View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Gary Horton: Victors can’t get all the spoils

Posted: February 19, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: February 19, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

“To the victors go the spoils.”

Our collective morality wants to believe in the justness of this austere and altruistic principle.

It sounds like a simple mathematical equation, yet on further consideration, we see we can allow society’s victors only so much gain and control before the game they’re playing goes helter-skelter--excessively consolidated power and over-control.

It’s Olympics time, and most have watched at least portions of these exciting games. It’s hard to come away from them unimpressed with the incredible human effort driving these athletes to previously impossible limits of human performance.

Time and again, we hear the phrase “New World Record,” and we thrill to the performances rendered, even as this time more nations than ever participated in the gold, silver, and bronze spoils.

Yet amidst Olympic triumphal glory exists more widely disbursed Olympic angst. A total of 119 national Olympic teams are competing, yet as of this writing, only 26 of them have achieved medals.

In practical terms, nine nations alone dominate the game, earning a full 70 percent of all medals.

Winter Olympic medal are earned on a highly skewed curve where the controlling factors aren’t just innate athletic ability and training, but also the overall wealth of the countries, their climates, and sports culture.

Hence, Norway, Germany, the U.S., Russia, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland own these Olympics. Simply put, the spoils accrue to countries with the appropriate means, as athletes from those nations are best empowered to lever their talents and climb required ladders.

Similar trends abound around us. We see sports families becoming sports dynasties, as successful quarterback dads lever genetics, money, and connections at sons, turning second generations into statistically improbable successful NFL quarterbacks.

Politically, Bushes begat junior Bushes, cousin Bushes, and grandson Bushes; Bill gives us Hillary, Gores connect to more Gores up and down the Gore family tree.

And Mr. McKeon would have sent us Patricia had local Republicans not splintered off. Influence, money and connections skew the playing fields of life all around — and not always to the best result for anyone but the skewers.

Still, we want to believe we’re all born equal where all are free to rise or fall, according to our efforts. That’s the American mythos that keeps us plugging ahead.

But be honest: Would George W. Bush ever have been president had his dad, George H.W. Bush, not been president before him?

And would Steve Knight even be running for Congress without his locally famous dad? When we capitulate to such manipulation we deceive our own best interests.

The cream does not always rise to the top. Instead, favored players can be teed up by powerful, connected forces.

Better competitors may be overshadowed and pushed out. Do Democrats really have no better choice than Hillary Clinton to take up the charge in 2016? In a nation of 340 million, is this one familiar and connected name our very best?

Was George W. Bush America’s finest in 2004? Heaven forbid!

And what of Steve Knight in the 25th District in 2014? All familiar names, all family dynasties, and all propelled by personal connection as much as talent alone.

We thrill to our Mannings and our Andrettis; we fall in line for our Clintons, our Bushes, and Kennedys — and we hoot and holler for the powerful nations dominating our Olympics.

But none of this means the very best rise to the top or the competition has reached its true peak, or that voters are best served. It means we’ve suffered those with the influence to tilt the field for one more go-around.

We know that just 1,100 American families control 20 percent of America’s wealth and blithely hope they’d never use that power to consolidate even more. We see more dynasty candidates and shrug shoulders as if that’s the natural way of political life.

We’d like to believe we can trust a “no holds barred, to the victor go the spoils” system, but clearly we see that operating without limits, rules, and laws. Competition suffers, while progress, achievement, and the public good is more poorly served.

Just as sport needs open access and fair rules to allow talent to rise, so do politics and capitalism and modernfinance require rules and regulations to check exaggerated influence and maintain level fields.

Insufficient regulation means the rich get richer, the strong get stronger, abuse may increase, and the games of life become increasingly unequal for all but the influential.

Of course, there’s powerful pushback as the public demands equality of access and fair competition through endeavors of society. The privileged will naturally strive to hold and grow their advantage.

This is a struggle for America’s future and soul, and it will require Olympic courage for America’s middle class to force change back toward level playing fields.

But our victory will be our children’s and society’s gain, as, with these 2014 Olympics, more competitors gain greater access to level competition, providing increasingly “world record” results.

Gary Horton is a Santa Clarita resident. “Full Speed to Port! runs Wednesdays in The Signal.

 

Comments

chico: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:37 a.m.

Sounds like the author mentors his employees to become his competitors.


JohnnyCash: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:37 a.m.

So, specifically, what do you propose we do about this?


OldReliable: Posted: February 19, 2014 7:13 a.m.

Advice for Gary Horton: get out your dictionary, look up the word "fair" and then promptly cross it out.


17trillion: Posted: February 19, 2014 8:18 a.m.

"and we hoot and holler for the powerful nations dominating our Olympics.

But none of this means the very best rise to the top or the competition has reached its true peak"

What a waste of skin Horton is. I guess Horton thinks Jamaica should have won the bobsled event. Even communist countries excel but not under the guide of Horton who proposes nothing. What a load!


chico: Posted: February 19, 2014 8:46 a.m.

This piece is a total smackdown on the Gold Medal winners-

It's akin to "You didn't build that" - but "You're didn't win that" - because someone out there too unfortunate to compete, would have done better.
-

Proposal - Let's declare that nobody sucks at anything - unfortunately that means we'll have no purpose in life.


therightstuff: Posted: February 19, 2014 9:10 a.m.

"""But be honest: Would George W. Bush ever have been president had his dad, George H.W. Bush, not been president before him?"""

While we're being honest, Hillary Clinton wouldn't have a ghost of a chance in 2016 if it wasn't for her husband and because she endured the humiliation of his serial infidelity.

Isn't this supposed to be the antithesis of feminism?


therightstuff: Posted: February 19, 2014 9:31 a.m.

And we've heard countless charges of racism from Democrats about Obama but given his record and total lack of executive experience, does any normal person honestly think he would have been elected if had been white?


philellis: Posted: February 19, 2014 9:58 a.m.

. . . does any normal person honestly think he would have been elected if had been white?

He's not?


17trillion: Posted: February 19, 2014 10:30 a.m.

Chico,

When nobody sucks, everybody sucks! Participation trophies suck, getting 2's in school instead of a D sucks. Fourth place ribbons suck and mostly, telling our little angels everyday that they are special and certainly don't suck at anything, sucks!


Indy: Posted: February 19, 2014 10:36 a.m.

Gary,

The sad reality today is that most of the folks we’ve elected from either party are just ‘products’ of the political machinery in place.

In other words, we don’t have the ‘best, brightest, most knowledgeable’ running for office, we have ‘party people’ that play the game from the precincts level, follow party doctrine, state party policy, and eventually become a ‘spokesperson’ for the party.

Thus, most of what we see on our politician’s websites, Op-eds, interviews, and so forth, just recite party ideology and provide no real answers to the problems we face.

And of course, this all degrades to the ‘blame game’ where ‘each party’ blames the other for their inaction and ineptitude.

One of the posters wrote appropriately: “So, specifically, what do you propose we do about this?”

This part that is sadder than the reality of party politics is that most Americans are so ‘bathed’ in recitals about patriotism, ideology, religion and folklore, many Americans have bought into the ‘blame game’ and keep voting for the same clowns that don’t do anything . . . many don’t even vote.

When I speak with working folks at our local stores and so forth, I like to throw something out there to see if they have any idea at all about what’s going on . . .

One I asked about ‘immigration reform’ and they noted they were mainly interested in the upcoming Oscars and knew nothing.

Another I asked about how much oil the US has considering that 95% of our transportation is oil based . . . and the answer I get is usually ‘we have lots of oil’. In other words no clue.

I suggest doing this yourself and just a feel for the lack of any leadership from politicians who feel safe in running on ‘focus group tested’ slogans that appeal to the ‘low info voters’ (waiting for the Oscars if you will) to maintain their positions of power and remain viable for the lobbyist who tell them what to do.

