patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

On Planet Reality, the US will not invest in any of that ahead of time before the Crisis that causes all of this to come down. But we have invested in our military. Guess which will be available to provide the most expedient resolution to the crisis? Nevermind…it is pointless to appeal to any sense of logic with you.

This is close to nomination for the dumbest thing on pat.net. There are so many shrek quotes to choose from though...

Tim Pawlenty WILL be the Republican nominee. There is no point in following the primary since the outcome of it has already been pre-determined.

I like this little tibbit that was just posted on the White House website:

"Health reform in Massachusetts uses a similar structure as the Affordable Care Act. It includes exchanges where people can purchase health insurance, a personal responsibility requirement to bring everyone into the health insurance system and an employer responsibility requirement. The result? Since reform was enacted in Massachusetts more than five years ago, the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in Massachusetts has increased. And job growth in Massachusetts has kept pace with other New England State and the nation."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/08/getting-insurance-work

Make no mistake about it: This was intended to be a swipe at Mitt Romney and to serve as a preview of the attacks he will receive if nominated.

Health insurance actually falls under BOTH federal and state laws. (ie: RomneyCare). Vermont, for instance, just passed a single payer bill.

Taxpayer says

Funny you should say that. Poor people killed 3000 by attacking the world trade center. Rich people slaughtered 100,000 or more innocent Iraqi citizens who had nothing to do with 9/11. Why are rich people so violent?
Are you saying that you support the people who did 9/11? If that is the case, I don’t have anything further to discuss with you.

Huh????? How in the hell can you read that and think he supports the people that did 9/11?

Taxpayer says

Your argument is incorrect because you are saying that a ceo benefits from a worker; but a worker doesn’t benefit from the ceo.

I never said that. And as predicted you didn't answer the question about why the ceo shouldn't pay higher taxes.

Taxpayer says

started dabbling in computers in my teens using money from odd jobs. Now an independant consultant earning very well.

Hard to believe. Can you elaborate on the type of work you do (without giving away any trade secrets) ?

Taxpayer says

But punishing every rich person in sight is not the answer.

Someone makes 500K/yr and their federal taxes go up 25K and they are being punished ? (if top rate went from 35% to 39%). Awww, I can see that would be awfully painful.

This is why it's hard for me to believe believe you make the big bucks you say you do.

Taxpayer says

I agree that there are plenty of people who are rich because of crony capitalism (wall st) or because of ties to govt.

Let's not forget inherited wealth.

Taxpayer says

but you have no right to whine while still working for the unfair company.,

Maybe all of the companies should say that, and then they should all become unfair. It would be good for the shareholders in the long run if our labor costs come go down. Let's use the competitive global labor markets to our advantage, we continue to shift labor overseas while we force the cost of labor down here. It's a win win. God help the people that don't have highly marketable skills.

We will then become a sort of hybrid country. Half third world, but we will still have our gated communities, our high end luxury neighborhoods, our prisons and a cheap labor force.

What more could we want?

kc6zlv says

I have a feeling there is a significant percentage of people who aren’t smart enough to factor in things like sales tax and shipping when they order online.

Often times it's exact same stuff, just cheaper. If I go online and find the same product cheaper by a few hundred dollars I'll get it online. It doesn't make sense to pay to a local merchant middle-man who is running an inefficient business with too much overhead.

None of them produce anything, they are just resellers, and some are better than others.

Here's a radical case:

Banks have been a problem ever since the first Goldsmith realized all the people who let him hold their gold didn't claim it back either in the full amount nor all at once.

Banking has been the underlying cause of the majority of financial crises, QED. From John Law in 18th C France to Wildcat Banking in the Wild West to Mortgage Backed Securities today.

People have been complaining about usury since time immemorial. Every religion either wants to ban it or greatly restrict it. Usury in the bible is the lending of money between compatriots at ANY interest; no percentage rate is offered as a guideline. C.F. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the Gospels.

How about we just drop the whole program?

Life goes on without out, huge empires have survived without it. The great mass of the public has done without it for millenia at a time. If the government wants to stimulate, they can put the money directly in the hands of individual actors, we have the technology to do so easily.

