old (with a good palate) for lunch?

If he likes steaks, try The Grill in Fairmont. Arcadia in Marriot is sometimes good, but it fluctuates. E&O Trading at First and San Fernando is not bad.

SJ simply does not have many okay restaurants.

Be warned, set your food expectations to San Jose mode.

Would there be a great little Mexican dive or noodle bar? We are very happy with that type of food.

I rarely eat mexican food, but the one in Santana Row across from the theater is pretty good.

What kind of noodle bar do you have in mind? Chinese? Pho? Ramen?

There is an Asian noodle place that let you mix-and-match ingredients near Camera 12 across from the Fairmont. I think that one is pretty okay. I have not been there for a while.

Think ’stinky people are welcome’ restaurant.

That Asian noodle place should do then. There is also a Thai place on Second across from the Rep.

California unemployment the lowest in 5 years! Guess what the biggest job creator in the State is?

http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14225354p-15049686c.html

The only losers were manufacturing and the information sector.

Enough said. No Bay Area rebirth... yet.

Randy H,

Is Bloomberg's considered part of the "infotainment circus"?

Is Bloomberg’s considered part of the “infotainment circus”?

Anyone here uses a Bloomberg machine regularly?

He also said that 95% of a Realtor(TM)’s time is spent trawling for clients.

The agent who sold my home last year asked me for referrals many times. She even went across the street to my neighbor and tried to get him to list with her. I still get emails from her asking for client leads.

Is Bloomberg’s considered part of the “infotainment circus”?

Financial television news sources have been pretty good, probably because they tend to focus, and there's usually verifiability. But even here there's been a slow creep of sensationalizm. I started seeing this about 5 years ago. But I'd say Bloomberg's talking head/scroller station is reasonable. Just reporting facts or statements purported as such. CNN's Lou Dobbs on the other hand...

I should add that I watch *very little* television, and haven't in the past years since having children. I'd rather read to my little boy than watch someone scream about ideology.

Isn’t the Bloomberg machine that tiny little thing with changing numbers you need to get onto certain computer sites?

It is a system that provides real-time news and very detailed data. It is very expensive (I heard $2000 a month). Many professionals swear by it. I am just curious. :)

Were you thinking about SecurID?

So I take it you don’t watch Kramer?

Isn't CNBC a good contrarian indicator?

My husband often jokes that the stock market in the 70’s went up 3 points, down 2, what was so interesting about that?

You can potentially make 3 + 2 = 5 points! :-D

Of course, it usually does not turn out that way.

Sounds great? The problem is YOU the OWNER of the car become liable for any damages since the robber was unable to control the car!

No, it should be a remote switch from the police. Any damages should be considered an extension of the pursuit. Since the robber started the chain of events, he should be liable.

On the other hand, we should massively expand the scope of capital punishment to deter crimes.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

I believe the little device my friend has with the changing numbers allows him to access the Bloomberg information.

Yes, my wife has one that allows her to access corporate intranet.

Randy H said : I am about as “left” as your logic is sound. ”

So, what are your reasons for opposing the Patriot Act?

(a) I'm not "to the left". I evaluate issues on their merit. Left and right are useless, broad ideological distinctions. If I assume you are "to the right", then you must be in favor of "market liberalization", which is a fiscally "conservative" ideal. Does that make you left or right?

(b) My quotation was yours. Sorry if that escaped you. Most people remember what they have written.

(c) I've taken the time to write careful criticism of "The Futurist" before. Its is an act in futility because those who read it are rarely interested in debate, only labeling and name calling.

(d) Your question phrased So, what are your reasons for opposing the Patriot Act? is itself loaded. It is possible to question the merits of the act without necessarily opposing it. Isn't this the very point of democratic debate? "The Futurist" says if I dare to ask the questions then I must be a "5th Columnist". As such, the author loses all credibility with me. Once upon a time the same was said about those who dared to question the curvature of the Earth.

(3) My issues vis-a-vis the Patriot Act are mainly in the oversight arena. I don't like to see the creation of runaway beaucracies, no matter their political intent. Seems to me "The Futurist" isn't very conservative in that it is advocating big government without the minimum mechanisms to ensure beaucratic growth can be checked by future administrations.

Many of my own views are heavily influenced by Libertarian ideals: pro-free trade, pro-tranparency, pro-individualism, pro-gun, pro-free speech/press, pro-limited government, pro-separation of church and state, anti-subsidies, anti-tariffs, anti-protectionism, anti-welfare, etc.
HARM

That's great, HARM, except that 10 minutes into your first sociology lecture, you would realise that 'libertarianism' is actually a sort of brainwashing of the American people and an overly simplistic and convenient grab-bag and that they represent the dull echo of some of the most banal and dated ideas of the 18th and 19th century.

Many of them are outright harmful to societies if taken to their logical conclusion, and some of them show no guaranteed benefit to anyone but the few vested interests who threw them up in the first place to advance their own personal cause, usually to make money.

Monolithic theories like 'libertarianism' as a guiding principle tend not to work well in practice.

