Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

BWhite · 2005-05-02 13:09:00

Much business regulation exists to prevent dumping externalities on innocent by-standers.

If a Union Carbide plant has the potential to release poison gas and kills hundreds or thousands of people in a nearby residences is it unreasonable to "regulate them" - - today one of Tom Delay's pet projects is to transfer to the federal government liiability for cleaning ground water contaminated with MBTE.

Of course, the pro busines position is that if some silly sharecroppers get cancer that's just "too bad so sad" - - if God didn't want you to suffer you wouldn't have been born poor.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 13:20:17

Much business regulation exists to prevent dumping externalities on innocent by-standers.

You know full well I'm not saying we should dump all regulations. Yes, we want laws to prevent NukeCo from dumping radioactive sludge into the city reservoir. Catch 'em, doing it, fine them into poverty.

But do we need to seize a large percentage of their total "income" just becasue they're doing business? Does it make any sense to force them to spend vast sums on meeting requirements for records of internal practices that harm no one but exists solely for the purpose of making sure they aren't keeping too much of the money they take in?

When we move into the realm of small business it gets worse. Does it make sense for a small business to be constantly on the verge of bankruptcy because of the threat of lawsuit should an accident occur on their premises? Is a mistake in reporting tax information justification for fining a business out of existence? I don't think so.

Regulations that pertain directly to safety serve an obvious purpose. Many others do not. Time for some trimming.

DonPanic · 2005-05-02 13:50:06

LO
http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en … s]Tricking allies
Use translation tools...
Le Figaro is a rightist french news paper, rather proamerican

Palomar · 2005-05-02 14:24:06

*Fire them all, scrap the parties...and start over.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-02 14:26:49

Name a better place for doing business. I dare you.
What would that prove?

If a business cannot succeed in the most pro-business environment on the planet, maybe Mr/Ms Business Owner needs to look in the mirror rather than blame Washington.

This "criticize the government" mindset is too often a smokescreen for some reverse Robin Hood operations.

= = =

"Everyone" knows business is hamstrung by dumb regulations but when we try to get particular, the situation always gets more complicated and the closer we look the less stupid the regulations often become.

= = =

Good regulations are good. Bad regulations are bad.

Knowing which are which is hard.

I recall our libertarian friend Mundaka all gleeful because the jerk who smashed into his car and broke his Dobson telescope was in violation of mandatory auto insurance laws.

Like I asked then: "How libertarian is that?"

Edited By BWhite on 1115065813

Trebuchet · 2005-05-02 14:28:14

Oh, again with the Italian journalist bit.

Some bonehead idiot at the government used the "hide" feature in Adobe Acrobat to 'redact' the classified material in the official US government report on the incident. I put the word redact in quotes because you merely need to copy and paste 'hidden' PDF text in order to paste it into a normal text or Word document, which some enterprising foreign journalist did. While it revealed some stuff the US government wouldn't like made public, mostly dealing with troop procedures and such, it also reinforced the US government line that the Italians were speeding and otherwise behaving suspiciously on a road known for suicide bomb cars.

Trebuchet · 2005-05-02 14:31:03

"Everyone" knows business is hamstrung by dumb regulations but when we try to get particular, the situation always gets more complicated and the closer we look the less stupid the regulations often become.

Often government implementation of the regulations is the hamstringing bit. I certainly have found that to be the case - I believe it's a case of bureaucrats bestowing idiocy on everything they touch, like an army of malignant Midases.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 14:53:46

*Fire them all, scrap the parties...and start over.

That's alot of egg breaking.

Not saying I wouldn't be up for it if that's what it came to, but such drastic moves are prone to getting messy.

Road to hell and all that. But sometimes you have smash a few walls open to fix the plumbing.

If a business cannot succeed in the most pro-business environment on the planet, maybe Mr/Ms Business Owner needs to look in the mirror rather than blame Washington.

Of course some businesses fail because of their own faults, quite a few actually. But why make it unduly difficult?

The simple fact is that government produces nothing, in order to function it must feed on business, directly or otherwise. If kept in check it's good for all, but when it oversteps its bounds it becomes a parasite.

See, this knock government is a smokescreen for reverse Robin Hood operations.

While this knock business thing is a smokescreen for the same. Plenty of stealing and corruption to go around.

"Everyone" knows business is hamstrung by dumb regulations but when we try to get particular, the situation always gets more complicated and the closer we look the less stupid the regulations often become.

As I don't have a fondness for poring over legal texts I can't provide with a specific list of bad regulations, but we both know they exist. As I stated before, our entire tax structure could qualify as "bad regulation" that should be dealt with. Plenty of government-imposed hindrances are in place that serve no purpose but to increase government control or expand their take. The EPA fining a factory for dumping waste is one thing, the IRS fining them for a paperwork error is quite another.

