Sportbikes.net - Politics & Religion

Hackers show Global Warming fraud

synesthesia1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:07:11 GMT

Quote:

In 1995 a scientist by the name of Dr. David Deming wrote an innocuous paper in the academic journal Science where he reviewed analysis of bore hole data(temperature proxy) and concluded that North America had warmed to some degree over the last century to century and a half. This conclusion mistakenly led supporters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming to believe that Dr. Deming was in their camp lock stock and barrel. And allegedly lead a scientist who Dr. Deming referred to only as "major researcher in the area of climate change" sending him an e-mail where the unnamed scientists said "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." The Medieval warm peroid of course being the documented high temperatures that lasted from 800-1300. This period was a thorn in the back of the AGW movement as it was considered to be fact at the time of the first IPCC assessment. The first PCC assessment fell flat on its face as it could not show that temperatures at the present were higher than the Medieval Warm period. A few years after this supposed exchange occurred a major researcher in the area of climate change Dr. Michael Mann through the use of tree ring analysis, which amounts to little more than glorified palm reading, was able to conclude that the Medieval warm period was in fact simply a regional warming, regionally confined to areas that had the ability to document the warm period in the historical record which of course cant be manipulated by statistics.

This allegation by Dr. Deming has long been held by skeptics to be evidence of collusion by climate scientists to advance the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Support for this claim of collusion was further reinforced by Dr. Eugene Wegamns network analysis of scientific papers in support of anthropogenic global warming which showed that despite lots of supporting papers their was in efect only a small group of scientists producing the lions share of the work, co-authoring papers together and reviewing each other papers in the vaunted peer-review process. When compared with network analysis of other fields this narrow field was extremely inbred, greatly reducing the reliability of peer review and increasing the odds of collusion and scientific fraud. Steve McIntry of climateaudit.org likes to call them the hockey team.

But despite his there has never been a smoking gun. Just too good to be true coincidences.

Well today the gun is smoking its breaking all over the News now. A group of hackers or single hacker hacked the e-mail accounts at Hadley CRU, Britain's largest climate research institute and a proponent of AGW and found numerous e-mail coming to and from some of the worlds top scientists like the afore mentioned Dr. Mann.

Quote:

Examiner 404 - page not found 09m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent. The blog's owner, identified as "Jeff Id", downloaded the file, examined it, and posted a brief summary on his blog. Another commenter, identified as "Steven Mosher," passed the information on to Steven McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and to another blog, The Blackboard, run by a blogger identified as "Lucia." Most recently, blogger Anthony Watts, who runs a blog titled "Watts Up With That?" mentioned the FTP archive in his own blog.

Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.

The FTP server is in a Russian domain and uses the anonymous FTP protocol, which does not require a pre-registered user account or password for downloading. The file is named FOI2009.zip, an apparent reference to US Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 383, the Freedom of Information Act.

Several commentators have expressed skepticism as to the authenticity of the archive, pointing to its lack of clear provenance and suggesting that someone was attempting to embarrass, either directly or indirectly, the dignitaries attending the upcoming climate-change conference in Copenhagen. Other commentators who have examined the e-mails in the archive conclude that the header and other information that they contain is too detailed to be a hoax. Thus far, no commentator has found anything in the e-mail headers that appears to be mistaken.

Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

The emphasis in the above quote was added.

Mr. Mosher offered this summary of the rest of the e-mails that he had found:

And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they �shape� the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it�s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly�s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don�t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real

John Daly (not to be confused with the professional golfer of the same name) is identified in one of the e-mails as a global-warming skeptic who died in January of 2004.

As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Developing...

Update: The Russian FTP server administrator appears to have deleted the archive. The text of the link was:

Activity on The Air Vent has picked up considerably since this story broke.

Further Update: Two other possessors of the file have uploaded it to two other file-sharing services: MegaUpload and FileDropper.

Further Update: A Pirate Bay torrent link is now available.

Also: The "72 documents" refers to 72 files and folders at the top level of a directory called "documents." In fact, reliable counts indicate at least 3485 documents present, not counting the e-mails.

I expect to see a lot of spin on this like it depends on what the definition of is ... is. The word trick in the above example is already being picked apart by new outlets like the guardian but as McIntyre points out Dr. Mann himself (yes that is Mike) denied using this trick on his own blog Realclimate when it was first alleged 5 years ago.

