Originally Posted by Odin

I tried that already, Deb. Didn't work.

So let it go.

New Mexico is beautiful, GB. Love that Sandia Peak Tramway.

And hopefully I will get a chance to check out Fargo this summer, if all goes well.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

And hopefully I will get a chance to check out Fargo this summer, if all goes well.

Cool! Our street fair and our local Scandinavian festival are both coming up soon. Our version of the old traditional Mid-Summer festivals.

As long as we are talking about states and their proclivities, consider this rating of Freedom in the 50 states.

Look at lonely little New Hampshire. Truly a light shining in the night. Sorry, Badge, NM doesn't look all that great. As for CA, its about where you would expect - number 48.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

As long as we are talking about states and their proclivities, consider this rating of Freedom in the 50 states.

Look at lonely little New Hampshire. Truly a light shining in the night. Sorry, Badge, NM doesn't look all that great. As for CA, its about where you would expect - number 48.

James50

Disclaimer: The Mercatus Center is a Koch Brothers-funded think tank.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Disclaimer: The Mercatus Center is a Koch Brothers-funded think tank.

-So what? The analysis is pretty good:

Originally Posted by James50

As long as we are talking about states and their proclivities, consider this rating of Freedom in the 50 states.

...Let me guess. Kiffie didn't bother to actually read it. "Child of Socrates" my ass.

TN: I hadn't noticed about the pot, gambling, smoking or driving laws, but I guess they have a point. Described as the Anti-Vermont, except for gun laws, where both are quite free.

PA: They didn't mention that PA still has state liquor stores. Other than that, they nailed it.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

So? Extinctionary pressure is one of the biggest drivers of evolution. Ask any biologist and they will tell you, extinction events promote rapid evolution and speciation. These events are necessary and do in fact improve the long-term health of the biosphere. Nature is not concerned with cause and effect. It doesn't care if extinction is caused by volcano or comet or climate change (man-made or otherwise).

Trouble is, with our global warming, pollution, and confiscation of habitat, we humans have speeded up extinction to a ridiculous degree.

You would not be here without these events, which paved the way for you to go from mole to monkey to almost-not-monkey. It is simply the process of life which happens to be here now but will not be here forever.

Well, at least the dinosaurs got out of our way. But we humans pushed other animals virtually to oblivion only because we could. In evolution, it's the opposite of what you say. Species have to adapt because there's lots of competition. We humans have won the game. Extinctions don't help us to evolve; they only extinguish. It is only injustice, and evolution now consists of humans seeking gradually to become more human, more just, more enlightened.

Really? You pay the taxes. You help bend the rivers.

I don't pay those taxes.

Oh I know. Like most "environmentalists" you think the wilderness is something you ogle on vacation. You have no connection with nature. You just want to consume it for your own comfort and amusement.

True, but I'm trying to cut down. That's why I don't go visit the rest of you barbarians and provincials It costs too much to the biosphere right now. But once I get my electric car, then maybe I can do more ogling.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I wasn't thinking about Eric when I wrote it, but I guess maybe it could apply to him, too.
....He can't help the fact that he's a Californian. That's a pretty heavy yoke around his neck.

And I wear it with pride! Right over my surfer, new ager and hippie T-shirts

Originally Posted by James50

As long as we are talking about states and their proclivities, consider this rating of Freedom in the 50 states.

Look at lonely little New Hampshire. Truly a light shining in the night. Sorry, Badge, NM doesn't look all that great. As for CA, its about where you would expect - number 48.

James50

An index more-or-less of how the states conform to the ideals of the Libertarian Party, not "freedom."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

An index more-or-less of how the states conform to the ideals of the Libertarian Party, not "freedom."

The word "freedom" has been abused so much by the Right. Economic "freedom" tends to translate into, "let's see how much I can exploit people and the environment for the maximum profit."

I took a look at their recommendations for my home state:

Policy Recommendations

Reduce the income-tax burden while cutting back spending in areas above the national average, like education.
Reform eminent-domain laws.
Broaden the school-choice/school-voucher reforms.

In other words, screw over what has historically been a good public school system. That's not "freedom." That's giving taxpayer money to private entities without asking for accountability in return.

Originally Posted by James50

As long as we are talking about states and their proclivities, consider this rating of Freedom in the 50 states.

Look at lonely little New Hampshire. Truly a light shining in the night. Sorry, Badge, NM doesn't look all that great. As for CA, its about where you would expect - number 48.