The only real solution is the media take up the 1st Amendment seriously and start putting for reports that actually give the voters ‘actionable intelligence’ to hold politicians accountable for their sloganized approach to governance . . . that we all see is failing.

I suggest everyone demand better quality ‘news’ and not just opinion recitals that support ideology that again, is mostly when politicians run on today, again, having been ‘raised’ in their respective political ‘machines’.

I don’t know how much longer we can survive as a nation that allows it’s best and brightest to remain on the sidelines while the media ‘celebritizes’ clowns that try to ‘act’ as ‘leaders’ to the point that the ‘political theater’ presented by the media as ‘infotainment’ is failing us all.


JohnnyCash: Posted: February 19, 2014 3:27 p.m.

"One of the posters wrote appropriately: “So, specifically, what do you propose we do about this?”"

Indy,

My question/challenge wasn't just for Mr. Horton. You, too, were free to answer it. Instead, you posted over a dozen paragraphs trying to convince us how smart you are. Again.

So let's hear it. Something besides wishing for a better news media and a more-responsible electorate, but that's just wishful thinking and no action.

Kind of like running an entire campaign on the words "hope" and "change." Silly, right?


Indy: Posted: February 19, 2014 4:28 p.m.

JohnnyCash wrote: "One of the posters wrote appropriately: “So, specifically, what do you propose we do about this?”"

Indy,

My question/challenge wasn't just for Mr. Horton. You, too, were free to answer it. Instead, you posted over a dozen paragraphs trying to convince us how smart you are. Again.

Indy: This is the tragedy of you being a teacher and thus ‘rejecting’ those that know more than you do in a given area. And rather than discuss the points I made, you give me type of nonsensical response.

This is why conservativism as its practiced today with these types of snide remarks isn’t helping anyone . . . including you.


JohnnyCash wrote: So let's hear it. Something besides wishing for a better news media and a more-responsible electorate, but that's just wishful thinking and no action.

Indy: Did you email any reporters suggest we the public want ‘actionable intelligence’ versus just rectials of political slogans?

Did you email anybody in the media and suggest that the ‘political theater’ that dominates same isn’t helping solve our problems?

This is why you are part of the problem . . .


JohnnyCash wrote: Kind of like running an entire campaign on the words "hope" and "change." Silly, right?

Indy: And of course what lame response to me wouldn’t be complete without some off hand criticism of Obama . . . what a joke.


technologist: Posted: February 19, 2014 6:58 p.m.

"Indy: This is the tragedy of you being a teacher and thus ‘rejecting’ those that know more than you do in a given area."

So states the Emperor With No Clothes that accuses others of "patting themselves on the back". Another heaping serving of nothing burger from Indy.


therightstuff: Posted: February 19, 2014 7:55 p.m.

"""The only real solution is the media take up the 1st Amendment seriously and start putting for reports that actually give the voters ‘actionable intelligence’ to hold politicians accountable for their sloganized approach to governance"""

Obama zealots may say this but the LAST thing they want would be for the liberal media to lay down their ideology and take their jobs seriously. If that had happened, Obama would still be voting "present" in the U.S. Senate and America would have been spared the last five years of partisan ineptitude and corruption.


CaptGene: Posted: February 19, 2014 8:46 p.m.

Tech, with each new steaming pile from Indy Nile I am more and more convinced that his posts are some sort of put-on or performance art. Nobody can be that much of a blowhard for real.


ricketzz: Posted: February 20, 2014 5:30 a.m.

When Obama said "you didn't build that" he was referring to infrastructure necessary for people to succeed. To continue to mis-use the quote out of context makes a person a BS propagandist and a liar.

An unbiased source of news would be either Pacifica or the Christian Science Monitor, in the USA. The rest of them all have a corporate agenda. If you need proof, look who sponsors the Sunday morning chat shows. Look who sponsors PBS.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 20, 2014 6:27 a.m.

CG...'sadly' I tend to agree. And what does one do at a comedy show? Heckle! And Indy is sad that I'm here to have fun while he's dealing with serious issues here at The Signal. Eagerly waiting for his next 'set'.


CaptGene: Posted: February 20, 2014 6:57 a.m.

"But you don’t have to wrench these words out of context to make a conservative attack on them, as Rep. Raul Labrador (R) of Idaho pointed out Thursday and as Mr. Romney has demonstrated on the stump."

- Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0719/You-didn-t-build-that-Obama-s-business-quip-is-gift-to-Romney-campaign


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 9:13 a.m.

We don't need you to be Obama's interlocutor to understand the plain meaning of words in context, ricketzz.

Obama meant what he said and it's a misguided view that's pervasive on the Left. See: Elizabeth Warren.


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 9:15 a.m.

CG: Consider the possibility that Indy is a manic-depressive zealot.


stevehw: Posted: February 20, 2014 9:38 a.m.

"does any normal person honestly think he would have been elected if had been white? "

Against McCain and Princess Dumb-ass of the Northwoods?

Uh, yeah...


JohnnyCash: Posted: February 20, 2014 10:20 a.m.

"Uh, yeah... "

No. Against Hillary Clinton.


OldReliable: Posted: February 20, 2014 11:41 a.m.

Well, Stevo he is half white, no? Any Republican would have ben better that President Zero... sheesh look at the mess we are in! Lousy domestic policies and no foreign policy except kill people via drones.


CaptGene: Posted: February 20, 2014 12:26 p.m.

After watching Obama fumble, flounder and fail, I would say that he deserves the title of Princess Dumb-Ass.


Indy: Posted: February 20, 2014 12:40 p.m.

technologist wrote: "Indy: This is the tragedy of you being a teacher and thus ‘rejecting’ those that know more than you do in a given area."

So states the Emperor With No Clothes that accuses others of "patting themselves on the back". Another heaping serving of nothing burger from Indy.

Indy: So you reject Adam Smith’s principle of specialization?

Note: This is a binary question. (LOL)


stevehw: Posted: February 20, 2014 1:28 p.m.

"Well, Stevo he is half white, no?"

So he's not "black enough", is that it?

"no foreign policy except kill people via drones. "

Always interesting to hear right-wingers, who never met a war they didn't like, talk foreign policy.


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 1:39 p.m.

"Indy: So you reject Adam Smith’s principle of specialization?

Note: This is a binary question. (LOL)"

No, I don't reject Adam Smith's Division of Labour Theory.

Note that I was able to accomplish what you could not, Emperor.

However, you've demonstrated no specialized expertise other than logorrhea, defectively written with little to zero content.

The "labour" involved is for others to wade through your tedious, tendentious and repetitive posts.


CaptGene: Posted: February 20, 2014 3:36 p.m.

Always interesting to hear left-wingers, who never met a baby they didn't want dead, talk domestic policy.

This is fun! OK, your turn again....


Indy: Posted: February 20, 2014 4:43 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: """The only real solution is the media take up the 1st Amendment seriously and start putting for reports that actually give the voters ‘actionable intelligence’ to hold politicians accountable for their sloganized approach to governance"""

Obama zealots may say this but the LAST thing they want would be for the liberal media to lay down their ideology and take their jobs seriously. If that had happened, Obama would still be voting "present" in the U.S. Senate and America would have been spared the last five years of partisan ineptitude and corruption.

Indy: Your hyper partisanship is showing here . . . something that is a problem as we look for solutions to the nation’s problems based on reality (reproducible results) versus ideology and beliefs that have shown not to work.

Asking for better reporting and I get the old standby ‘Obama zealots’ shows just how far out on the right edge you’ve put yourself.

In any event, media outlets like Fox are really doing a great disservice to the public by mixing conservative ideology as they 'frame' their reports into their so called ‘news’.