:boink

What caused all this mess?

synesthesia1 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:15:26 GMT

Talking about the Housing meltdown and subsequent recession everywhere.

Here is the opening argument...then discuss.

Quote:

The government placed regulators over the banks to ensure 'equal' numbers of loans where being given out to all people, regardless of wealth, race, credit ratings, etc.

The banks had to prove they where giving loans out 'equally' therefore a great deal of loans went out to traditionally unqualified buyers, who didn't have the means to weather an economic downturn, and in such conditions defaulted in record numbers.

Further exasperating the problem is the government through GSE's went in and backed up many of these loans with federal dollars putting us all on the hook for this, all be it equal, but impractical 'experiment' The GSE's then bundled these risky loans and sold them on the open market to increase their bottom lines. It's was one giant government influenced, financed, disaster.

The importance of Timshel

Rhetorik — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:10:17 GMT

I'm re-reading one of my favourite books right now, John Steinbeck's East of Eden. Below is an excerpt from the book which deals with man and the nature of sin. I enjoy the passage so much that I thought I'd share it here, and am interested in hearing from you folks if you think that what Steinbeck is saying here is valid and of merit.

First off, a bit of background. The discussion at hand is regarding the naming of Adam Trask's two sons. They begin by looking at the story of Cain and Abel, and then into the nature of the wording of the passage. I'll do my best to make it flow and be logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by john Steinbeck

Lee cleared the table and gave each of the boys a clean drumstick. They sat solemnly holding their greasy batons and alternately inspecting and sucking them. The wine and the glasses stayed on the table.

"We'd best get on with the naming," Samuel said. "I can feel a little tightening on my halter from Liza."

"I can't think what to name them," Adam said.

"You have no family name you want - no inviting trap for a rich relative, no proud name to re-create?"

"No, I'd like them to start fresh, insofar as that is possible."

Samuel knocked his forehead with his knuckles. "What a shame," he said. "What a shame it is that the proper names for them they cannot have."

"What do you mean?" Adam asked.

"Freshness, you said. I thought last night-" He paused. "Have you thought of you own name?"

"Mine?"

"Of course. Your first-born - Cain and Abel."

Adam said, "Oh, no. No, we can't do that."

"I know we can't. That would be tempting whatever fate there is. But isn't it odd that Cain is maybe the best-known name in the whole world and as far as I know only one man has ever borne it?"

Lee said, "Maybe that's why the name has never changed its emphasis."
Adam looked into the ink-red wine in his glass. "I got a shiver when you mentioned it." he said.

......skipping a page......

Samuel said, "Now it goes this way. 'And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord." ' "

Adam started to speak and Samuel looked up at him and he was silent and covered his eyes with his hand. Samuel read, " 'And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground and offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not repsect."

Lee sad, "Now there-no, go on, go on. We'll come back."

Samuel read, "" 'And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, "Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

" 'And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, "Where is Abel thy brother?" And he said, "I know not. AM I my brother's keeper?" And he said "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." And Cain said unto the Lord, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, though hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face shall I be hid. And I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that everyone that findeth me shall slay me." And the Lord said unto him, "Therefore whoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.' "

Now, that's the story of Cain and Abel. Here is the discussion behind the meaning of the message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Steinbeck

Samuel said, "Let's hear your story, Lee."

The Chinese reached to the side of his neck and he smiled. "I wonder whether I'll ever get used to the lack of a queue," he said. "I guess I used it more than I knew. Yes, the story. I told you, Mr. Hamilton (Samuel), that I was growing more Chinese. Do you ever grow more Irish?"

"It comes and goes," said Samuel.

"Do you remember when you read us the sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis and we argued about them?"

"I do indeed. And that's a long time ago."

"Ten years nearly." said Lee. "Well, the story bit deeply into me and I went into it word for word. The more I thought about the story, the more profound it became to me. Then I compared the translations we have - and they were fairly close. There was only one place that bothered me. The King James version says this - it is when Jehovah has asked Cain why he is angry. Jehovah says, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou does well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.' It was the 'thou shalt' that struck me, because it was a promise that Cain would conquer sin."

Samuel nodded. "And his children didn't do it entirely," he said.