James50

New Mexico is great on the personal liberties front, which they readily admit up front. What bothers them are things like, yes, we do indeed have clean air and water regulations, and things like that. [You would too if, unlike a recent letter to the Albuquerque Journal, you were aware that water is as valuable as or more valuable than oil in these parts.]

Go check out the list for what they actually say and get back to me. And BTW, the one Libertarian Party convention I went to in NM, the aging hippie-anarchists from the mountains of our fair state had the out-of state visiting bigwig, a city boy who came on like a Republican insurance salesman, completely hornswoggled. He didn't hornswoggle them, though; they knew his ilk of old, and greeted him with indulgent and amiable contempt.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

New Mexico is great on the personal liberties front, which they readily admit up front. What bothers them are things like, yes, we do indeed have clean air and water regulations, and things like that. [You would too if, unlike a recent letter to the Albuquerque Journal, you were aware that water is as valuable as or more valuable than oil in these parts.]

Go check out the list for what they actually say and get back to me. And BTW, the one Libertarian Party convention I went to in NM, the aging hippie-anarchists from the mountains of our fair state had the out-of state visiting bigwig, a city boy who came on like a Republican insurance salesman, completely hornswoggled. He didn't hornswoggle them, though; they knew his ilk of old, and greeted him with indulgent and amiable contempt.

Didn't see anything about environmental regulations.

New Mexico is the laggard of the Mountain West, but like several other small, rural states, it does well on personal freedom. Spending and taxes are high, fiscal decentralization is low, and a fifth of the state’s workforce is on state or local government payrolls (this ratio did drop consistently from 2004 to 2008). The state does well on personal freedoms because gun control is light, several kinds of gambling are allowed, private-school regulation is light (but homeschool regulation is tougher by national standards), there is RFRA, asset forfeiture has been partly reformed, a medical marijuana law has recently been enacted, and victimless-crimes arrest rates are low. However, the state recently expanded the ages of mandatory school attendance and enacted sweeping smoking bans. In economic regulation, New Mexico could improve most by rolling back health-insurance coverage mandates and occupational licenses. Eminent domain was reformed in 2007.
Policy Recommendations

1. Roll back occupational licenses, such as those for teacher assistants, ambulance drivers, mobile-home installers, pipelayers, boilermakers, bartenders, and dental assistants.
2. Repeal health-insurance mandated coverages for services such as lay midwives, acupuncturists, TMJ treatment, bone-mass measurement, home health care, and IVF.
3. Spending on higher education, police, and corrections is high; these areas should be targeted for reduction with the savings applied toward cutting the gross-receipts tax.

It does seem like a Libertarian oriented ranking system. Its not proof of quality of life, but its worth reading. At least you let the breweries self-distribute their beer. That's more than I can say for Georgia.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

An index more-or-less of how the states conform to the ideals of the Libertarian Party, not "freedom."

When I saw Missouri in the top 5, I knew their definition of freedom wasn't mine. One person's pudding is another's poison.

Originally Posted by James50

As long as we are talking about states and their proclivities, consider this rating of Freedom in the 50 states.

Look at lonely little New Hampshire. Truly a light shining in the night. Sorry, Badge, NM doesn't look all that great. As for CA, its about where you would expect - number 48.

James50

This is reactionary garbage. I could tell just by how it implied that Minnesota's minimum wage laws as "anti-freedom"

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

That's giving taxpayer money to private entities without asking for accountability in return.

We have had this discussion before, but when you defend teacher tenure, you are asking taxpayers to give money to public entities without asking for accountability in return.

I have pulled this thread way, way off topic. My own fault. We should probably continue this discussion somewhere else.

James50

Originally Posted by Deb C

Bob, you very rarely post anymore, but when you do, I usually find it of value. This one included. Much wisdom.

Appreciated. Hope you won't object if I attempt to extend with Erik's questioned quote...

I just think the people in the heartland are (by and large) asleep politically and socially, and immersed in a culture that is backward and provincial.

This too can be seen as an aspect of values lock, a liberal's derogatory stereotype of what rural folk are like. This isn't as blatant a demonization as the 'all democrats are marxists' stuff you occasionally see here. Still, if anyone doesn't respect what the other side is thinking, there is a tendency to create warped stereotypes generalizing why the other side thinks like they think. This is an excuse for not listening to what they are trying to say. It is a sort of ears closed I'm not listening trick that results in neither side paying attention to the other.

And yet, you do find more Republicans in rural areas, more Democrats in urban areas. There are clashing values. There are reasons so many conversations on these forums features people talking past each other.