Their ‘news’ anchors are more like Op-ed writers . . . so I’m not surprised your immersed in conspriacy after conspiracy after conspiracy all contrived with ‘innuendo and speculation’ focus group tested.

This is your burden to carry . . . not mine.


Indy: Posted: February 20, 2014 4:46 p.m.

CaptGene wrote: Tech, with each new steaming pile from Indy Nile I am more and more convinced that his posts are some sort of put-on or performance art. Nobody can be that much of a blowhard for real.

Indy: Here’s another good example of the ‘pat on the back’ support that the conservative brethren here believe somehow ‘validates’ their ideology when nothing could be farther from the reality

Notice the poster said nothing of importance and didn’t address one issue . . . that’s shows the lack of understanding of the topic material.

At least the poster ‘saved us’ from linking to a conservative Op-ed . . . written to support ideology and little else.

I guess we should be thankful for small favors . . .


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 4:53 p.m.

You are aware that the majority of current journalists vote Democratic Party, aren't you, Indy?

Only apparatchiks are obsessed with ideological conformity with the Party.


Indy: Posted: February 20, 2014 4:58 p.m.

technologist wrote: You are aware that the majority of current journalists vote Democratic Party, aren't you, Indy?

Indy: Didn’t know and don’t care . . . I hold all journalist to the same standard.

Many at the LA Times for example, have blocked me . . . since I demand more than just political theater, celebritization of clowns then reciting their nonsense as ‘news’, and articles that lack context, facts, and backstory.

technologist wrote: Only apparatchiks are obsessed with ideological conformity with the Party.

Indy: Your recitations of libertarian ideology is the issue I have to deal with here and help the guest readers deifier ‘reality from belief’.


Indy: Posted: February 20, 2014 5:02 p.m.

technologist wrote: CG: Consider the possibility that Indy is a manic-depressive zealot.

Indy: LOL!

Nope, all you get from me is rational discussion based on principles that ‘work’ and are reproducible.

It’s quite understandable that folks like you and your fellow conservatives rarely run into people like me that have no ideology agenda other than simply trying to help people in the modern world.

This form of altruism is sadly all too rare and most folks just lookout for themselves and accept the criticisms of others as a ‘relief’ if you will for not having to think.

Hope that helps you in your classification.


therightstuff: Posted: February 20, 2014 5:41 p.m.

Indy: """Asking for better reporting and I get the old standby ‘Obama zealots’ shows just how far out on the right edge you’ve put yourself."""

This from the same poster who refuses to tell us why Obama and his administration continued to tell Americans for two weeks that Benghazi was over a video when they all KNEW it was a terrorist attack. LOL.



More Indy: """In any event, media outlets like Fox are really doing a great disservice to the public by mixing conservative ideology as they 'frame' their reports into their so called ‘news’."""

This from the same poster who actually admitted MSNBC is one of his sources for news. No ideology framed reporting there, huh?




No wait, MORE Indy: """Their ‘news’ anchors are more like Op-ed writers . . . so I’m not surprised your immersed in conspriacy after conspiracy after conspiracy all contrived with ‘innuendo and speculation’ focus group tested.
This is your burden to carry . . . not mine."""

This from the same poster who whines about how sad he is daily. I'll watch Megan Kelly. You watch Rachel Maddow. That's YOUR burden to carry.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 20, 2014 6:27 p.m.

Indy wrote:"Many at the LA Times for example, have blocked me . . ."

Now that's funny! I guess trying to solve the world's problems with cut & paste posts has its obstacles.


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 6:41 p.m.

Heh. It appears the L.A. Times has limits on what they'll tolerate.


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 6:57 p.m.

Orwellian.

New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's "critical information needs." Those "needs" will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future. It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.

The initiative, known around the agency as "the CIN Study" (pronounced "sin"), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. "This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced," says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans). "I've never had any input into the process," adds Pai, who brought the story to the public's attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-obama-initiative-tramples-first-amendment-protections/article/2544363


technologist: Posted: February 20, 2014 7:01 p.m.

"It’s quite understandable that folks like you and your fellow conservatives rarely run into people like me that have no ideology agenda other than simply trying to help people in the modern world. "

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the belly laugh, Indy!


CaptGene: Posted: February 20, 2014 7:33 p.m.

Indy Nile: "Here’s another good example of the ‘pat on the back’ support that the conservative brethren here believe somehow ‘validates’ their ideology when nothing could be farther from the reality"

Hmmm, I think that Indy Nile is a little jealous. Perhaps he's noticed that on those ever so rare occasions that someone agrees with him it's either ricketzz or the crazy bingo lady (whatever she's calling herself this week). I suspect being ignored brings up some issues that date back to when he was just a little Indy Nile. Poor baby.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 20, 2014 8:44 p.m.

Its clear that Indy the MBA does not know the definition of ideology.


technologist: Posted: February 21, 2014 10:24 p.m.

Clearly.


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 10:39 p.m.

Steve: """Always interesting to hear right-wingers, who never met a war they didn't like, talk foreign policy."""

Kind of like atheists talking about Christianity.


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 10:43 p.m.

"It’s quite understandable that folks like you and your fellow conservatives rarely run into people like me that have no ideology agenda other than simply trying to help people in the modern world. "

Not true. I volunteer occasionally at a mental hospital. One guy thinks he's a train. Another an airplane. And another guy is a far-left Obama loyalist who claims he has no ideology agenda.


ricketzz: Posted: February 21, 2014 6:25 a.m.

The FCC is in charge of insuring that all Americans are served by trustees of the public airwaves and that licensees do not abuse their privilege to broadcast to exclusively advance the personal political goals of station management.

The jurisdiction only applies to Part 73 stations, not Cable or Satellite or WWW.

The Fairness Doctrine never required "equal time". It merely said opposing viewpoints should be allowed an opportunity to reply if requested. Taking phone calls over the air from someone who disagrees satisfies the requirement.

This is another right wing freak out over nothing. Why they so jumpy?


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 10:26 a.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Asking for better reporting and I get the old standby ‘Obama zealots’ shows just how far out on the right edge you’ve put yourself."""

This from the same poster who refuses to tell us why Obama and his administration continued to tell Americans for two weeks that Benghazi was over a video when they all KNEW it was a terrorist attack. LOL.

Indy: Here’s a good example of political fanaticism . . . .where every issue goes back to one.

In a sense, however, the poster has revealed just how biased Fox is considering that they too like to surround Obama with their contrived conspiracies and use their ‘news’ anchors to ‘frame’ each issue in much the same manner as this poster.

This is a form of ‘parroting’ a ideology position I guess hoping that anyone with rational thinking wouldn’t catch on . . .

therightstuff wrote: More Indy: """In any event, media outlets like Fox are really doing a great disservice to the public by mixing conservative ideology as they 'frame' their reports into their so called ‘news’."""

This from the same poster who actually admitted MSNBC is one of his sources for news. No ideology framed reporting there, huh?

Indy: And again, the repetition does become monotonous and as you see, all migrates to the ‘known’ conservative ‘enemies’ like MSNBC!

Notice the poster didn’t and probably can’t address any of the topical business and economic issues in this thread.


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 10:58 a.m.

Indy: """And again, the repetition does become monotonous and as you see, all migrates to the ‘known’ conservative ‘enemies’ like MSNBC!"""

This from the same poster who daily whines about Fox News, religious conservatives, GOP talking points, and focus-group-tested-slogans, no matter what the topic. Your hypocrisy is pathological.

And we're still waiting for you to explain why Barack Obama told the American people for two weeks that Benghazi was over a video when he KNEW the whole time it was a terrorist attack.

I noticed that your leader is now threatening the Ukraine about "serious consequences." The same liar who threatened Syria about a "red line". I think the Ukrainian leaders laughed as hard as the Syrians and the terorists from Benghazi.