I recall our libertarian friend Mundaka all gleeful because the jerk who smashed into his car and broke his Dobson telescope was in violation of mandatory auto insurance laws.

Gotta work with the reality you find yourself in.

But last time some uninsured yahoo smashed into my car I maintained my libertarian anti-insurance sentiments.

Often government implementation of the regulations is the hamstringing bit. I certainly have found that to be the case - I believe it's a case of bureaucrats bestowing idiocy on everything they touch, like an army of malignant Midases.

Quite right, Trebuchet. "Malignant Midases", I like that.

BWhite · 2005-05-02 15:00:28

Property rights begin with government. No government? Private property is impossible.

Well crafted regulations are like oil in an engine. Why?

Legal recourse.

In the 3rd world, pigs are sold one at a time and the buyer looks each in the mouth. In Chicago's trading pits millions of pigs can be sold by waving one's finger.

Why? Strong government and well developed transparent law.

= = =

Without strong transparent regulation, enforced with utter neutrality, our economy would grind to a halt like an engine that lost its oil.

Of course, the confidence men would prefer that these rules be relaxed, a situation that is all the better to swindle others.

Edited By BWhite on 1115067770

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-02 15:04:19

Property rights begin with government. No government? Private property is impossible.
Well crafted regulations are like oil in an engine. Why?
Legal recourse.

Bill, I'm not saying we should scrap all regulation or abolish government, merely that in some cases we've moved beyond "regulating" into the realm of needless restricting. Just dealing with the tax issue and nothing else would have enormous benefits all around.

But I still examine the bacon before I buy it.

BWhite · 2005-05-02 15:13:17

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story. … 005]Stress, inexperience & fatigue

If the US had put these three words in the report, would the Italians have signed it?

Edited By BWhite on 1115068566

BWhite · 2005-05-03 07:08:50

Yup. Launch a pre-emptive class war and denounce anyone who calls him on it as "playing the class card"

But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.

Reverse Robin-Hood.

Seize power and loot the pension plan.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-03 07:22:15

Reverse Robin-Hood.
Seize power and loot the pension plan.

First off, there is no pension plan and it's already been looted. If a real pension plan were run like Social Security its directors would be thrown in prison. What Bush is suggesting (no real plan yet, as you know) is that it be turned into a pension plan of sorts, at least partially.

Right now you pay for other people in the good faith belief that some sap will pay for you, the alternative is to pay in money that you later collect without burdening anyone else. What's the objection?

That said, I do have objections to some of Bush's policies as they pertain to rich vs. poor. The dividend tax cut for example, I oppose that. I'd much rather cut taxes on wages. Profit made with no labor requires the social apparatus to exist and taxing it can therefore be justified. Unfortunately the income tax, originaly meant to punish the robber barons, has the potential to become almost exclusively a wage tax.

Heads will roll should that come to pass.

Palomar · 2005-05-03 07:25:17

Yup. Launch a pre-emptive class war and denounce anyone who calls him on it as "playing the class card"
But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.
Reverse Robin-Hood.
Seize power and loot the pension plan.

*Yep. The elitist landowners of 18th century America still rule. They subjected Thomas Paine to the worst sort of character assassination.

I'd better stop thinking about this before I get too angry, but not before I say: #### them.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-03 07:59:37

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … ml]England pleads guilty:

Still, in the end England negotiated a plea. But those careful arrangements almost went awry in the stark military courtroom Monday when a skeptical Army judge questioned her admission of guilt.
In military law, a judge cannot accept a defendant's guilty plea without assurance that the plea is true.
England told the judge, Col. James L. Pohl, that she was sent to Iraq as a records clerk with the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cumberland, Md., and had no training as a prison guard when the Army assigned her to work at Baghdad's toughest prison. When Pohl asked the defendant why she posed for the leash picture, she responded that she had been told to do so by a superior.
"Did you question this procedure?" the judge asked.
"I assumed it was okay," England replied, "because he was an MP [a military police soldier], he had the corrections-officer background. He was older than me."
Pohl appeared troubled by her answer, noting that she had to have knowledge that her actions were wrong to be legally culpable. He told prosecutors that "it's going to be difficult to make a photograph of a lawful act into a crime."
At this, lawyers on both sides requested an hour's recess. When they returned, England had changed her tone and her explanation, saying she knew at the time that use of the leash "was not only morally wrong but legally wrong." She continued, "I had a choice, but I chose what my friends wanted me to do."

Heh! Her testimony was sanitized, to protect the higher ups.

"Told to do so by a superior. . ."

Ooops. "Judge we need an hour recess"

Then. . .

""I had a choice, but I chose what my friends wanted me to do."