Nobody wants to be over-governed, but there is a role for sensible governance. No other high income OECD country allows freedom of gun ownership like the US, and no other country reaps the shocking whirlwind of hospital treatment costs, deaths and maiming, accidental discharges, ready availablility of lethal weapons, living in anxiety and fear, suffering grief and loss, etc. Hardly a civilised way for 280 million people to live in a modern civilised society with no threat of invasion, it made some small amount of sense in the 18th century in order to raise a militia in the eastern colonies if under attack from the British.

Let me know the day you get transparency from corporations and government. Remember the big stick of government and the judiciary is what makes corporations accountable (often after the fact). The big stick in turn for government is the electorate, but they're all brainwashed and fooled, so no great threat there...

The welfare state in its present form arose during the Depression to deal with systemic unemployment due to failures in the capitalist market, added to by old age pensions for those too old to work, for other economically disadvantaged people like single mothers, low income earners, etc. There's plenty of middle class welfare out there as well. Other, simpler societies know how to look after their own without prodding...

But there's too much philosophy and sociology and political economy to go into here... Other countries work entirely differently from the US, often more successfully, and 'libertarians' would be seen as right-wing fringe lunatics in those places...

Monolithic theories like ‘libertarianism’ as a guiding principle tend not to work well in practice.

I agree.

I don’t think that is what he is saying at all. In fact, he clearly states that criticism of all anti-terror measures, combined with failure to provide alternative suggestions, and an unwillingness to criticize Muslim terrorists, could be evidence of 5th column behavior.

In some sense, I have agree. We need protection from the government. The enemy is adapting fast and unnecessarily constraining the government is unwise.

On the other hand, criticism and failure to provide alternatives is not necessarily bad. It merely provokes further thinking. The same person may end up supporting the measure when it is clear that alternatives are not available.

Criticism is not the necessarily the same as opposition.

In some sense, I have agree. We need protection from the government. The enemy is adapting fast and unnecessarily constraining the government is unwise.

What about the whole idea that 9/11 was aided and abetted, if not outright orchestrated, by the US neocon administration as a 'false flag' operation, with the encouragement of the vested interest of big oil and the PNAC crew? Given the bizarre standdown of interception forces, the simultaneous running of identical training exercises on the same day, the controlled demolition of 4 buildings in the WTC complex, the frantic shipping away of the steel columns, the govt confiscation of all film and video never to be seen again, the strange impact at the pentagon, the presence of extra aircraft over PA and at the WTC, etc...

And why do you have so many 'enemies' when France, Germany, etc don't? I would include the UK and Australia in the list of people without enemies, except that they got sucked into the 'Coalition' by bullyboy tactics and bribes, thus making them a target for retaliation.

Truman has a lot to answer for for the unnecessary and extreme militarisation of the US as a policy approach to mitigating wars - it has created more of them...

What about the whole idea that 9/11 was aided and abetted, if not outright orchestrated, by the US neocon administration ...

Sorry, but this is downright silly.

And why do you have so many ‘enemies’ when France, Germany, etc don’t?

Why does Bill Gates have more enemies than me?

Where is YOUR blog, by the way?

quod erat demonstrandum

I'll refrain from feeding trolls when it's not my thread in the future. Sorry HARM.

for reference Juku,
http://patrick.net/wp/?p=170

The fact you don't know about my other blogs is evidence that we don't share the same interests. They are not political blogs.

I am not advocating any conspiracy theory, but I do have one question. Anyone who has driven near the Pentagon knows that the surrounding area is packed with anti-aircraft devices. Why did none of them work to protect the Pentagon on 9/11?

Since this topic is on libertarianism, let me have one more post here. Harry Browne, one of my favorite writers and the libertarian party presidential candidate for 1996 and 2000, dies yesterday. RIP.

For anyone open-minded, I would highly recommend his simple and straightforward books like "Why government doesn't work". A must read for anyone interested in politics whether you agree or not.

Personally, his "How I found freedom in an unfree world" is the best self-help book I have ever read. It really changed my approach to life. It clearly describes the various traps that get into, mentally and how to break free from them and live free.

If you are open-minded and like reading, consider checking out these books from the library. Also recommended is his website http://www.harrybrowne.org and the articles therein. I wonder who will maintain it now?

It's a bit discomfiting to think that a major nerve center for the U.S. military has such a poorly implemented defense shield.

newsfreak Says:

"My husband often jokes that the stock market in the 70’s went up 3 points, down 2, what was so interesting about that?"

Am I the only one that hates it that the financial news networks always just say "the Dow was up 7 today" (assuming that we remember what the Dow was yesterday). News stations don't say "it was 6 degrees warmer today than yesterday" or "there were three more deaths in Iran today than there were yesterday"...

Unalloyed,

My father was also in defense; specifically in electronic control and guidance systems. With the Pentagon, they probabaly simply didn't activate the countermeasures. They easily could have intercepted a commercial aircraft, even flying low. But only if they are armed by someone. They don't leave these things sitting there on automatic launch, or there'd be a lot of innocent private aviation accidents and outright false signal launches.