Like your long-winded posts, Obama is such an embarrassment.


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 12:06 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: No wait, MORE Indy: """Their ‘news’ anchors are more like Op-ed writers . . . so I’m not surprised your immersed in conspriacy after conspiracy after conspiracy all contrived with ‘innuendo and speculation’ focus group tested.
This is your burden to carry . . . not mine."""

This from the same poster who whines about how sad he is daily. I'll watch Megan Kelly. You watch Rachel Maddow. That's YOUR burden to carry.

Indy: It is sad to see people that have an interest in our future be so deceived with the innuendo and speculation nonsense from Fox. That’s really sad and pathetic.

As far as Megan Kelly goes, it appears Fox is more interesting in the ‘look’ of their anchors than any intellectual integrity of their work.


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 12:12 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: "It’s quite understandable that folks like you and your fellow conservatives rarely run into people like me that have no ideology agenda other than simply trying to help people in the modern world. "

Not true. I volunteer occasionally at a mental hospital. One guy thinks he's a train. Another an airplane. And another guy is a far-left Obama loyalist who claims he has no ideology agenda.

Indy: As I’ve noted, I appreciate your charity work but the damage done to millions of other Americans who suffer from the conservative ideology they are forced to live under is the real tragedy.

As religious conservatives in the House cut food stamps based on recitals of religious scripture, poor people go hungry around the nation.

And the folks suffering long term unemployment from the same religious conservatives that promote their ‘virtues of work’ recitals but are so economically ignorant as to watch people go homeless from the effects of globalization which off shores their jobs to foreign nations.

Finally, those Americans looking to work 40 hours and yet find their ‘minimum’ wage has not been adjusted for inflation for decades, shows the callousness of conservatism that glorifies the top 1% that now take 20% of all income forgetting that that additional income is not there for those Americans who want to work and get out of poverty.

So charity work is great but it doesn’t dismiss the failures of conservative ideology that is brutalizing people across the nation.


CaptGene: Posted: February 21, 2014 12:53 p.m.

See what I mean about Indy Nile as performance art? I really think we are all getting punk'd.


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 1:06 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Steve: """Always interesting to hear right-wingers, who never met a war they didn't like, talk foreign policy."""

Kind of like atheists talking about Christianity.

Indy: Sadly, relgious conservatives that end up brutalizing people with their ideology try to cast doubt on others that don’t share their faith with nonsense like this.

You’re free to believe in whatever religion you so choose but thankfully the Founding Fathers, even with their faults, chose to separate church and state . . . although as we see of late with House republicans reciting their scripture to withhold needed benefits to people, well, it makes your substantiation of Christianity weaker considering what Jesus said about helping the poor.

Again, this is your burden to manage every day of your life . . .


Indy: Posted: February 21, 2014 1:11 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(old)ene wrote: See what I mean about Indy Nile as performance art? I really think we are all getting punk'd.

Indy: I guess this clown finally lost his bid for appear on Jon Stewart’s show.

But after watching Jon, I can see why conservatives detest him so since he shows their hypocrisy and reveals all the ‘innuendo and speculation’ that is fostered at Fox to distort our political discourse.

Anyway, if you think it’s entertaining to read an old white guy rattle off ‘quick quips’, C(omedy)aptG(old)ene is your man!

If you want to watch some intelligent remarks, go to: http://www.thedailyshow.com/


technologist: Posted: February 21, 2014 3:38 p.m.

The FCC disagrees, ricketzz.

"However, in the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate. Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required. Last week, Chairman Wheeler informed lawmakers that that Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters and would be modifying the draft study. Yesterday, the Chairman directed that those questions be removed entirely.

To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters."


technologist: Posted: February 21, 2014 3:48 p.m.

“Daily Show” Audience Laughs At Ronan Farrow’s Assertion That MSNBC Is A “Serious News Network”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/daily-show-audience-laughs-at-ronan-farrows-assertion-that-m


CaptGene: Posted: February 21, 2014 6:24 p.m.

Indy Nile, I have to tell you, I have never seen such a commitment to a role as I have with you. Your portrayal of an arrogant blowhard know it all, and your unwavering commitment to that character is truly Oscar-worthy...bravo sir! --edited.


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 8:11 p.m.

Indy: """Sadly, relgious conservatives that end up brutalizing people with their ideology try to cast doubt on others that don’t share their faith with nonsense like this."""

Classic Indy:

If an atheist posts "Always interesting to hear right-wingers, who never met a war they didn't like, talk foreign policy", that's perfectly fine on Planet Democrat.

If a Christian posts in response, "Kind of like atheists talking about Christianity", it is considered 'brutalizing people'.

Indy, how are you able to type while sucking on your thumb? Grow up, dude.


therightstuff: Posted: February 21, 2014 8:14 p.m.

More Indy: """If you want to watch some intelligent remarks, go to: http://www.thedailyshow.com/"""

So far, we know that Indy's news sources are BSDNC, the Comedy Channel, and FARK News!...Remember, it's not news - it's FARK!

-nuf said.


ricketzz: Posted: February 22, 2014 5:22 a.m.

The FCC disagrees about what? Read carefully, I used to be a compliance inspector for a TV chain.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 8:34 a.m.

Agreed that the survey questions were inappropriate.

Free speech compliance inspector is an oxymoron, ricketzz. --edited.


technologist: Posted: February 22, 2014 11:38 a.m.

A thoughtcrime is an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts. The term is also used to describe some theological concepts such as disbelief or idolatry,[1] or a rejection of strong social or philosophical principles.[2]

The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thought is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

Summed up in an FCC Party Poster:

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1653643_10200613097970496_929342698_n.jpg


Indy: Posted: February 23, 2014 5:25 p.m.

C(omedy)aptG(gold)ene: Posted: February 21, 2014 6:24 p.m.
Indy Nile, I have to tell you, I have never seen such a commitment to a role as I have with you. Your portrayal of an arrogant blowhard know it all, and your unwavering commitment to that character is truly Oscar-worthy...bravo sir! --edited.

Indy: Let’s even the table since I’ve never seen a better ‘quick quipper’ that lacks even the most basic economic and business acumen and relies on conservative Op-ed writers from conservative media outlets.

And of course, when you can’t defend your ideology, you ‘attack’ the bringer of the bad news . . . just SOP for conservatives here that can recite the ideology but don’t understand ‘what the words mean when linked together’.

In any event, you bring nothing to debate here other than the ‘quick quips’ that again add nothing to the discourse.

If you feel ‘empowered’ in your attempt to act ‘cute’ with respect to my comments, go ahead! But I want the guest readers to realize that your sort of politics solves nothing . . . and is indeed part of partisan cancer that has taken over our political discourse.

If patting your fellow conservative posters relentlessly had any effect our national problems we wouldn’t even have any . . .


Indy: Posted: February 23, 2014 5:31 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Sadly, relgious conservatives that end up brutalizing people with their ideology try to cast doubt on others that don’t share their faith with nonsense like this."""

Classic Indy: If an atheist posts "Always interesting to hear right-wingers, who never met a war they didn't like, talk foreign policy", that's perfectly fine on Planet Democrat.

If a Christian posts in response, "Kind of like atheists talking about Christianity", it is considered 'brutalizing people'.

Indy, how are you able to type while sucking on your thumb? Grow up, dude.

Indy: I think your immature and childish attempt to distance yourself from the true principles of Jesus is the really really sad reality that you have to bear each day of your life . . .

You can try to cast your guilt on others like me that disclose your inability to see the ‘real world’ but that’s a fruitless endeavor as your remarks indicate.