Lee sipped his coffee. "Then I got a copy of the American Standard Bible. It was very new then. And it was different in this passage. It says, "Do thou rule over him.' Now this is very different. This is not a promise, it is an order. And I began to stew about it. I wondered what the original word of the original writer had been that these very different translations could be made."

Samuel put his palms down on the table and leaned forward and the old young light came into his eyes. "Lee," he said, "don't tell me you studied Hebrew!"

Lee said, "I'm going to tell you. And it's a fairly long story, though Rhetorik is cutting out filler."

"Well, to go on, I went to San Francisco to the headquarters of our family association. Do you know about them? Our great families have centers where any member can get help or give it. The Lee family is very large. I went there because in our family there are a number of ancient reverend gentlemen who are great scholars. They are thinkers in exactness. I respectfully submitted my problem to one of these sages, read him the story, and told him what I understood from it. The next night four of them met and called me in. We discussed the story all night long."

"After two years we felt that we could approach your sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis. My old gentlemen felt that these words were very important too - "Thou shalt" and "Do thou". And this is was the gold from our mining: "Thou mayest". 'Thou mayest rule over sin.' "

Samuel said, "It's a fantastic story. And I've tried to follow and maybe I've missed somewhere. Why is this word so important?"

Lee's hand shook as he filled the delicate cups. He drank his down in one gulp. "Don't you see?" he cried. "The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in 'Thou shalt,' meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel - 'Thou mayest' - that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if 'Thou mayest' - it is also true that 'Thou mayest not.' Don't you see?"

"Yes, I see. I do see. But you do not believe this is divine law. Why do you feel its importance?"

"Ah!" said Lee. "I've wanted to tell you this for a long time. I even anticipated your questions and I am well prepared. Any writing which has influenced the thinking and the lives of innumerable people is important. Now, there are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, 'Do thou.' and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in 'Thou shalt.' Nothing they may do can interfere with that will be. But 'Thou mayest'! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win." Lee's voice was a chant of triumph.

Adam said, "Do you believe that, Lee?"

"Yes, I do. Yes, I do. It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself into the lap of deity, saying, 'I couldn't help it; the way was set.' But think of the glory of the choice! That makes a man a man. A cat has no choice, a bee must make honey. There's no godliness there."

Yes, it's a long read. I found it well worth it though, and hope some others find it of interest as well.

Why are people so stupid?

RickA — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:28:15 GMT

Might as well continue the trend here...

Why is God so stupid?

Trash — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:25:28 GMT

I'm talking about the capital "G" God here, you know the Judeo/Christian/Big "A" Allah Islam god.

Why would he allow one species to reproduce so much that it would consume so many resources and pollute the planet, causing the extinction of other species?

After all isn't this planet actually Eden? What is so special about humans?

Discuss.

Why do Christians ignore reality?

Scissors — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:47:08 GMT

Discuss.

Legalizing 12 million ILLEGAL immigrants

synesthesia1 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:48:13 GMT

Quote:

White House Plan on Immigration Includes Legal Status

By JULIA PRESTON
Published: November 13, 2009

The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

In her first major speech on the overhaul, Ms. Napolitano dispelled any suggestion that the administration � with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda � would postpone the most contentious piece of immigration legislation until after midterm elections next November.

Laying out the administration�s bottom line, Ms. Napolitano said officials would argue for a �three-legged stool� that includes tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and employers who hire them and a streamlined system for legal immigration, as well as a �tough and fair pathway to earned legal status.�

With unemployment surging over 10 percent and Congress still wrangling over health care, advocates on all sides of the immigration debate had begun to doubt that President Obama would keep his pledge to tackle the divisive illegal immigration issue in the first months of 2010.

Speaking at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group in Washington, Ms. Napolitano unveiled a double-barrel argument for a legalization program, saying it would enhance national security and, as the economy climbs out of recession, protect American workers from unfair competition from lower-paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants.

�Let me emphasize this: we will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows,� she said, adding that the recovering economy would be strengthened �as these immigrants become full-paying taxpayers.�

Under the administration�s plan, illegal immigrants who hope to gain legal status would have to register, pay fines and all taxes they owe, pass a criminal background check and learn English.

Drawing a contrast with 2007, when a bill with legalization provisions offered by President George W. Bush failed in Congress, Ms. Napolitano said the Obama administration had achieved a �fundamental change� in border security and enforcement against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She said a sharp reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants into the country created an opportunity to move ahead with a legalization program.