One aspect is simply the different life styles. There is less new technology causing social upheaval in rural areas. There is a lower population density. Some problems which are out of hand and need fixing in urban areas are no where near as problematic in rural areas.

Depending on where one is living, one can ask if Problem X is severe enough that it is useful and appropriate to pay higher taxes and enable a potentially tyrannic government sufficiently to get the problem fixed. There might really and truly be be different answers to such questions depending on where one is living.

Then, if there is honest room for disagreement on Problem X, the same perspective will apply to Problem Y and Problem Z. Eventually it becomes easy to say that if someone from the other part of the country is wrong on problems X, Y and Z, it follows that people from the other part of the country are always wrong. They must be ignorant, stupid, evil, lying, deluded by a grand conspiracy, all of the above, or more. One builds a shallow derogatory stereotype that justifies not listening to what the other guy is saying.

It isn't limited to one side or the other. As a general principle, however, it will seem clear and obvious to anyone that the other side is much worse at it than one's own side. Everyone will dislike when they are treated as ignorant or stupid, while not recognizing when they are treating others the same way.

If I'm not posting as much any more, it is in great part as the conversations aren't getting past the stereotypes.

Originally Posted by James50

We have had this discussion before, but when you defend teacher tenure, you are asking taxpayers to give money to public entities without asking for accountability in return.

I have pulled this thread way, way off topic. My own fault. We should probably continue this discussion somewhere else.

James50

For the record, I don't believe in "tenure" for public school teachers. I think they should be held to high standards, but I also think they should not be dismissed for frivolous reasons, either.

The point is that taxpayer money is being spent on private schools that, at least in my state, have a dubious record. At best, they're no better than the public schools.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Appreciated. Hope you won't object if I attempt to extend with Erik's questioned quote...



This too can be seen as an aspect of values lock, a liberal's derogatory stereotype of what rural folk are like. This isn't as blatant a demonization as the 'all democrats are marxists' stuff you occasionally see here. Still, if anyone doesn't respect what the other side is thinking, there is a tendency to create warped stereotypes generalizing why the other side thinks like they think. This is an excuse for not listening to what they are trying to say. It is a sort of ears closed I'm not listening trick that results in neither side paying attention to the other.

And yet, you do find more Republicans in rural areas, more Democrats in urban areas. There are clashing values. There are reasons so many conversations on these forums features people talking past each other.

One aspect is simply the different life styles. There is less new technology causing social upheaval in rural areas. There is a lower population density. Some problems which are out of hand and need fixing in urban areas are no where near as problematic in rural areas.

Depending on where one is living, one can ask if Problem X is severe enough that it is useful and appropriate to pay higher taxes and enable a potentially tyrannic government sufficiently to get the problem fixed. There might really and truly be be different answers to such questions depending on where one is living.

Then, if there is honest room for disagreement on Problem X, the same perspective will apply to Problem Y and Problem Z. Eventually it becomes easy to say that if someone from the other part of the country is wrong on problems X, Y and Z, it follows that people from the other part of the country are always wrong. They must be ignorant, stupid, evil, lying, deluded by a grand conspiracy, all of the above, or more. One builds a shallow derogatory stereotype that justifies not listening to what the other guy is saying.

It isn't limited to one side or the other. As a general principle, however, it will seem clear and obvious to anyone that the other side is much worse at it than one's own side. Everyone will dislike when they are treated as ignorant or stupid, while not recognizing when they are treating others the same way.

If I'm not posting as much any more, it is in great part as the conversations aren't getting past the stereotypes.

Many stereotypes have a grain of truth in them, if through a very distorted lens. I don't think most folks on "the other side" are ignorant or stupid, Ive read that the TPers tend to be more wealthy and educated than average. I just think they are victims of brainwashing by the corporate media.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If I'm not posting as much any more, it is in great part as the conversations aren't getting past the stereotypes.

Well said and ditto.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Clearing throat here. Justin, can you see where you may have done the same thing, saying about him being a Californian, as you accuse him about his comment in regards to midwesterners? We are all guilty and we are all innocent.

Too true. I only know much about the people in places I've lived (at last count, Georgia, Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Russia (LenOblast, if we're talking regions)). And I only know some about the placed I've spent time in hanging out and bullshitting with people (the list is rather longer, but includes California to the extent of the Sac. Valley, SF Bay Area, Orange County, and San Diego). It only scratches the upper layers of the skin of the surface of the shell of humanity as a whole. And I'm nothing if not cognizant of my shortcomings and eager to remedy them in whatever way possible.