Sad that Jesus would have lived to find out how you treat average Americans that suffer economic indignities using His ‘scripture’ to withhold food from the poor, deny the poor health care, brutalize otherwise working Americans who’ve lost their jobs to failed economic economic principles, and refuse to confront the excessive wealth concentration in the US with the only conservative response to be removing the ‘minimum’ wage!

Pathetic.


Indy: Posted: February 23, 2014 5:37 p.m.

therightstuff posted : Posted: February 21, 2014 8:14 p.m.
More Indy: """If you want to watch some intelligent remarks, go to: http://www.thedailyshow.com/"""

Indy: Again, I can’t recommend highly enough for anyone wanting to see the hyper hypocrisy of conservatism to watch Jon’s show.

It’s quite revealing and he includes the ‘video’ clips of conservatives at Fox sticking their collective feet in their mouths regarding their failed policies that only seem to impress their poorly educated ‘base’ that is dominated by ‘old white people’.

Since I’m a ‘old white person’ myself, I can see the distorted nonsense used as ‘information’ to people that simply deserve better than hyper partisan nonsense that doesn’t even work.

What’s truly sad is how you are being used by the RNC as a ‘parroter’ of ‘focus group tested’ slogans that don’t address our nation’s problems and just are making them worse . . .

That’s truly sad . . . sadder that you can’t see it.


technologist: Posted: February 23, 2014 6:22 p.m.

Are you a sad panda, Indy?


CaptGene: Posted: February 23, 2014 6:25 p.m.

I love when Indy Nile mentions the "guest readers". Reminds me of old blue haired woman that has her little troll dolls on the bingo table for good luck. Those guest readers bring you good luck Indy Nile?

As always, I stand by my contention that Indy Nile's entire persona is an act, sort of a Colbert caricature of a liberal blowhard. You know he can't be for real. Seriously Indy Nile, you have kept this up for years, I'm truly impressed.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 24, 2014 9:45 p.m.

Indy, that should be "an" old white person. When the word begins with a vowel, use an.


technologist: Posted: February 24, 2014 12:04 a.m.

No worries, emheilbrun. Indy may fail repeatedly at spelling, usage and grammar but he's here to teach us what "words mean when strung together".


ricketzz: Posted: February 24, 2014 6:39 a.m.

I said "jurisdiction" didn't I. The FCC can only broadly oversee content, even on Part 73 entities. See WBAI v FCC


ricketzz: Posted: February 24, 2014 6:44 a.m.

And as compliance officer it was my job to insure each station could pass an FCC inspection (technical operation, Emergency Alert System procedures, etc., and that each station's Public File was complete and up to date, etc. (Several hundred possible infractions can add up when you have dozens of stations. Luckily there are trade groups to give us guidance.) The FCC (like most regulators) runs on good faith and will come down hard (maybe not..) on violators of that trust.


therightstuff: Posted: February 24, 2014 7:34 a.m.

Hey, I found a new way to stay awake during Indy's pointless bloviating. I count how many times he uses the word "sad" in his posts.

"""really really sad"""

"""What’s truly sad"""

"""That’s truly sad . . . sadder that you can’t see it."""

Lately his new talking point is the "burden you have to carry" line and yet, he's the only who appears to be sad. He is really, really sad. Sadder that we can't see it.


CaptGene: Posted: February 24, 2014 9:30 a.m.

Indy Nile is a sad panda, he used "sad" 11 times in this thread.

Poor Indy Nile, maybe there will be a natural disaster that will kill a lot of people, will that cheer you up a little?


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 10:42 a.m.

therightstuff wrote: Hey, I found a new way to stay awake during Indy's pointless bloviating. I count how many times he uses the word "sad" in his posts. Lately his new talking point is the "burden you have to carry" line and yet, he's the only who appears to be sad. He is really, really sad. Sadder that we can't see it.

Indy: I’m not going to respond anymore to the mindless quick quips other than to address some point if any . . .

In your case, your adherence to a failed religious conservative ideology is placing countless people at risk.

If you feel the answer to this is to make meaningless jabs at me . . . that’s all well and good for you but still leaves countless Americans being brutalized.

That’s the burden you must bear and carry . . . until hopefully at some point, you start asking questions as to why your religious conservatism doesn’t work.

Until then, the people that you affect by your beliefs will continue to be harmed including:

- the poor that need food stamps to eat

- the long term unemployed that are now losing their homes

- the ‘working poor’ that work ‘full time’ or multiple jobs but still exist in poverty due to the shortcomings of capitalism that are concentrating wealth while you read this . . . and yet you resist raising the ‘minimum wage’ to help level the earning ability of ‘all’ Americans not jus the 1%

And indeed, this is truly sad for our nation.


therightstuff: Posted: February 24, 2014 11:27 a.m.

Indy: """I’m not going to respond anymore to the mindless quick quips other than to address some point if any . . ."""

Is this a real promise or more like an Obama promise?

I'd ask you to prove where I said I don't want to raise the minimum wage or that I don't want poor people to get food or that I'm happy people are losing their homes but we all know how you cringe when asked for evidence to your outrageous claims.

I'd settle for you just sticking to the facts and not making stuff up and then attacking it as though it was real. I'm curious, are you hearing voices, too?


technologist: Posted: February 24, 2014 12:26 p.m.

The majority of Indy's postings are the equivalent of pointing to an auto accident with injuries and exclaiming: "That's bad and it makes me sad!" Doing nothing to render aid or improve the lot of victims himself, he excoriates others for not fixing the situation while taking credit for solving auto accidents globally. You know, by pointing.


therightstuff: Posted: February 24, 2014 1:06 p.m.

For a mindless quick quip, that was pretty funny, tech. It helps ease my burden of responsibility and accountability.


17trillion: Posted: February 24, 2014 1:52 p.m.

Indy,

How many words does it take for a quip to become non-quick? Just curious. Also, for a MBA you sure make a lot of typos. Normally I wouldn't care since we're all guilty, but for someone like you who constantly brags about his alleged scholastic accomplishments, you would think you would have the basics down by now. Is this still quick and is it a quip? What exactly is a quip anyway? Can one have a slow quip? Can you just have a quip, sans the quick?


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 3:20 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """I’m not going to respond anymore to the mindless quick quips other than to address some point if any . . ."""

I'd ask you to prove where I said I don't want to raise the minimum wage or that I don't want poor people to get food or that I'm happy people are losing their homes but we all know how you cringe when asked for evidence to your outrageous claims.

Indy: Your positions speak to these realities . . . but please, feel free to clarify your positions.

Do you support an increase in the minimum wage?

Do did you support cutting food stamps in the recent House bill?

Do you support the rejection by republicans of extending long term unemployment benefits?

therightstuff wrote: I'd settle for you just sticking to the facts and not making stuff up and then attacking it as though it was real. I'm curious, are you hearing voices, too?

Indy: Just answer the questions . . . as stated.


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 3:25 p.m.

technologist wrote: The majority of Indy's postings are the equivalent of pointing to an auto accident with injuries and exclaiming: "That's bad and it makes me sad!" Doing nothing to render aid or improve the lot of victims himself, he excoriates others for not fixing the situation while taking credit for solving auto accidents globally. You know, by pointing.

Indy: Sadly, the poster I guess feels that a meaningless and unthoughtful response to any of the topics in the thread is going to help anyone with anything . . . and as you might expect, the poster turns from a defense of his positions to the ‘bringer of the bad news’, me, that explains why libertarian market fundamentalism is brutalizing Americans every day . . .

That’s his burden to carry as he recites his ideology.

Sad, isn’t it?


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 3:31 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Indy, How many words does it take for a quip to become non-quick? Just curious. Also, for a MBA you sure make a lot of typos. Normally I wouldn't care since we're all guilty, but for someone like you who constantly brags about his alleged scholastic accomplishments, you would think you would have the basics down by now. Is this still quick and is it a quip? What exactly is a quip anyway? Can one have a slow quip? Can you just have a quip, sans the quick?

