Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/844274000117358594[/ame]

On the Senate side Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Mike Lee, and now TOm Cotton have all said they are NO's

This from the editor of the Washington Examiner (Fox's go-to conservative alternative to the Washington Post)

[ame]https://twitter.com/philipaklein/status/844259335312232448[/ame]

[Hannibal]

Will any Dems vote for it?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Will any Dems vote for it?

I can't think of any offhand in the Senate but maybe there's an endangered Dem or two in the House? It might be time for Ryan and Trump to focus on them rather than the Freedom Caucus holdouts. The more they give into the Freedom Caucus the worse the odds become in the Senate

[froot loops]

Most of the whip counts I've seen don't include the districts where Clinton won but the rep is GOP. Guys like Issa. There are 23 of those. The Freedom Caucus is doing them a favor if the no's hold. Sending this bill that is highly unlikely to pass the Senate to the Senate is worst of world's for the GOP.

[Whitley]

Will any Dems vote for it?

I would suspect Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will support it in the Senate. He vote more often with Repubs than Dems anyways.

[Da Geezer]

But none of that has anything to do with free markets. Nor does the welfare state. Every society has redistribution. If you strip away the government, then the responsibility for redistribution simply shifts from a government and a process to a warlord, his gun, and perhaps how he's feeling on the day he knocks on your door. Those are your options -- government process, warlord, or shades of grey in between

Hack, when you say there is redistribution, to me that word has a component of "force applied". I don't call it redistribution when a mother gives food to a child.

Similarly, when you talk of "government process", that is a pretty broad phrase. In countries like the US, I prefer using "rule of law". In N. Korea, government process is hard to distinguish from the process a sophisticated warlord might use.

And what I take from Hannibal's posts is that political correctness has, in many ways, come to supersede the rule of law, He gives the example of illegal immigrants, people who break the law in coming into the country, but also break the law when they take food stamps or other forms of welfare. It is politically incorrect to even point out this lawbreaking, much less to arrest the lawbreakers.

This is not a one-off matter either. Hannibal points out the total control your side has of academia. Our children are taught from elementary school onward that the world is under stress in terms of population and resources. In addition, AGW is fact, and we face a future pictured in Waterworld. And, yet, if you look objectively at the human condition now as opposed to 50 years ago, most things are better. But political correctness prohibits us from telling that side of the story.

And political correctness promotes the misallocation of resources, both in a micro- and macro-economic sense, (this is where your own experience with racial discrimination comes in). This correctness has societal ramifications too. DDT has long been banned, but there is still no evidence that it is harmful to humans. We accepted until just recently the death of 2 million humans yearly from malaria rather than question the politically correct view of Rachel Carson in Silent Spring. Similarly, Ehrlich in The Population Bomb, laid out the case of resource scarcity owing to overpopulation. How'd that turn out? Resources are more abundant than ever, but western societies generally accepted his thesis and are now importing foreign labor to do work that used to be done by young adults. Ideas have consequences.

[Da Geezer]

I would suspect Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will support it in the Senate. He vote more often with Repubs than Dems anyways.

Yes. It wouldn't surprise me if he switches parties before he next stands for election. Trump carried WV by 36% IIRC.

[Whitley]

This correctness has societal ramifications too. DDT has long been banned, but there is still no evidence that it is harmful to humans.

Not true.

https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/pdf/ddt_factsheet.pdf

[CGVT]

Yeah, let's bring back DDT because Geezer says it's not harmful to humans. We don't need birds anyway...

https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/DDT_and_Birds.html

What the hell kind of world do you live in?

Damn.

[iam416]

DDT is largely a victim of Rachel Carson. You should actually read up on it. It's an excellent example of activism in every sense.

[CGVT]

Maybe you should

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-carson-myth-20170206-story.html

[froot loops]

Manchin is a hard no on this bill.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The present R sponsored Health Care Bill is an absolute disaster made up of bubble gum and bailing wire "fixes" that do nothing to improve any number of aspects of health care in the US. It contains compromises and add-ons designed to sign legislators up to vote for it. It is a shameful demonstration of doing nothing useful legislation.

Yeah, its complicated but only as it is viewed through the present lens of the ACA - also a mess because of the same kind of compromises and add-ons to get it passed..

Start over.

[iam416]

I read both sides, CGVT, including some anonymous student blog entry from Stanford and the LA Times op/ed. It's abundantly clear you dont.

Carson really is an excellent example activism in every regard.

[CGVT]

I've read quite a bit about it, too.

Whether it is good or bad, causes thinning of shell or causes other damage to birds and wildlife apparently depends on who you believe and your political view.

To the Geezers of the world, it is harmless and banning it is bad for business.

For rational thinking people,;) it causes many problems, potentially many others and is thankfully banned.