A Boston native, a baseball shrine and a baby’s first game are some of the photos in round 2 of the Ultimate Fan contest. Vote for your favorite!
We think in generalities, we live in detail.
What’s on your mind today?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Is this what we mean when we talk about efficient markets? Isn’t this an example of when one person does what’s best for him/herself society benefits?
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. — Adam Smith
….Now, to some alarming findings about wildlife in Africa. A 10-year survey looked at the population of forest elephants and found that it fell 62 percent in that time. The study is the largest of its kind, spanning five countries: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, its neighbor the Republic of Congo and Gabon. The Wildlife Conservation Society, which helped organize the effort, is saying that extinction looms for the forest elephant because of poaching…..
In case you’ve not seen this video making the rounds about wealth inequality in the US.
If there was ever any doubt that the Obama administration is purposely trying to maximize the pain of sequester for the public, read:
“In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make-sequester-painful-promised/#ixzz2MlzjKBrh
As I have said before, this is all about politics. Obama wants the sequester to be as painful as possible for the public so they will blame Congress and return control of the House back to the Dems in ’14.
Obama has said that he will veto any bill that gives him flexibility to spread the cut around to areas where they hurt the least.
Obama is no leader, he does not have the public’s best interest at heart. He is more concerned about politics than the people.
2 – Scott, how do you think actions by the central banks (the Fed in the US) are designed to correct those inequalities, and how well are they doing it?
Scott…what is the point? Is this video for info only? The video makes no attempt to offer solutions. Are we just suppose to get mad?
@5 Al, the point is education. You can only solve the problems you’re aware of. And as the video makes clear, most people think there’s something wrong with the distribution of wealth in this country but they’re woefully unaware of how bad it is.
@4 89Hoo, I’ve not given that much thought. I think the Fed has one (maybe two) tools in the toolbox and are doing what they can and hope it will work. So I don’t think the Fed is being very helpful to the average person.
Funny thing that reading comprehension!
John R reads: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
And John R determines that it says “not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of“.
When I read the response from his director, whomever that is, I think they are saying, we already announced where the cuts would be made so do not cut other services on your own instead.
What kind of leeway did you give your employees once you announced the way something was to be done?
But I will readily agree that every comment some people make is “all about politics” and not the good kind.
6 – Scott, what tools should a central bank have that help balance things out?
@9 89Hoo, I’m not sure what tools the Fed should have. Maybe the Treasury.
Put some of that fiat money to use and fund the social safety net functions without having to pay it back maybe.
10 – why not just give everyone a printer so they can print their own currency? Wouldn’t that do the same thing?
@11 89Hoo, No that wouldn’t do the same thing. We use money to move goods and services around. Under capitalism, that money gets moved to the top. The idea is to redistribute that money downward and allow capitalism to continue. Capitalism moves the economy but as the video showed, we’re kind of stuck with a good portion of the money at the top and no way to get back down. Giving a printer to everyone wouldn’t help. You need to direct that money to the bottom of the pyramid which would allow capitalism to get “unstuck”.
and on another matter. I’m beginning to see the wisdom in the left. Just sit back and let the govt tell ya what to do. I mean they already pay most of the tab anyhow so if yer takin’ their money why not let them make the rules. Take his horror Mayor B’berg of NYC. He wanted to ban plastic bags. He want to ban guns, he don’t like the Big Gulp and now he’s going after ear phones that are played too loud. With leaders like that this pathetic nation is certainly going to sink higher in ????
12 – okay, again, how is that done? Repudiation of public debt?
# 12 Scott….so counterfeit money (properly re-distributed) would have the same positive affect….and save the government the minting/printing costs?
As of this very day, this presidential administration, as represented by it’s AG, Eric Holder, (remember him? F&F? bogus executive privilege?)….refuses to rule out using drone attacks (by extension any other) to assassinate American citizens on American soil.
Personally…I see no difference as to “American soil”…..and of course elewhere it’s already SOP.
Yeah wild isn’t it Jim?
The same group claiming torture was rampant in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, that waterboarding was inhumane, now remains silent as an administration augments the use of drones which kill “innocents” and in theory Americans without due process.
Asking the Attorney General to *rule out* an action where the circumstances in which that action would be needed cannot even be envisioned is just reckless. We learned from Bush 1 what happens when a president says he will “never” do something — they realize how silly it was to make such a promise and then they go ahead and do it anyway.
SWAT teams have used snipers with rifles to take out targets for years. Dirty Harry blew away a guy with a bazooka. A drone is just the next step in a logical progression.
But you asked whether I’m worried. No I’m not … not when I can always go down to the gun shop and buy me a car trunk full of rifles, pistols and various high capacity ammo magazines to protect my family from such government overreach.