Indy: I thank it’s great that you find the occasional typo and feel that pointing it out somehow substantiates your view? LOL

As far as quick quips goes . . . . I think you can figure that one out by yourself.

With respect to scholastic accomplishments, I think it’s sad that conservatives here keep giving me the idea that education is the key to economic success yet you mock those that have it. Why is that?

And would you say go to a plumber if you needed heart surgery?

In any event the tech poster here is embarrassed to cite his education achievements I guess fearing that his background is insufficient to discuss economics and business.

But the real tragedy is for those businessmen like yourself that were successful but lack the foundational concepts beyond selling above cost . . . but at least you did disclose the scope of your business and indeed provided great benefits for your people.

That’s my goal here is to address why wealth in the US in concentrating and essentially locking out most Americans that work full time while living in poverty and what the economics factors in play are creating this inequality.


technologist: Posted: February 24, 2014 3:39 p.m.

"Sad, isn’t it?"

I'm not sad at all. And unlike you, I don't appear to be suffering from a lack of respect for my expressed opinions. Why do you think that's the case, Indy? Do you really think you're the sole enlightened one in these fora? Seriously?

Due to your hubris, I don't think you're aware of how seriously you're outclassed by stevehw, a participant I frequently disagree with but respect. --edited.


17trillion: Posted: February 24, 2014 3:51 p.m.

"Do you support an increase in the minimum wage?"

Yes

"Do did you support cutting food stamps in the recent House bill?"

Yes, yes, yes! I thought the economy was getting better? That's what I've been told by brain dead partisans so a reduction in welfare should correspond, no? I'm no typo laden MBA or anything, but logic is logic.

"Do you support the rejection by republicans of extending long term unemployment benefits?"

I'm not even sure if that's a proper sentence, but I think I know what you meant to say. The answer is YES!

"Indy: I thank it’s great that you find the occasional typo and feel that pointing it out somehow substantiates your view? LOL"

If you weren't such a blowhard about your education, nobody would say anything. Everyone makes a typo but you blame your typos on the auto-correct which makes no sense because you can't even use "a" and "an" in a proper context.

"With respect to scholastic accomplishments, I think it’s sad that conservatives here keep giving me the idea that education is the key to economic success yet you mock those that have it. Why is that?"

Because you're a braggart who never fails to attack those of us who may not have your advanced degree, supposedly, despite our apparent economic success.

"And would you say go to a plumber if you needed heart surgery?"

Have you ever seen a gladiator movie?

"But the real tragedy is for those businessmen like yourself that were successful but lack the foundational concepts beyond selling above cost"

I had no idea I was such a failure! Thanks for pointing it out to me. Perhaps I shouldn't have retired at the age of 38.

"That’s my goal here is to address why wealth in the US in concentrating and essentially locking out most Americans that work full time while living in poverty and what the economics factors in play are creating this inequality. "

Perhaps it could be liberal policies like the ones that are dominant in this state where we have the highest wage disparity in the country. Any guesses as to which states are 2nd and 3rd? Come on Indy, you're a bright guy supposedly. Take a guess!


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 4:48 p.m.

technologist wrote: "Sad, isn’t it?"

I'm not sad at all. And unlike you, I don't appear to be suffering from a lack of respect for my expressed opinions. Why do you think that's the case, Indy? Do you really think you're the sole enlightened one in these fora? Seriously?

Indy: Most libertarian market fundamentalist ideologues who believe in unlimited growth and believe the market has all the solutions are essentially on a ‘mind like ideology drug’ that isolates them from the issues that are before us.

Compound that with the ‘infotainment’ based media and you can see why so few of us that do the ‘math’ and ‘homework’ appear isolated . . . noting that I believe the one of the first astronomers that told the population at the time that the ‘earth went around the sun’ was summarily ‘killed’ for not ‘believing’ in existing religious beliefs.

technologist wrote: Due to your hubris, I don't think you're aware of how seriously you're outclassed by stevehw, a participant I frequently disagree with but respect. --edited.

Indy: Understandably, religious conservatives tend to take issues more personally and see them more culturally linked and thus see any rational discussion that addresses the failings of their beliefs as being due to ‘hubris’.

But that’s not the case here as I look to the evidence not the self-aggrandizement of our leaders today that are basing their comments on ‘focus groups’ and hoping that the public doesn’t wake up to the nonsense being given to them as a proxy for real leadership.

In any event, I’m not here to ‘change’ the minds of ideologist . . . they are far too invested in their beliefs to dare consider that some of them aren’t substantiated in the real world I live in.

I don’t know how old you are but I’ve heard your type of reasoning for at least 40 years of my adult life . . . where folklore was the main driver of our nation’s actions since most Americans are familiar with it.

But today our abilities to ‘see’ things are much better . . . we have pretty much cataloged many of the world’s resources, know the ‘usage’ rates and can calculate the outcomes.

Much of what you write is based on ‘great intentions’ that seek to hide the reality assuming you’re familiar with it.

Anyway, I wish circumstances were indeed your favor since at the current pace of things, the ‘crisis’ mode of management by our leaders lacks forward thinking and any grasp of what lies ahead.

As far as stevew goes, I’m impressed with this citing’s and his abilities to deal with topics he’s familiar with. He’s free to jump in with you anytime he sees fit.

But I’ve noticed that it’s usually the conservatives that do the ‘back slapping’ here . . . not a poster like stevew.


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 5:00 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Do you support an increase in the minimum wage?"

Yes

Indy: Thanks for answering the question poised to TRS . . . what do you think it should be?

17trillion wrote: "Do did you support cutting food stamps in the recent House bill?"

Yes, yes, yes! I thought the economy was getting better? That's what I've been told by brain dead partisans so a reduction in welfare should correspond, no? I'm no typo laden MBA or anything, but logic is logic.

Indy: Why would you cut this program’s dollars when it’s unclear that that is the correct course of action? Why not let the people start dropping off then make the cuts as appropriate?

17trillion wrote: "Do you support the rejection by republicans of extending long term unemployment benefits?"

I'm not even sure if that's a proper sentence, but I think I know what you meant to say. The answer is YES!

Indy: Yes, most conservatives still base their decisions on outdated economics that tend to be religious based . . . and can’t fathom the changes that have occurred in the post-globalization world.

Do you believe people are naturally lazy? In other words, are people overall gaming the unemployment benefits?

17trillion wrote: "Indy: I thank it’s great that you find the occasional typo and feel that pointing it out somehow substantiates your view? LOL"

If you weren't such a blowhard about your education, nobody would say anything. Everyone makes a typo but you blame your typos on the auto-correct which makes no sense because you can't even use "a" and "an" in a proper context.

Indy: As I noted to the tech poster, conservatives usually when they can’t defend a position or are shown that that position is faulty, tend to take it real personally. And when anyone would ask what qualifications are important to address economic issues beyond recitals of slogans, it’s not unfair to ask your background.

I’m sure if the attorney you used in your business was ‘degreed’ and you probably went a bit further and understood what areas of the law he was vested in that would have benefited you.

As I noted, I met lots of businessman that were successful that lacked a formal education but they per my experience were far more likely to fail down the road than those with some sort of formal business education.

In any event, the nonsense quick quips used here to discredit my writings are indeed ‘entertaining’ but really are just a waste of your time and mine.

In any event, I usually type this responses up quickly and try to catch the occasional type of misspellings . . . and indeed the autocorrect does sometimes change a word for me but to attack my comments using that is bs.


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 5:11 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "With respect to scholastic accomplishments, I think it’s sad that conservatives here keep giving me the idea that education is the key to economic success yet you mock those that have it. Why is that?"