Californians have recognizable characteristics -- many in common with lifelong self-identifiers of the other great provincial american region, cityside New York. That's not to say that all or even most of them do, of course; just that provincialism is a common enough character trait in those areas to reasonably identify it with them. That abovementioned cognizance of ignorance and eagerness to remedy it is one character trait notably lacking among the provincial.

Of course, Eugene isn't all hippies. But you don't necessarily get surprised to find out that a guy from there carries a hacky sack and wears socks and sandles.

You get what I'm trying to say?

----
-edit-
Your last line. I would comment that we are all innocent of our own backgrounds and the ways they tended to cripple us. But we are all guilty of our own self-awareness today and our own level of desire today to better ourselves.

Originally Posted by Odin

Many stereotypes have a grain of truth in them, if through a very distorted lens. I don't think most folks on "the other side" are ignorant or stupid, I've read that the TPers tend to be more wealthy and educated than average. I just think they are victims of brainwashing by the corporate media.

Some stereotypes will contain more than just a single grain of truth, though I remember when the media was viewed as liberal, constantly pushing the perspectives of the blue coasts. Value systems are real, and there will be powerful forces spinning their perspectives. One does have to un-spin the spin.

The problematic point is when an attempt to seriously address an issue is answered by an attack on a derogatory stereotype. It is one thing to counter a denialist position on alleged cooling in Siberia by examining the temperature data from Siberia. It is another to attack denialists because everyone knows that they are all pawns of the automotive or energy companies. Still, powerful companies are spending money spinning for profits. I'd prefer to see more conversations on the issues, less competition on who can create the most derogatory stereotype about the other side. Yet, the other side aren't saints, any more than one's own side. Lots of folk have noble motivations they can happily flourish in their propaganda, as well as selfish motivations they might not care to speak of.

Are all democrats also communists? Was Bush 43 really Hitler reincarnated? I think not. Do democrats want to help the workers? Did Bush 43 want to strengthen the US security apparatus? Sure.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The problematic point is when an attempt to seriously address an issue is answered by an attack on a derogatory stereotype. It is one thing to counter a denialist position on alleged cooling in Siberia by examining the temperature data from Siberia. It is another to attack denialists because everyone knows that they are all pawns of the automotive or energy companies. Still, powerful companies are spending money spinning for profits..

The fact that energy companies are giving cranky denialists an inflated megaphone is, in my opinion, a good argument in only one context:

"There is no significant controversy within scientific circles that global warming is real and largely the result of human activity."

"Yes there is! Look at all this stuff I found on the Internet!"

"Ha! None of that is peer-reviewed and all of it is funded by the Koch brothers and represents only a few loonies with PhDs. No, there's no significant controversy."

The fact that someone's study was funded by the Koch brothers doesn't automatically make it wrong. It still needs to be refuted. What it does automatically make it, though, is untrustworthy, and not representative of a significant current of opinion within science unless the same thoughts can be found expressed in a less controversial forum.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It is one thing to counter a denialist position on alleged cooling in Siberia by examining the temperature data from Siberia. It is another to attack denialists because everyone knows that they are all pawns of the automotive or energy companies.

But if a denialist IS in fact a pawn of an automotive or energy company, then relating that fact is relevant. And if it's a demonstrable fact that most or even all of them are, then relating that fact is a relevant statement.

Still, powerful companies are spending money spinning for profits. I'd prefer to see more conversations on the issues, less competition on who can create the most derogatory stereotype about the other side. Yet, the other side aren't saints, any more than one's own side. Lots of folk have noble motivations they can happily flourish in their propaganda, as well as selfish motivations they might not care to speak of.

I understand your concern that people listen to each other without distorting the conversation with perceived or pronounced stereotypes. It is a good thing to listen to others sincerely. Generalizations are false, but they may contain a measure of truth. When the heartland votes Republican by a lopsided margin, and the coasts do not, and given the near-unanimous ideology of Republicans today, and the demonstrable and clear and obvious nature of that ideology, it gives me cause for concern about the culture out there. That's a broad brush statement; a false concern probably, but not entirely false. If I lived there, it likely would not lessen my concern about it at all. I'm glad that CA is more progressive today. It wasn't always so, and within my experience of living there.

And plaudits to Wisconsin for apparently waking up! Let's hope it continues.

