Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Indeed, because those companies that create those things pay no taxes at all. The govt just gives them money to make stuff for us.

And of course Apple and Windows, as we both know, were the products of govt think tanks.

...

Now, tell me how it built the internet. You're nothing if not predictable.

Come on now, you are being intentionally dense. The modern computer, and the internet, is the result of military research. Sure, Apple and Tandy and IBM brought it to a different setting, but they can hardly claim not to have benefited from the earlier government spending.

As for drugs, well, you are mostly just wrong. Nearly all drugs begin with government funded research. Only after they show some promise there do they end up with private companies, who end up with patents that make them rich.

ETA:

Removing the govt from the equation would not impede development of anything one bit. It takes with one hand and gives back with the other, creating administrative costs and little more along the way.

Tell that to the makers of Tang. Or the marketers of AZT as an AIDS drug.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
Come on now, you are being intentionally dense. The modern computer, and the internet, is the result of military research. Sure, Apple and Tandy and IBM brought it to a different setting, but they can hardly claim not to have benefited from the earlier government spending.

As for drugs, well, you are mostly just wrong. Nearly all drugs begin with government funded research. Only after they show some promise there do they end up with private companies, who end up with patents that make them rich.

ETA:



Tell that to the makers of Tang. Or the marketers of AZT as an AIDS drug.

Complaining about Sebby being intentionally dense is like complaining about Penske being a lunatic or Hank being an ass -- you have to just appreciate him for what he is.

But don't go putting too much faith in government drugs. They aren't all that good at funding the important stuff.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
Come on now, you are being intentionally dense. The modern computer, and the internet, is the result of military research.

While I think sebby's argument that nothing good comes of government action is silly, I'll point out here that very few people think that the government shouldn't be spending money on defense, and that the point sebby was making has more to do with government spending designed primarily to spur R&D, rather than defense spending with collateral benefits.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And I think you should only use computers, drugs, airplanes and automobiles created by the government.

Al Gore invented the internet. Go away.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What's the option of having faith in a free market? Having faith in the govt? You don't suggest I have faith in the govt, do you?

I'm reading Goodwin's book Team of Rivals and the first part of it deals extensively with how people like Chase, Seward and others who ended up in Lincoln's cabinet got their starts in politics, almost all of them through the law. They thought the idea of an accountable, democratic government that could improve the lives of its poorest citizens (of whom Lincoln, though not the others, was one) through public works and deal with seemingly intractable issues of universal concern, like slavery, was something of a holy grail and worthy of dedicating their lives to.

It seems quaint now. But as unresponsive and insulated as our late 20th / early 21st Century government is in practice, it draws its legitimacy from the idea of accountability to all the people, not just customers or shareholders. Once you boot that model out the door in favor of market efficiency at all costs you're at the mercy of folks out to make a buck from you. Some of them are going to be good, and some of them are going to be very bad. And when the very bad ones sell your kids poisoned food or set off a Bhopal-style poison gas cloud down the street, who are you going to complain to? Is the boycott going to be the only means of regulating corporate conduct?

I'm not sure which particular regulations are pissing you off right now, but I for one don't give a fuck if the Clean Air Act makes my electricity twice as expensive, or EPA regulations mean I pay twice as much for my tap water, or gasoline costs twice as much because of taxes designed to make people like me think twice before I jump in the car, which I don't right now.* I want competent, dedicated professionals in the government because government regulation is the only realistic hedge against private sector abuse (or just benign neglect) in the name of short-term gains.

*this makes me a big fat rich elitist right? Let's see who's predictable.

[Adder]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'm reading Goodwin's book Team of Rivals and the first part of it deals extensively with how people like Chase, Seward and others who ended up in Lincoln's cabinet got their starts in politics, almost all of them through the law. They thought the idea of an accountable, democratic government that could improve the lives of its poorest citizens (of whom Lincoln, though not the others, was one) through public works and deal with seemingly intractable issues of universal concern, like slavery, was something of a holy grail and worthy of dedicating their lives to.

It seems quaint now. But as unresponsive and insulated as our late 20th / early 21st Century government is in practice, it draws its legitimacy from the idea of accountability to all the people, not just customers or shareholders. Once you boot that model out the door in favor of market efficiency at all costs you're at the mercy of folks out to make a buck from you. Some of them are going to be good, and some of them are going to be very bad. And when the very bad ones sell your kids poisoned food or set off a Bhopal-style poison gas cloud down the street, who are you going to complain to? Is the boycott going to be the only means of regulating corporate conduct?

I'm not sure which particular regulations are pissing you off right now, but I for one don't give a fuck if the Clean Air Act makes my electricity twice as expensive, or EPA regulations mean I pay twice as much for my tap water, or gasoline costs twice as much because of taxes designed to make people like me think twice before I jump in the car, which I don't right now.* I want competent, dedicated professionals in the government because government regulation is the only realistic hedge against private sector abuse (or just benign neglect) in the name of short-term gains.