Some Republicans were quick to challenge Ms. Napolitano�s claims that border security had significantly improved or that American workers would be helped by bringing illegal immigrants into the system.

�How can they claim that enforcement is done when there are more than 400 open miles of border with Mexico?� asked Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. He said the administration should �deport illegal immigrant workers so they don�t remain here to compete with citizen and legal immigrant job seekers.�

But Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, agreed that it was time to open the immigration debate. �My commitment to immigration reform has not changed,� he said in a statement Friday. �I am interested in seeing a proposal sooner rather than later from President Obama.�

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and the chairman of that subcommittee, has been writing an overhaul bill and consulting with Republicans, particularly Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Mr. Schumer said that the administration�s agenda was �ambitious,� but that he was �confident we can have a bipartisan immigration bill ready to go under whatever timeline the president thinks is best.�

Ms. Napolitano has been leading the administration�s efforts to gather ideas and support for the immigration overhaul, meeting in recent weeks with business leaders, religious groups, law enforcement officials and others to gauge their willingness to go forward with a debate in Congress.

Framing the administration�s proposals in stark law and order terms, she said immigration legislation should include tougher laws against migrant smugglers and more severe sanctions for employers who hire unauthorized workers.

Ms. Napolitano said that the Border Patrol had grown by 20,000 officers and that more than 600 miles of border fence had been finished, meeting security benchmarks set by Congress in 2007. She was echoing an argument adopted by Mr. Bush after the bill collapsed in 2007, and by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in his race against Mr. Obama. They said Americans wanted to see effective enforcement before they would agree to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.

Some immigrant advocates were dismayed by Ms. Napolitano�s approach. Benjamin E. Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, praised her package of proposals, but said some enforcement policies she outlined �have proven to do more harm than good.�

So what do you think?

Do we need more people on the government teet?

Is this all just for business's bottom line by using "cheap" labor?

______________________________________________________?

Discuss...

More government spending... when is it going to stop?

TTsixxer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:08:39 GMT

Rep. Hoyer: Democrats are set to move jobs legislation by Christmas recess - TheHill.com

Quote:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has asked key committee chairmen for ideas on job creation, which Hoyer (D-Md.) said could be wrapped into one bill.

WTF! Wasn't the first 700+ billion stimulus supposed to create jobs? When will this out of control federal spending stop?

Cmon Iran, play by the rules

beowulf2k — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:57:49 GMT

Iran rejects key part of nuclear deal - CNN.com

Bomb or no bomb? Discuss.