Because you're a braggart who never fails to attack those of us who may not have your advanced degree, supposedly, despite our apparent economic success.

Indy: Here again, having knowledge that you don’t possess is not ‘bragging’ it simply having the knowledge to address the economic and business issues more appropriately.

And rather than ask questions and so forth, you take it personally.

17trillion wrote: "And would you say go to a plumber if you needed heart surgery?"

Have you ever seen a gladiator movie?

Indy: Meaningless quick quip . . . there’s the example you were looking for.

17trillion wrote: "But the real tragedy is for those businessmen like yourself that were successful but lack the foundational concepts beyond selling above cost"

I had no idea I was such a failure! Thanks for pointing it out to me. Perhaps I shouldn't have retired at the age of 38.

Indy: Again, selling above cost and running a business is great but doesn’t make you knowledgeable in basic economics.

Again, I saw a lot of folks like you during my 20+ years running my business and sadly, many of them failed – not knowing even why they did so. My partner was vested with great content knowledge of the business we were in but failed many times before I came along . . .


Indy: Posted: February 24, 2014 5:12 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "That’s my goal here is to address why wealth in the US in concentrating and essentially locking out most Americans that work full time while living in poverty and what the economics factors in play are creating this inequality. "

Perhaps it could be liberal policies like the ones that are dominant in this state where we have the highest wage disparity in the country. Any guesses as to which states are 2nd and 3rd? Come on Indy, you're a bright guy supposedly. Take a guess!

Indy: The study of economics and business per se isn’t based on ideology. The idea that a policy is ‘liberal’ or conservative matters little to the actual reality taking place.

You noted that you’re a ‘fiscal conservative’ yet you ignore the basics and just assume that cutting taxes is going to make the economy better when in fact the services that were created to cushion the shortcomings of capitalism (recessions, resource shortages or excesses) are summarily cut on ideology grounds (think food stamps).

Be careful about wage disparity here in CA especially when our own republican legislators refused to properly fund our public education system as the enrollment grew . . . creating higher student/teacher ratios that provided challenges to teachers that were not realizable.

I’ve taught in year in high school and saw this ‘first hand’. Yet, your fellow conservatives here say resources aren’t the answer . . . ignoring the reality in play here, specifically the student enrollment growth that was exceeding 100,000 net new kids 'per year' while republicans ‘grandstanded’ their support for ‘no new taxes’. Their ideology beliefs were paid for by the kids . . . and that's repugnant to me.

Finally, be careful in comparing ‘state to state’ statistics without understand ing the full demographic make-up of the state. But feel free to post up the comparisons and I’ll go to work looking them over.


technologist: Posted: February 24, 2014 5:23 p.m.

"But today our abilities to ‘see’ things are much better . . . we have pretty much cataloged many of the world’s resources, know the ‘usage’ rates and can calculate the outcomes.

Really? How'd that work out with the following:

• Global food production
• Predictions of famine
• Accuracy of climate models with observed temperatures
• Predictions of extreme weather events
• Economic forecasts
• Energy production
• Obamacare adoption rates & demographics

The blind spot of technocratic pretenders like yourself is the failure to account for the variables of human behavior. This is the hubris I speak of.

The ability of humans to model very complex systems is at best limited in scope at this time. To suggest they can also be centrally managed is delusional and ignorant of history. If that were the case, we'd all be in the 1% simply by investing in commodity futures.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, 1988 --edited.


CaptGene: Posted: February 24, 2014 6:32 p.m.

Indy Nile: "Indy: Just answer the questions . . . as stated" Easily the funniest demand Indy Nile has made to date.


therightstuff: Posted: February 24, 2014 8:00 p.m.

Indy: """Just answer the questions . . . as stated."""

I'm saddened that this Obama zealot is being used by the liberals on MSNBC to float 'innuendo and conspiracy' theories. Even sadder that he cannot see it.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 25, 2014 9:52 p.m.

Indy wrote, "I’ve taught in year in high school..." Let me guess, it wasn't English.


emheilbrun: Posted: February 25, 2014 10:29 p.m.

Indy, you're like the Norm Crosby of the Signal. Just a real suppository of wisdom.


ricketzz: Posted: February 25, 2014 5:49 a.m.

The observed data shows the impacts of Global Warming are more often than not hitting the high (badder) side of the ranges predicted. The predictions of sea level rise were almost certainly way off, with 3m likely by 2100.

Crop failures and high basic staples food prices are fomenting civil uprisings around the world and contributing to global unrest. This is the grand capitalist plan for dealing with change? Arm both sides and get out of the way. Watch the funny sandal people die for cooking oil.


CaptGene: Posted: February 25, 2014 8:06 a.m.

emheilbrun, love the Crosby reference!


emheilbrun: Posted: February 25, 2014 8:44 a.m.

CG: A quick quip and a pat on the back. Now let's get our capes on and solve some global problems. I'll take care of world peace, if you'll get rid of world hunger.


technologist: Posted: February 25, 2014 10:16 a.m.

Is there still an opening for Space Defense, i.e. alien invasion repulsion, asteroid deflection, etc.? If so, dibs on that.


technologist: Posted: February 25, 2014 10:26 a.m.

Norm Crosby…nice!


Indy: Posted: February 25, 2014 12:37 p.m.

therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Just answer the questions . . . as stated."""

I'm saddened that this Obama zealot is being used by the liberals on MSNBC to float 'innuendo and conspiracy' theories. Even sadder that he cannot see it.

Indy: Gee, your religious conservative brethren here cry all the time about answering questions but when you’re faced with clarifying something, you just off onto your ‘Obama rant’.

So let’s try it again:

therightstuff wrote: I'd ask you to prove where I said I don't want to raise the minimum wage or that I don't want poor people to get food or that I'm happy people are losing their homes but we all know how you cringe when asked for evidence to your outrageous claims.

Indy: Your positions speak to these realities . . . but please, feel free to clarify your positions.

Do you support an increase in the minimum wage?

Do did you support cutting food stamps in the recent House bill?

Do you support the rejection by republicans of extending long term unemployment benefits?


Indy: Posted: February 25, 2014 12:42 p.m.

technologist: Posted: February 24, 2014 5:23 p.m.
"But today our abilities to ‘see’ things are much better . . . we have pretty much cataloged many of the world’s resources, know the ‘usage’ rates and can calculate the outcomes.

Really? How'd that work out with the following:

• Global food production
• Predictions of famine
• Accuracy of climate models with observed temperatures
• Predictions of extreme weather events
• Economic forecasts
• Energy production
• Obamacare adoption rates & demographics

Indy: I appreciate your list and will get to work on it . . . so we can get the numbers in front of the guest readers.

But while I’m doing, that why do you suppose we still have been seeing thousands of people die ‘each day’ from lack of food, clean water and sanitation? Why haven't you addressed that?

And why do conservatives in the US reject foreign aid that would help lessen that suffering?

PS – these questions are not binary . . . LOL
PS1 – please take some time off from looking for aliens . . . we’ve got plenty of problems ‘here on earth’


emheilbrun: Posted: February 25, 2014 12:47 p.m.

OK, I've heard of a doodad, but what's a do did?


emheilbrun: Posted: February 25, 2014 12:52 p.m.

Asteroid deflection...forgot about that. Wanna trade?


technologist: Posted: February 25, 2014 4:07 p.m.

No way, emheilbrun. I've been interested in space since I was a lad.


technologist: Posted: February 25, 2014 4:18 p.m.

"But while I’m doing, that why do you suppose we still have been seeing thousands of people die ‘each day’ from lack of food, clean water and sanitation? Why haven't you addressed that? - Indy

Because I don't presume to govern other nation states and how they allocate resources according to their political and economic systems. Nor do I purport to speak for anyone but myself in this forum. --edited.