*this makes me a big fat rich elitist right? Let's see who's predictable.

2

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Adder
2

Who drinks tap water?

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Who drinks tap water?

Sometimes I come home drunk and can't manage the cap on the Poland Spring.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Who drinks tap water?

Anyone who doesn't want to end up in the Big Book of English smiles? Or pay to get someone else's tap water out of a bottle?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Who drinks tap water?

The non-suckers of the world?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ironweed
Sometimes I come home drunk and can't manage the cap on the Poland Spring.

Private industry seems to be doing a pretty good job of the war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Private industry seems to be doing a pretty good job of the war.

I'm wondering if Sebby has a dog, and -- if so -- whether he feeds it Chinese dog food with melamine.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'm reading Goodwin's book Team of Rivals and the first part of it deals extensively with how people like Chase, Seward and others who ended up in Lincoln's cabinet got their starts in politics, almost all of them through the law. They thought the idea of an accountable, democratic government that could improve the lives of its poorest citizens (of whom Lincoln, though not the others, was one) through public works and deal with seemingly intractable issues of universal concern, like slavery, was something of a holy grail and worthy of dedicating their lives to.

It seems quaint now. But as unresponsive and insulated as our late 20th / early 21st Century government is in practice, it draws its legitimacy from the idea of accountability to all the people, not just customers or shareholders. Once you boot that model out the door in favor of market efficiency at all costs you're at the mercy of folks out to make a buck from you. Some of them are going to be good, and some of them are going to be very bad. And when the very bad ones sell your kids poisoned food or set off a Bhopal-style poison gas cloud down the street, who are you going to complain to? Is the boycott going to be the only means of regulating corporate conduct?

I'm not sure which particular regulations are pissing you off right now, but I for one don't give a fuck if the Clean Air Act makes my electricity twice as expensive, or EPA regulations mean I pay twice as much for my tap water, or gasoline costs twice as much because of taxes designed to make people like me think twice before I jump in the car, which I don't right now.* I want competent, dedicated professionals in the government because government regulation is the only realistic hedge against private sector abuse (or just benign neglect) in the name of short-term gains.

*this makes me a big fat rich elitist right? Let's see who's predictable.

Swoon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This sounds plausible:

• The story of Jessica Lynch being a hero was not made up by the Army, indeed from the very first, the day after The Washington Post used a single anonymous source as the foundation for their dramatic front-page (3 April 2003) story, the Army denied that it had happened as the Post described it. In all the hoopla, people forget that, but it's true. One of those Pentagon reporters specifically mentioned that on that morning, when they asked the Army Public Affairs Office about what happened, the PAO shrugged and said words to the effect of, "We have no idea where this story comes from, and we have no information about anything like what the Post is reporting." But in the frenzy of media reporting, that denial did not matter, and the echo-chamber went into effect despite what the Army said. It is, therefore, ironic that the Army is now being blamed for trying to manipulate public opinion on this one.
  
  On the Tillman/fratricide side of the house, however, the Army is 100 percent to blame. Army officers at the battalion level at least, the brigade level for sure, and apparently some general officers, all did their bits to stupidly try and "protect" the reputation ... but not the reputation of the Army or the Administration -- that would be giving these officers too much intellectual credit. I know that the developing thesis, and apparently the belief of the Tillman family and some on Capitol Hill is that this was a conspiracy to bring good news to the fore at the time Abu Ghraib was breaking, but really, that gives the Army way too much credit for intellect. No, what these naïve officers were trying to do (and here we are into my personal opinion) was to protect the reputation of the 75th Ranger Regiment.
  
  Understanding why -- or, more accurately, explaining why -- each of these men would attempt such a lame-brained thing would take me about 50 pages of text. Suffice it to say that the 75th Ranger Regiment is our most elite infantry unit. The three battalions of the Regiment are our crème-de-la-crème, the perfect examples of soldierly skill, and only the best are accepted into this Airborne Infantry elite. As has happened time and again, in "elite" groups as disparate as the Peace Corps (whose members covered up a murder of one volunteer by another, in Tonga, for decades), and various fraternal organizations, when "insiders" have news that they believe might "hurt" the group, they try and suppress it and spin it, and because of the personality type that is both attracted to the Regiment, and which the Regiment creates, they were one and all, hopelessly naïve about the media and the process of journalism.
  
  In other words, it wasn't the "Big A" Army that was trying to spin this situation, it was a couple of majors, a couple lieutenant colonels and colonels, and a couple of generals, all of whom did a small part, all of whom were desperately hoping that the whole thing would blow over and not be a big deal, and all of whom thought that the good of their showcase particular unit outweighed the truth.

link

eta: The Lynch thing sounds a little dubious. It was more than a one-day story. But the Tillman points sound right.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Swoon.

Off my corner, ho.