Are all democrats also communists? Was Bush 43 really Hitler reincarnated? I think not. Do democrats want to help the workers? Did Bush 43 want to strengthen the US security apparatus? Sure.

Bush 43 wanted to endanger the constitution in the pursuit of a war that was totally unnecessary and furthered the interests of a few imperialists who outlined their aims in the Project for a New American Century document. Your persistence in seeing the Iraq War as a security issue and as evidence of our being in 4T seems to be an instance of "values lock" on your own part. Sorry to be so blunt.

An article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...te-change.html


Lately, it seems, ever more people have been waking up to the almost unimaginable scale of this disaster now roaring down on us. As one power company last week raised its charges by an average £200 a year, it was claimed by the Global Warming Policy Foundation that a fifth of our soaring energy bills are now accounted for by the hidden subsidies and other costs imposed by the drive to “decarbonise” our electricity supplies...


...Similarly, the European Metals Association warned last week that the EU’s various “anti-carbon” policies are becoming so costly that they are already forcing steel, aluminium and other producers in their energy-intensive industry to relocate outside Europe, losing hundreds of thousands more jobs.

...we begin to see how the obsession with “climate change” will push our own household energy bills through the roof, driving millions more people into “fuel poverty”. Apart from anything else, by 2020 our Government expects us to pay £100 billion for a further 10,000 useless, subsidised windmills, plus £40 billion to connect them to the National Grid. These costs alone would almost double our present electricity bills.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

An index more-or-less of how the states conform to the ideals of the Libertarian Party, not "freedom."

_Same thing. If you looked carefully, you'd see that they're all about the right to decide things for oneself. Whether they are the sorts of freedom you wish to partake in is up to you (I think society can survive without gay marriage or civil unions- there are simpler alternatives, like wills).

Originally Posted by Odin

...I could tell just by how it implied that Minnesota's minimum wage laws as "anti-freedom"

-It is anti-freedom. You might see virture in it, but telling someone who is willing to work for $5.00/hour that they cannot do so is the opposite of freedom.

Afraid of a little price competion?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

...Economic "freedom" tends to translate into, "let's see how much I can exploit people and the environment for the maximum profit."

-How do two people deciding whether or not they want to exchange goods or services amount to "screwing everybody over"? In the free market, people "exploit" each other voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

... I think they should be held to high standards, but I also think they should not be dismissed for frivolous reasons, either...

-Yes, that would happen all the time, because there's nothing parents like to do more than fire teachers for frivolous reasons...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

... The point is that taxpayer money is being spent on private schools that, at least in my state, have a dubious record. At best, they're no better than the public schools.

-Show me any study which doesn't show that private schools do a better job for far less money. Ditto for homeschoolers.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

...That's giving taxpayer money to private entities without asking for accountability in return.

-The accountability of vouchers come from people with a lot of stake in the outcome: The parents. Which is exactly why the teachers's union are scared to death of it. They fear the competion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Bush 43 wanted to endanger the constitution in the pursuit of a war that was totally unnecessary and furthered the interests of a few imperialists who outlined their aims in the Project for a New American Century document. Your persistence in seeing the Iraq War as a security issue and as evidence of our being in 4T seems to be an instance of "values lock" on your own part. Sorry to be so blunt.

During the Bush 43 years, security was considered more important than economics. The debate was cut and run against stay the course. Bush 43 built the deficit to pay for his wars without much complaint. McCain got the Republican nomination in great part as he was virtually alone among the candidates in staying the course.

Now, I am not and never have been a fan of how Bush 43 handled security issues during his time in office. I feared Afghanistan could be a quagmire and was surprised by the initial seeming success. I didn't favor the Iraq invasion. I was concerned for the constitution. In short, I'm more or less with you on the issues you covered above.

But security values were on center stage and did shift during the Bush 43 years. We will not be so eager to intervene in the Third World as Bush 43 was. We know that intervention in the Third World does not inevitably lead to quagmire, but we also know that the price in gold and blood is prohibitively high. We will not expect to be greeted as liberators or for transformation from autocracy to democracy to be an easy thing.

Of course, the Iraq War also had economic implications. Without it, the current Great Recession would not have been as difficult to handle.

Anyway, you seem to have a derogatory stereotype about how people who are concerned with security think. You might try addressing my actual position on issues rather than attacking the derogatory stereotype.

Originally Posted by The Rani

WTF ... now they're saying the earth has NOT been warming in the past decade???
Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots

Somehow, the glaciers and ice sheets didn't get the memo.