Indy: Posted: February 25, 2014 4:37 p.m.

technologist wrote: "But while I’m doing, that why do you suppose we still have been seeing thousands of people die ‘each day’ from lack of food, clean water and sanitation? Why haven't you addressed that? - Indy

Because I don't presume to govern other nation states and how they allocate resources according to their political and economic systems. Nor do I purport to speak for anyone but myself in this forum. --edited.

Indy: What a nice way to excuse yourself . . .

And I’m sure the nations that ‘allow us’ to buy their oil for example, are just glad we bought the oil with little respect to human rights in play.

And isn’t it interesting that a conservative libertarian just in one statement defeated why we entered most of the wars the US did to ‘free’ people from tyranny!


technologist: Posted: February 25, 2014 8:47 p.m.

"Indy: What a nice way to excuse yourself . . . "

Nice of you to notice. Unlike you, I don't think everybody's business in my own. Obviously, we differ in what we imagine is within our control.

"And isn’t it interesting that a conservative libertarian just in one statement defeated why we entered most of the wars the US did to ‘free’ people from tyranny!"

Your inexperience in geopolitical thinking is on display here. The reason, accurate or not, the USA has engaged in foreign warfare was because our governmental leadership thought our strategic interests were at risk.


ricketzz: Posted: February 26, 2014 6:08 a.m.

The difference between
civilization and anarchy is
three days without food.

http://www.livescience.com/14447-global-food-shortage-urgent-climate-global-warming.html


technologist: Posted: February 26, 2014 10:26 a.m.

The veneer of civilization is indeed thin. See: L.A. Riot. Intelligent people have contingency plans.

Your link references a NYT article from 3 years ago, ricketzz. What's happened in the interim? Is the climate warming according to model projections and has global agriculture experienced a major disruption?


Indy: Posted: February 26, 2014 3:38 p.m.

technologist wrote: "Indy: What a nice way to excuse yourself . . . "

Nice of you to notice. Unlike you, I don't think everybody's business in my own. Obviously, we differ in what we imagine is within our control.

Indy: Your issue is that you see the use of a government of ‘we the people’ as some sort of ‘control’ issue versus the aggregation of knowledge for the betterment of society.

Thus, your view is consistent with strict libertarian ideology where the ‘individual’ is assumed to be ‘all knowing’ which is a fallacy.

technologist wrote: "And isn’t it interesting that a conservative libertarian just in one statement defeated why we entered most of the wars the US did to ‘free’ people from tyranny!"

Your inexperience in geopolitical thinking is on display here. The reason, accurate or not, the USA has engaged in foreign warfare was because our governmental leadership thought our strategic interests were at risk.

Indy: I think your ignorance of how societies work and move forward is sadly the result of your libertarian training, one reason I see libertarianism as a recipe for societal failure. But true to your ideology beliefs, you’ll fight that recognition until civilization resorts back to small family groups all of which become suspicious of each other (think tribal) where ‘confrontation’ is seen as more productive than ‘cooperation’, which per your thinking, dismisses all the gains we’ve seen through time as people formed nations based on governments originally directed for the ‘common good’ but even today in the US, we realize that our so called ‘leaders’ have been corrupted for money and seek ‘individual’ gains at the expense of the citizenry.

This is expected under your libertarian ideology.

Finally, the so called ‘strategic interest’ is better termed as ‘resource management’ that is used to extract resources from other nations to uphold our ‘unsustainable’ economy. The wars in the ‘middle east’ for so called ‘democratization’ were more pointed at maintaining the ‘oil’ flow than anything else.

But it is important for your to continue posting here so I can illuminate your libertarian principles that don’t work and in many cases, seek to place our nation at greater and greater risk.


technologist: Posted: February 26, 2014 4:32 p.m.

Whatever, Indy. Your obsessions are ideology, labels, politics and control rather than a rational dialectic discussion. You mention tribalism, which is exactly what your positions advocate. I support individuals, acting in their interests and in association with fellow citizens as appropriate, seeking self-determination, freedom, prosperity and the right to live unmolested by self-important busybodies like yourself.

The rational and objective folks, qualities you don't display in these fora, can evaluate the logic, data and bona fides associated with our respective arguments. The vast majority of your "content" is ad hominem.


Indy: Posted: February 27, 2014 7:06 p.m.

technologist wrote: Whatever, Indy. Your obsessions are ideology, labels, politics and control rather than a rational dialectic discussion.

Indy: Not true at all . . . but understandable when I’m debating an ideologist that can’t think beyond the ideology . . .

technologist wrote: You mention tribalism, which is exactly what your positions advocate.

Indy: No they don’t . . . my posts are there to contrast you ideology positions with the ‘modern world’ the rest of us live in.

technologist wrote: I support individuals, acting in their interests and in association with fellow citizens as appropriate, seeking self-determination, freedom, prosperity and the right to live unmolested by self-important busybodies like yourself.

Indy: You advocate anarchy and social darwinism. It’s a very selfish approach to dealing with our societal problems. This is made worse as you and other libertarians create a sense of false fear in the workings of government asserting that it is only ‘you’ that know . . . that only ‘you’ have the answers which is obviously false.

Much of the troubles facing mankind today rests on your shoulders as you inhibit our debate with clever sounding slogans and talking points that dismiss even why the Founding Fathers wanted a government to ‘promote the general welfare’.

In your ‘individualistic’ case, you advocate only for yourself . . .

technologist wrote: The rational and objective folks, qualities you don't display in these fora, can evaluate the logic, data and bona fides associated with our respective arguments. The vast majority of your "content" is ad hominem.

Indy: You assertions about me mean little . . . their self-serving tidbits of your fear that you’re ideology isn’t everything you assert it to be.

I’m only here addressing your ideology to make it clear that much of it is false and misleading. Other parts are brutalizing Americans as I write this.

The fact that you’re unhappy with the critiques I make is understandably but making false assertions does nothing to support your positions.

But please, continue . . .


ricketzz: Posted: February 28, 2014 6:11 a.m.

Technologist asks if the climate is conforming to model predictions. The observations seem to show the chaos is greater than predicted and that the warming is faster than predicted.

The warmer the planet gets the more likely we are to trip a feedback mechanism that won't be able to be stopped (if we haven't already). The best analogy is Russian Roulette with a magazine fed semi-auto pistol.


technologist: Posted: March 2, 2014 9:39 p.m.

Many of the models that the federal government relied on to justify regulating carbon dioxide were known to be unreliable. They had projected a 0.3 degree Celsius warming over the past 15 to 17 years, when in reality no warming occurred. It takes a serious leap of faith to base policy that will cost the economy trillions of dollars on projections from models that have already proven to be deeply flawed.


ricketzz: Posted: March 6, 2014 6:48 a.m.

Technologist; can you please tell us more about these faulty studies? You are talking about surface air temperatures and not total heat absorbed by the air and the oceans. You have turned wishful thinking into a phantom fact.

This hyperlink has words and pictures. It is the latest thinking, put in front of the entire community, so it can be meticulously studied and argued. There has been a full degree centigrade warming in many places during the time you say there has been none. You are obviously getting bogus facts from somewhere.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/full


technologist: Posted: March 8, 2014 12:55 p.m.

The paper you cited proposes an alternative interpretation of the raw HadCRUT4 data. Has it been considered authoritative and the methodology adopted by the IPCC?


ricketzz: Posted: March 17, 2014 6:48 a.m.

The paper says there wasn't enough data, and that once that is added to the model the predictions agree better with measured conditions. Every time the models are tweaked the future gets bleaker.


technologist: Posted: March 18, 2014 2:50 p.m.

The IPCC has published otherwise, i.e. predications of warming have been revised downward.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...