Banking would become Full Reserve banking, you pay a fee for the storage of your money and the convenience of writing checks/using ATMs and the security and ease of transaction. That's almost 30-40% of bank profit right now. Without loans and lending, they could easily survive in their new incarnation.

OR, allow fractional reserve banking, but only in the form of Credit Unions and limited to size and scale.

Now that will make homes affordable, reduce consumer prices, foster long-term trust based business relationships, and eliminate a great deal of speculation and exploitation of the poorest.

Furthermore the best minds would have speculation as an a career path eliminated. They'd have to work on Mars Missions and better Lightbulbs instead of "Financial Innovations".

Many said slavery was indispensable and without it the economy would collapse.

Just a thought.

I think I pretty much see where you're at now.

I think progress of humanity and our country is not unlike the way that people grow. It would be nice if we could skip certain "phases." I can see it in people. Some people totally bypass or skip unnecessary learning phases in their life.

Couldn't we learn the lessons of going through becoming a third world country without actually doing it? Do we really have to destroy so much before we can figure out how to live?

Maybe we really have choices.

elliemae says

both of them are “good mormons

Is Sentator Harry Reid a Good Mormon or a Bad Mormon?

Continued loose monetary policy will eventually bring the economy out of recession, making Obama a shoe in, assuming things improve.
Newt is oversexed, obese and headed for a heart attack. He will be sued by the Pillsbury dough boy for copyright infringement and serve time for his half baked indiscretion, and his flaky buns will be buttered when he gets rolled by his cellmate, but that's the yeast of his worries.

Herman Cain won the debate in South Carolina according to those who make such judgements. He did extremely well and was well liked. If Rick Perry decided to run he's also a condender.
Romney was popular and McCain won the nomination last time because in some primaries Democrats were voting.
It's odd that some people mention Mormon regarding Romney, although there are plenty of other examples in Government.
It's more odd considering the president was a muslim, go figure.

Nomograph says

When Rove harnessed the Christian conservative vote and allowed them power in the party, he essentially destroyed the Republican’s long-term viability

I think it began with the Moral Majority that helped to elect Reagan. Pappy Bush drifted away from them and Rove steered them back.

The whole friggin Christian conservative movement doesn't seem like it embodies any kind of social justice like the movement in the Northern churches against the Fugitive Slave War which is what finally ignited the powder keg that became known as the "Civil War".

Nomograph says

Sounds like the next credit bubble is brewing

Herr Doctor Professor:
The big credit bubble that's brewing is student loans, debt slavery that cannot be discharged, plus some of it subsidized by taxpayers, to fund their lifestyles.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369840105112326.html

Well Well Well!

OPEC says they wont up production,(and why should they, the world is over producing as it is) and Oil shoots up over 102 from 98 in just one day. Or should I say Big Oil pumped the commodity up to 102.
But last night while we were sleeping, the other side of the Globe dumped their Oil holdings.

This does not seem like a Commodity that is in short supply to me.
Now for you're average investor, he is going to sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch the fireworks, as Oil goes back down to the 70-80 dollar range.

BUT! If you're Big Oil with unregulated trading rules, that has had a captive audience of $4.00 Gasoline for the last 4 months. You have a huge cash reserves to buy back all of those contracts people are dumping.

My guess is Oil wont see $97 before it is back to over $100 before close today, or Monday morning open.

But make no mistake it wont be your average Commodity day trader players buying in that market, but the Oil companies buying back their self interest.

Vote for your favorite Romeny flip flop:

'I will work and fight for stem cell research.'

'In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise.'

'This is a completely airtight kennel mounted on the top of our car.'

'They're not happy that my dog loves fresh air.'

'If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.'

'What works in one state may not be the answer for another.'

'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.'

'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'

'I would like to have campaign spending limits.'

'The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations.'

'I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.'

'There's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.'

'I've been a hunter pretty much all my life.'

'Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.'

http://mittromneyflipflops.com/#javascript:void(0)

Thats how it has always been, hasn't it.

your discourse is welcomed, and your position is yours to defend, but to suggest anyone who sees the liberal/progressive/leftist position as being bad for a healthy - free - society only does so out of anger or boogie men seems to lack some basic depth. One may even say you only do so because of your hate for all things good/just/moral/ or God-like. And that reduces the discourse to "I know you are but what am I?", or some other schoolyard level bs.

People have moral issues. Nothing new there. But, a healthy FREE group (family/clan/tribe/neighborhood/town/city/county/region/state/nation/country/planet) MUST hold the actions of the individual to a standard higher than the base human condition of morality. THe standard MUST be set high enough to ensure a healthy society and to protect the just from the unjust. Otherwise we revert to "survival of the fittest" and "biggest bully wins" rules. People go hungry, and splinter into smaller survival groups, and soon women become livestock, just a little more important than a cow.

As we sit in the safety and freedom of America, our view of things gets twisted. Mine and yours. We take everything for granted.

How very scary. Some of those escrow deals don't close. Now the agent owes money to his broker.

sybrib says

Is Sentator Harry Reid a Good Mormon or a Bad Mormon?

Ah, you - I tell you secrets, grasshopper. Harry Reid doesn't count as a Mormon Politician. He's a (gasp) Democrat! And he's not from Utah, isn't from a politically entrenched family and he's not related to an Osmond.

About 90% of the state fits the above description. ;)

Not to his broker - it's an independent loaning company. Like a payday lender. No difference.

tatupu70 says

shrekgrinch says

On Planet Reality, the US will not invest in any of that ahead of time before the Crisis that causes all of this to come down. But we have invested in our military. Guess which will be available to provide the most expedient resolution to the crisis? Nevermind…it is pointless to appeal to any sense of logic with you.

This is close to nomination for the dumbest thing on pat.net. There are so many shrek quotes to choose from though…

Go for it!

http://patrick.net/?p=605447

ChrisLA says

Thats how it has always been, hasn’t it.

No just since Oil broke $70.
Oil hit $70 for the first time in '06, it was a huge big deal at the time. Here's a paper from Berkly on the History of the Oil Woes of the last 50 years.

http://dr.berkeley.edu/pdfs_to_post/OIL_OVERVIEW_OF_5DECADE_HISTORY_AND_TODAYS_CHALLENGES-1.pdf

Here's their perception of what was driving the price then, and their assessment of how global conflict was attributing to Oil doubling in less than a years, and they were expecting more.

The new century, 2000, has uprooted the acquiescence of the 1990s. The rising demands of countries such as China and India coupled with increased international insecurity have strained oil supplies and risen prices. China has increased its demand by 4 mbd since 2000, for example. Political instability in Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia and particularly Iraq and Iran have destabilized the oil market. Some analysts conservatively argue that political instability accounts for $10-15 of the current price of $70 per barrel. Furthermore, output from the North Sea and Alaska has begun to decline. The rising prices have not spurred an economic recession or inflation, but major users of energy and low-income consumers are negatively affected. Projections for the next year indicate prices are not likely to decline below $60 per barrel.

Come on Nigeria, I remember that being used an excuse, I was ranting about it in real time on Patnet's old forum. Funny how the Arab spring a bigger ToDo than any conflict above, has not once been blamed for current prices.

Finally, none of the President’s(Bush this was '06) proposals aim at making American consumers pay the full cost of oil. Oil causes many negative externalities, such as global warming and international insecurity. The external costs of America’s consumption of oil are not internalized into the cost consumers pay. As a result, consumers over-consume oil and gasoline because they do not face its full cost. In sum, energy policy requires long-term thinking and planning as well as fresh approaches and ideas. The United States cannot afford to ignore energy policy any longer.

Wop!! There it is!

Even in '06 the Evil Bastards were over at Berkly with their iBooks and thier Mocha Lattes making their argument to making the "Consumer" pay, i.e. the American people the Tax Payer, the Assholes paying the Oil Subsidies in the first Goddamn place. Making us over pay for Oil were not consuming all of, for reasons we all don't agree on. Making arguments that were only theories for the cause and effect of the moment, in '06. As most of the reasons for Oil hitting $70 for the first time, were pure speculation anyway. Russia's Political instability was their conflict with Georgia, which is over now, Opec has said many times over Oil would be $30 if were left to Free market forces in West.