Different Sean Says:

"Nobody wants to be over-governed, but there is a role for sensible governance. No other high income OECD country allows freedom of gun ownership like the US, and no other country reaps the shocking whirlwind of hospital treatment costs, deaths and maiming, accidental discharges, ready availability of lethal weapons, living in anxiety and fear, suffering grief and loss, etc."

I always find in interesting how liberals want to blame "guns" for violence since the real reason is so un PC that they can never say it (and I will only say it among close friends on in an anonymous forum like this). I know it sounds like a NRA bumper sticker, but "guns" have nothing to do with violence; it is violent "people" that cause violence. The reason that the US has much more gun violence than say our friends in Northern Europe is that we have a different mix of "people" in the US. I got my first gun at 6 and I was a slow fire pistol champion at 16. I have never pointed a gun at another person or animal (I don't hunt, but don't mind that others hunt). I spent a month in Switzerland and did a lot of shooting over there since every man in the country is "required" to own two guns (and most are very interested in talking about guns). There is very little violence in Switzerland since the Swiss "people" are not very violent (when was the last time you read about a violent crime in the US by a person of Swiss decent?). I also spent a very scary month in Africa (I went with a girlfriend who is a member of Doctors without Borders). There are a lot less guns per capital in Africa than Switzerland but there is a lot more violence since the African "people" are a lot more violent. The mainstream press does not even to begin to cover the extent of the violence in Africa where I can't even count the number of dead bodies I saw. We were robbed at gunpoint twice by people that didn't even care that we were there to help others. I bet most people don't need to think long or hard to remember the last crime they read about committed by a person of African decent. In the U.S. when you pull out the gun related murders by Americans of African decent (and adolescent white kids on Ritalin that kill themselves and others) you realize that guns are not the cause of violence...

It's intesting that WTC7 collapsed in a controlled demolition, which takes weeks and months to plan and prepare, and Larry Silverstein of Westfield America said 'we decided to pull it' the same day by way of explanation. And an explosion that 'just went off' in the smallest of the buildings, WTC5?6?, leaving a huge crater in the middle. And the Secret Service agent who was killed in WTC7 'helping to evacuate it' when it was empty. (Not encouraging the miserable fires to look a little more ferocious, of course.)

Not to mention that $1bn worth of asbestos rectifications that were needed on the twin towers. And that Westfield America had taken out a new insurance policy on the towers only 6 weeks earlier, with some special new clauses concerning terrorist attack, at $3.5bn cover per attack, claiming $7 bn for 2 attacks, which would allow them to rebuild anything out of cash, no borrowing required. And the WTC towers had lost money for years, ruining the commercial rental market in NYC through subsidies. The 1970s design took poor advantage of some of the best potential views in the world, possessing sliver-thin windows.

And no burning skyscraper has ever collapsed in history, especially in such a short space of time. Kerosene burns at less than 1000 F, steel melts at over 1500 F. And these were massive beams, in a properly constructed building. My own father is a steel metallurgist who conducts failure investigations in just such cases - interesting how quickly the beams were cleared up so no investigation could be performed for future skyscraper designers to think about. And what about the metallurgist working for the Underwriter Investigation company who claims it could only have been sheared by thermite charges? And the firemen confidently approaching the building to put out the fire after assessing it, only to see it collapse? None of their training had ever prepared them for that possibility, because it was next to impossible. And why did the 'wrong tower' collapse first?

FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguez vs Bush) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

What about the bouncy Pentagon grass and the faked Photoshop photos of the cleanup and the supposed 'triage' areas? What happened to the 6 tonne engines of the '767' which would made holes on either side of the actual hole? And the confiscated video footage? Why has the Pentagon only released 5 blurry 'security' photos in sequence instead? And the conflicting early witness reports specifying smaller planes? And the fact that Guiliani made an early media reference on that day to an attack on the Sears building in Chicago that never happened?

And why, of the 19 supposed 'Muslims' identified by the FBI, half of them are still alive and well, victims of identity theft? Why was only 1 passport conveniently and quickly found in the wreckage of the explosion over PA (with wreckage spread over 8 miles)? But the plane 'vaporised' when it hit the ground, supposedly - 'swallowed up' by the ground! And how could they do the alleged DNA tests on all the vaporised people from the Pentagon to positively identify them? And what existing DNA record of the 'passengers' did they have to compare against?

And what about the 100 or so timely scrambles and interceptions of off-course planes that happen every year ordinarily?

etc etc

I always find in interesting how liberals want to blame “guns” for violence since the real reason is so un PC that they can never say it (and I will only say it among close friends on in an anonymous forum like this). I know it sounds like a NRA bumper sticker, but “guns” have nothing to do with violence; it is violent “people” that cause violence.

There are plenty of African people who have emigrated, legally or illegally, to Europe, and they don't have problems to anywhere near the same extent with guns. Strenuous efforts are made by the police to remove guns from the community at every opportunity.

Switzerland is always used as an example, they're a very affluent, highly monocultural society with good levels of social capital. While it's possible to have high levels of responsible gun ownership, for whatever reason, that is clearly not happening in the US, is it?

Easy access to guns and a celebration of gun culture of course is going to increase the number of incidents. Why not legislate to have them removed instead? Then there's no problem, is there?