NW, I know you were being facetious, but drone strikes on the order of the President, warrantless wiretaps, etc., are modern-day equivalents of the same grievances aired against George III that started a revolution…and that paved the way for the right of American citizens to arm themselves against a government run amok. There are some liberals that have stated that modern-day equivalents of those grievances DO represent tyranny. So enjoy your laugh, but that is exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists.
Jim Lucas is distorting the answers from Holder for his own purposes. No surprise there.
Asking hypothetical “gotcha” questions to which there is no right answer is a right wing specialty. Distortion of reality is all they have left.
#19 That may be why the 2nd amendment exists, but there are many of us who believe there are better ways than violence to solve problems. For example, a lot of these problems would surely go away if each state were to issue its very own gold-based currency.
#18 & #20
Holder did refuse to rule out such action. Would not give a straight answer. Would disagree, but have more respect if they outright said they reserved such “right” (might).
We have & do already kill American citizens thusly elsewhere. Where’s the distortion?
To hear the same folks who would deny Americans their 2nd Amendment rights, and claim the origin of such rights is not predicated on protecting citizens from such government actions….claim the right for the government to kill citizens w/o due process is telling.
You hear what you wish….the question is, why?
“Distortion of reality is all they have left“ ???? Really, Saunders ? In that case, you have nothing to worry about, do you ? You`ll be the first liberal in the history of the world that doesn`t worry. I`ll be real anxious to see how this pans out.
#22 “Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect ‘sitting at a cafe’ if the suspect didn’t pose an imminent threat.
‘No,’ Holder replied.”
Sounds like a pretty straight answer to me, Jim.
“Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect “sitting at a cafe” if the suspect didn’t pose an imminent threat.
“No,” Holder replied.”
“Holder said it was possible, “I suppose,” to imagine an “extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate” under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to “use lethal force” within the United States.
However, Holder said the question was “entirely hypothetical” and “unlikely to occur.”
The United States, he said, has not carried out such action domestically and had no plans to do so.
Holder said a potential scenario might involve a president ordering such action “to protect the homeland” in a case like the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.
But he said the administration rejects the use of military force where law enforcement authorities provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.”
#24 NW…..yes sir, I am indeed relieved that Obama & Holder have decided they will not assassinate an American citizen sitting at a cafe that does not pose an imminent threat.
Very reassuring indeed. At least we know it won’t be for kicks.
By the way….who defines/determines “imminent threat”?
On the contrary Awood, even a cursory examination of history and recent events shows that distorted perceptions being believed have led to devastating situations and events.
Jim Lucas, AG Holder was not the one who used the phrase “that does not pose an imminent threat”. You are not looking for reassurance, you are looking for ammunition.
The police force is for managing domestic violence, not the military. The military can be used briefly in rare circumstances under strictly controlled conditions where police power is not sufficient, e.g. enforcing integration in the 50′s, race riots in the 60′s and during anti Vietnam riots in the 70′s.
The question is, could the POTUS order a marine sharp shooter to take out a suspected American terrorist on American soil not in the act of terror? I think not.
#26 Don’t you claim the right to make this very same judgement about an unidentified person who might be walking around in your back yard?
29 – making judgements is one thing, acting with impunity – without affording due process – is a whole ‘nuther thing.
If Jim L shoots a guy who was sneaking around his yard, he still could be charged, and still might stand trial. Now, in some states, self-defense is a valid legal defense in some cases; the prosecution may determine that he acted in self-defense, and that odds were against the state getting a conviction, and decide not to charge him.
You could argue that Jim would not have granted the trespasser due process, and you would be right in a sense. But Jim runs the risk of being convicted for manslaughter or 2nd degree murder, or worse. The state would hold Jim accountable for denial of due process, absent a valid legal defense.
In a case where a chief executive has the authority to “drone strike” someone (* note: AG Holder has, since this thread started, stated that the Presidnt has no such authority, so we are in the realm of interesting though moot points) without benefit of a trial, he will not be held accountable.
the whole point of the “imminent threat” requirement is to indicate a situation in which due process is set aside. thus your due process arguments are not relevant.
#29 NO NW. Otherwise the meter reader, the guy looking for his dog, and the guy chasing his baseball would all be dead.
Seems to me sir, you are a bit quick on the trigger.
Or maybe just the guy turning around in your driveway will be dead.
Dear God, even John McCain has a problem with this crappy attack on reason.
31 – NW, I’ve not heard that justification for denial of due process. Can you cite a legal precedent for me?
Thank you in advance.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Fri, 24 May 2013 04:12:55 +0000