The President and other law makers have also proposed reviewing the profits of American oil companies and repealing tax breaks for energy companies. A “windfall” profits tax has been proposed by some legislators, but this was tried after the 1979 oil crisis and resulted in less investment by American oil companies for new sources of oil. Some have proposed windfall taxes only on the oil reserves that companies dumped on the market during the price spike.

Let me get this, in 79 the Oil companies cried boo hoo about that old fashioned Foreign Oil boogeyman.
Well OK that was 79 and another president, why are we still supporting them in 2011?
Now granted this a paper from 2006, about Bush, but it is a paper written by the Liberal Numero Uno, collectivly speaking, contemplating how "THEY" would run things if they were King around here.

And we all know what happened in '08 Right?

elliemae says

sybrib says

Is Sentator Harry Reid a Good Mormon or a Bad Mormon?

Ah, you - I tell you secrets, grasshopper. Harry Reid doesn’t count as a Mormon Politician. He’s a (gasp) Democrat! And he’s not from Utah, isn’t from a politically entrenched family and he’s not related to an Osmond.
About 90% of the state fits the above description.
Eschew Obfuscation

And let's not forget that Harry Reid won his Senate seat in one State, Nevada. In Nevada there is a decently sized Mormon community. The State does border Utah. He isn't runnning for President but his national success would be stunted by the fact that he is a Mormon. Most Americans seem to shudder at the idea of a Mormon running the show. Most Americans aren't as rabbidly opposed to Mormons as Fundamentalist "Christians" but they still have a slight mistrust of Mormons.

Romney has the same problem nationally. He won office in the very tolerant State of Massachusetts. On the national stage his Mormonism will hold him back.

In contrast, here's a report on the Oil Supply overview a year earlier, when free market forces were actually dictating the price.
Even though Oil had gone from 35 to over 60 a barrel that same year. Free market forces still brought it back down.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32530.pdf

The 2004, and potentially for 2005, oil market reflects the influence of a number of factors all of which have led to upward pressure on price. Although some of these factors might have been judged temporary in the past, there is a danger that in the current political environment they may perpetuate themselves, keeping oil prices well above the OPEC price target.

Now absent from this report is making excuses for the high Oil prices due to tribal disputes between the Tutus and Watusi.
But instead blames the Current Political environment.

Mormons aren't bad people - just as many muslims aren't bad people. Seventh Day Adventists - same. And, of course, Jewish people aren't bad.

But this country was created by protestants and there's only been one Catholic president so far, all others fall into the protestant category. Jimmy Carter sat on the Baptist fence to keep his presidency, even tho he was actually Southern Baptist before & after.

Mormon would be a tough sell. People still care about that.

Too bad about Paul Ryan. Young, nice hair. Could have been the "New GOP!".

But the geriatrics will hound him about Medicare, it'll be decades before they die off and he has a shot again.

elliemae says

But this country was created by protestants and there’s only been one Catholic president so far, all others fall into the protestant category.

Yes, and as a catholic JFK had to convince the public that the Pope was not pulling his strings.

Aside from what has already been mentioned about mormons, there are some fundamental differences between mormons and catholics that I feel will make Romney winning the presidency very improbable.
• You can be considered a faithful catholic, but not be that into church
- Not so with mormonism it is a much more active faith that dictates ones lifestyle to a much greater degree

• JFK was not clergy
- All momon men (even blacks after 1978) are “priests” beholden to the prophet
- Could JFK been elected if he was an active bishop or cardinal?

• Catholisim has a rich history of trying to influence heads of state, and loosing members in mass as a result, having learned from that they currently don’t seem to try and use that influence, and are more lenient about how a catholic gets to heaven
- Mormonism, not so
- Mormonism is a very centralized religion, and going against the prophet or refusing “callings” brings ones salvation and/or ability to become a god in jeopardy (yes mormons believe that a select few of them will become gods, beats 72 virgins in my book)
- If put in that position what would Romney do?