(CNN) -- Iran will not send its partially enriched uranium abroad to be turned into material for medical research, its foreign minister said Wednesday, rejecting a key plank of a deal designed to ease international fears that Tehran aims to build nuclear weapons.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran might allow its nuclear material to be reprocessed inside Iran, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported.
The deal hammered out last month with the help of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency aimed to reduce the amount of raw material Iran has to build a nuclear bomb.
Tehran denies that it wants to do so, saying its nuclear program is to produce civilian nuclear energy and do medical work.
The watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency said Wednesday that it could not confirm or deny that Iran had rejected any part of the proposal.
U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said, "This is the IAEA's proposal, and Iran has to give their response to the IAEA, and that's what we're waiting for. That's what the IAEA is waiting for."
But, he said, "until the IAEA gets the response and formally says this is ... Iran's response, I don't consider a statement to the press necessarily a response."
On October 1, the IAEA proposal "was accepted in principle by all the parties including Iran," Kelly said. "And there was also an agreement that each of the parties would provide a written response to the proposal.
"Russia, France and the United States have provided a written response," he said. "We expect Iran to provide a written response. And we expect the IAEA to pronounce on that response. So we will wait for the IAEA to make a formal response to this."
In a report published Monday, the IAEA expressed concerns about Iran's nuclear program.
The Islamic republic's disclosure of a previously secret nuclear facility near Qom raised questions about the existence of other such facilities, and its delay in acknowledging the facility "does not contribute to the building of confidence" in Tehran, the IAEA said in the report.
Tehran has not convinced the agency its nuclear program isn't military, said the report, published on the Institute for Science and International Security Web site. A source with direct knowledge of the report confirmed its authenticity to CNN.
Tehran shocked the international community in September by revealing the existence of the nuclear enrichment facility.
On Monday, Kelly said in a statement that the report "underscores that Iran still refuses to comply fully with its international nuclear obligations."
IAEA inspectors visited the newly revealed facility last month, according to the report.
During a meeting in Tehran, Iranian officials told the inspectors that construction of the site had begun during late 2007, the report said, and it would not be operational until 2011.
However, the IAEA inspectors told Iran that "it had acquired commercially available satellite imagery of the site indicating that there had been construction at the site between 2002 and 2004, and that construction activities were resumed in 2006 and had continued to date," the report said.
IAEA member states also allege that design work on the facility, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, began in 2006, the report said.
Iranian officials told inspectors that the nation has no other undisclosed nuclear facilities either under construction or in operation, the report said, and promised that any future facilities would be disclosed. A letter sent this month asks Tehran to confirm that it has not decided to construct or authorized construction of any undisclosed facility, the report said.
Iran remains bound by the terms of a 2003 agreement under which it must provide information to the IAEA regarding nuclear facilities as soon as the decision to build is made or construction is authorized.
"Even if, as stated by Iran, the decision to construct the new facility at the Fordow site was taken in the second half of 2007, Iran's failure to notify the agency of the new facility until September 2009 was inconsistent with its obligations," the IAEA said.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said construction of the facility violates U.N. Security Council resolutions, Kelly said.
"Iran's delay in submitting such information to the agency does not contribute to the building of confidence," the report said. "While the agency has confirmed that the plant corresponds to the design information provided by Iran, Iran's explanation about the purpose of the facility and the chronology of its design and construction requires further clarification."
The agency is waiting for Iran's reply to its request to meet officials in regard to those issues and others, according to the report.
"Further analysis of the information available to the agency underscores the importance of Iran engaging with the agency in a substantive and comprehensive manner, and providing the requested access, so that the remaining outstanding issues may be resolved."
The agency encouraged IAEA member states who have provided it information on Iran to share that information with Tehran as well.

happy?

DoWorkSon — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:18:17 GMT

it used to be fun and come watch the big boy dummies battle it out, and rarely contribute with an oft-ignored quip. Now its a bunch of regular dummies just being dumb.

i dont contribute too much to the fight... but i'm outta here too.

i miss jim!

Can a child molester be rehabilitated?

L8 Braker — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:41:44 GMT

Can they ever reach the point where they can be left alone with children again?

Ideological Economics 101

VTEC_EATER — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:10:09 GMT

Stole this from here:
info4beer: Ideological Economics 101

Ideological Economics 101
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows. You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away�

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

AMERICAN CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.

THE ANDERSEN MODEL CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You shred them.

FRENCH CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

JAPANESE CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called �Cowkimon� and market it worldwide.

GERMAN CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

ITALIAN CAPITALISM
You have two cows, but you don�t know where they are. You decide to have Lunch.

RUSSIAN CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

SWISS CAPITALISM
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

CHINESE CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

INDIAN CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You worship them.

BRITISH CAPITALISM
You have two cows. Both are mad.

IRAQI CAPITALISM
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the s**t out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy� .

ZIMBABWEAN CAPITALISM
You have two cows. MI6 arranges for a mob to shoot you and steal them for export to Britain.

WALL STREET CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You mortgage them to a broker who uses them as a mezzanine tranche in a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) sold to an investment bank that hypothecates them; they are then incorporated into a Credit Default Swap (CDS) and sold to a Japanese Bank which on swaps the CDS as an OTC derivative to a Swedish municipal authority. You keep the milk.

NEW ZEALAND CAPITALISM
You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive.

AUSTRALIAN CAPITALISM
You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

Ask the President a question.

beowulf2k — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:17:31 GMT

Ask the president: News & Videos about Ask the president - CNN iReport

Now might be your chance, this should be interesting.

Is it a legitimate debating tactic to...

county — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:25:17 GMT

..put your fingers in your ears and holler nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,

Causing controversy vs sparking debate?

county — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:09:08 GMT

Originally Posted by seatec View Post
Kman. just close this thread because its clear that it was created to cause controversy and was in no way intended to spark debate.

Well, what the fuck is the difference? I'd posit that, much like pornography, it is in the eyes of the anal retentive viewer.

So, seatec, get your buddy to close this thread too.