In spite of that I would vote for Romney over some of the other candidates, but then again I don’t think that mormons are servants of the devil.

Many people consider Mormonism to be a cult. It's too wierd for them - and I can see their point. But living in Utah as I do, it's normal to me to see their traditions and rituals.

Honestly, they are very family oriented. On the other hand, their indoctrination of the children is unbelievable. They push the church, hard, throughout school. They even let kids out of high school to take religious classes that are in a building across the street from the school and, at least when I attended oodles of years ago, awarded school credit for the institute classes. The mormon church has a huge presence on the campuses of the colleges as well.

None of this has anything to do with Mitt - he's a talking head and I can't get past the dog abuse thing. He'll always be an asshole in my book - we all make mistakes but that's no mistake, it's abuse.

Bap33 says

to suggest anyone who sees the liberal/progressive/leftist position as being bad for a healthy - free - society only does so out of anger or boogie men seems to lack some basic depth.

Just like the "conservative" position the "liberal" has value and some valid points. An absolutist positions like "the liberal position is bad for a heality society" lack depth, are nonsense, and do come from an irrational position of fear and anger.

Bap33 says

But, a healthy FREE group (family/clan/tribe/neighborhood/town/city/county/region/state/nation/country/planet) MUST hold the actions of the individual to a standard higher than the base human condition of morality. THe standard MUST be set high enough to ensure a healthy society and to protect the just from the unjust. Otherwise we revert to “survival of the fittest” and “biggest bully wins” rules. People go hungry, and splinter into smaller survival groups, and soon women become livestock, just a little more important than a cow.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems to me that you are saying we need a divine morality to uplift the "base human condition of morality".

Yes, because women have done so well under the judeo-christian-islamic "moral" systems.

The logic that humans need divine moral guidance in order to be good is unfounded, complicated, and a huge topic unto itself. But, if that is not what you were trying to say never mind.

Bap33 says

As we sit in the safety and freedom of America, our view of things gets twisted. Mine and yours. We take everything for granted.

Yes, this is generally true, but who says everyone here has not stepped outside America and "seen the world". Getting that perspective is one reason why I think that travel to developing countries is important.

Bubble Bobble says

The poorer you are, the harder they fuck you.

Ain't that the truth?

All of these fees are a way of fleecing those with the least amount of money. That's all they are.

Sarah's Emails just came out, thousands of 'em, from her time as Alaska gov.

The Guardian UK needs your help to sift through all the "Sheeshes" and ":-)" in about 250,000 pages of emails.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/sarah-palin-emails

See how she communicated as Governor of Alaska, why dontcha.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jun/10/sarah-palin-emails-released

It looks like Russell Crowe briefly took an intactivist stand before rapidly retracting his statements.
I know the teacher of the infant care class we took at Alta Bates (several years ago) had a strong anti-circ bias that made me somewhat uncomfortable (although she did allow for religious exceptions). I would like to think there is a middle ground that can be staked out here. In my (very limited) understanding of the the topic, there are those who believe circumcision was more ritualistic in 'ye olden' times. It was only after the Second Temple fell that cutting more, rather than less, was the rule as a way of preserving identity in the face of the Diaspora. Perhaps it's time to reconsider what the mark means. Comments? Insights? I'm willing to learn.

Is there a religion where, when you die, you get 72 sluts? At least this would make some kind of sense.

debit card fees aren't wrong. What is wrong is that merchants are penalized if they offer incentives to pay with cash over credit. Now that is wrong. That is monopolistic. And credit card companies need to be disciplined from their anti competitive behavior.

leoj707 says

An absolutist positions like “the liberal position is bad for a heality society” lack depth, are nonsense, and do come from an irrational position of fear and anger.

no, it does not. you are wrong.

leoj707 says

Yes, because women have done so well under the judeo-christian-islamic “moral” systems.

First, remove islamic from that list, it does not equate. Secondly, only compaired to everything else there is have women done better in societies that try to be based on the teachings of Christ or the Hebrews. And not just women, but humanity in general.

leoj707 says

Getting that perspective is one reason why I think that travel to developing countries is important.

It is fine for you to have the feeling. Even though America is hurting very much due to the effects of liberal/progressive/leftist activisim, it is still the big brother that every "developing country" relys on. So, your expanded perspective should keep that portion of reality factored in. In my opinion.

leoj707 says

but it seems to me that you are saying we need a divine morality to uplift the “base human condition of morality”.

hmmmm .. I just re-read my post. I did not mention God on purpose. Your response indicates that you know fully well that the basic human condition does not result in moralistic behavior ... and you also know that ALL human BEHAVIOR that is not BASIC is passed on through teaching. Feel free to share where you "feel" moralistic behavior came from. I happen to feel it is learned. You are born knowing nothing about behavior, rules, morals, or whatever.

leoj707 says

The logic that humans need divine moral guidance in order to be good is unfounded, complicated, and a huge topic unto itself.

Morals came from someplace .... basic understanding for what is right and what is wrong are also learned, and came from someplace. Where? Careful now, I may get lucky.

elliemae says

Many people consider Mormonism to be a cult.

That's because it is a cult.

Christianity is a cult, too; but it is a different cult. As that goes, the Catholic branch of Christianity is also a cult.

EBGuy says

In my (very limited) understanding of the the topic, there are those who believe circumcision was more ritualistic in ‘ye olden’ times. It was only after the Second Temple fell that cutting more, rather than less, was the rule as a way of preserving identity in the face of the Diaspora. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider what the mark means. Comments? Insights? I’m willing to learn.

See here for a good explanation of what Brit Milah and other birth and first month of life Jewish traditions mean to Jews. Please keep in mind that not all Jews agree on everything about Judaism. We have many different perspectives within our own people/religion. It also addresses some of the modern controversy around circumcision. An Orthodox interpretation of the modern controversy is here. It is in line with the Jewish majority opinion. A Jewish minority opinion about circumcision can be found here.

We have a saying, "Two Jews, three opinions..."

Minority positions about every Jewish practice and belief can be found in the Talmud and other Jewish writings. We preserve all opinions just in case there was wisdom in the minority opinion that might serve future or current generations. Therefore Judaism is extremely non-dogmatic. That being said, the majority opinion is the one that almost all Jews follow because the majority opinion is seen to have the weight and the wisdom of the majority.

I've not been able to bring up a source for whether or not Brit Milah was practiced more often after the destruction of the Second Temple. As far as I know, and I've done a lot of studying, Brit Milah has always been practiced by Jews since Abraham about 3700 years ago. It's a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (our oldest Covenant) with God.

Brit Milah has been so important that Zipporah circumcised her son so that God wouldn't kill Moses or Moses's first born son. That link also talks about questions of whether or not the Israelites in Egypt had maintained Brit Milah. Also it points out that Joshua had all uncircumcised males circumcised upon setting foot in the Promised Land.

Also it notes an interesting concept from Jewish Feminists that this passage of the Torah validates a Brit Milah performed by a woman or the mother. The vast majority of Jews only recognize a Brit Milah performed by a male with the proper training in Torah and surgical technique as Kosher (valid). The Ethiopian Jews have a tradition that the mother circumcises her sons that they claim pre-dates their first exile before the destruction of the First Temple.

Personally, I find it reprehensible that people outside of the Jewish People/Religion would attempt to interfere with our own Traditions and our own process of evolving our own Traditions.

Our internal process concerning our Traditions should be respected. We don't attempt to interfere with other peoples' central religious traditions. Modern Judaism frowns upon evangelization in the strongest way.

In this country, we have the first part of the First Amendment to our Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It mentions Congress. In Constitutional Law the States and Municipalities can regulate that which the Federal Government doesn't regulate. The Federal Government's Constitution regulates the treatment of religion in this country not States and Municipalities. If this ballot measure passes, it will be struck down as unconstitutional at a Federal level. There is no question about that. The anti-circ activists want the attention and the fight to gain publicity for their cause. They know that Jews will not allow them to make a central practice of our religion illegal without a fight. They want to use Jews to generate publicity for their cause. Yet all of them want to claim they aren't anti-semitic in any way, shape, or form.