Yup. There is NO cover up at Abu Ghraib. None. ???

Edited By BWhite on 1115128817

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-03 08:06:31

Yup. There is NO cover up at Abu Ghraib. None.

For the record, just what is it exactly that you're suggesting? Is this a CIA/CentCom/Prison commandant authorized it and is being protected or is it a George Bush, via Rumsfeld personally ordered this?

One is in the realm of possibility, though on the periphery. The other is firmly in tinfoil-hat land.

Palomar · 2005-05-03 08:09:08

"I assumed it was okay," England replied, "because he was an MP [a military police soldier], he had the corrections-officer background. He was older than me."
Pohl appeared troubled by her answer, noting that she had to have knowledge that her actions were wrong to be legally culpable. He told prosecutors that "it's going to be difficult to make a photograph of a lawful act into a crime."
At this, lawyers on both sides requested an hour's recess. When they returned, England had changed her tone and her explanation, saying she knew at the time that use of the leash "was not only morally wrong but legally wrong." She continued, "I had a choice, but I chose what my friends wanted me to do."

*Tired old cop-out: "I was told to do so. I thought others wanted me to do so." Same cop-out used by common policemen in Nazi Germany to "explain" why they cooperated with mass shootings of Jewish (and other "undesirable") civilians.

It's so insulting to one's intelligence: Most people do NOT like being told what to do, much less take orders. Yet suddenly, as if by magic, they're absolutely helpless before the will of another AND in the face of atrocities, brutality and abuse.

Oh sure. NOT.

It is a true saying, "Apathy is worse than hatred."

I hear she's pregnant by that other thug involved in this scandal. My sympathies to that poor child.

That notorious photo of Lyndie is proof-positive, in my mind, that she ENJOYED what she was doing...just like those other scumbags.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-03 08:37:16

Yup. There is NO cover up at Abu Ghraib. None.
For the record, just what is it exactly that you're suggesting? Is this a CIA/CentCom/Prison commandant authorized it and is being protected or is it a George Bush, via Rumsfeld personally ordered this?
One is in the realm of possibility, though on the periphery. The other is firmly in tinfoil-hat land.

Same cover up as with the Italian shooting. Admit "exhausted, inexperienced and stressed" and the Italians would be content. But no, we can allow no criticism, admit no error.

Is Lyndie England guilty and deserve prison? Absolutely.

Should "the buck" stop with her? Absolutely not.

At a minimum, higher ups at Abu Ghraib were incompetent. By failing to dig this out in a transparent fashion the US undermines its own credibility. At a minimum, insufficent poorly trained units were put in charge at Abu Ghraib. Openly demote some generals over that error in judgment and there is less smell of a cover up.

By refusing to admit error in the Italian shooting we alienate a previously loyal ally.

This administration has a need to be seen as infallible and that is a very bad thing.

= = =

The big chicken coming home to roost is that Iraq had proven to be a much larger can of worms that we were promised before regime change and now those in poewr are doing everything possible to evade responsibility for errors in judgment.

= = =

The common thread? We deployed too little to Iraq.

Too few troops without proper training.

Edited By BWhite on 1115131502

Palomar · 2005-05-03 08:47:58

Is Lyndie England guilty and deserve prison? Absolutely.
Should "the buck" stop with her? Absolutely not.
At a minimum, higher ups at Abu Ghraib were incompetent. By failing to dig this out in a transparent fashion the US undermines its own credibility. At a minimum, insufficent poorly trained units were put in charge at Abu Ghraib. Openly demote some generals over that error in judgment and there is less smell of a cover up.
By refusing to admit error in the Italian shooting we alienate a previously loyal ally.
This administration has a need to be seen as infallible and that is a very bad thing.

*I agree on all points. The peons alone shouldn't get consequenced for AG. Wasn't Sanchez indirectly involved (he should have been aware of what was going on), and now he's been promoted? Difficult to keep it all straight.

I don't believe in only punishing the peons. If anything, the higher-ups should get MORE seriously consequenced -- they're the ones ultimately responsible and the ones who could stop it.

But I've been around long enough to know that, when it comes to humans, the -inverse- of what should be is usually what is. No wonder this planet is so screwed up.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-05-03 08:53:46

From the NY Times:

Interviews with more than two dozen [military] recruiters in 10 states hint at the extent of their concern, if not the exact scope of the transgressions. Several spoke of concealing mental-health histories and police records. They described falsified documents, wallet-size cheat sheets slipped to applicants before the military's aptitude test and commanding officers who look the other way. And they voiced doubts about the quality of some troops destined for the front lines.

Palomar · 2005-05-03 09:21:50

From the NY Times:
Interviews with more than two dozen [military] recruiters in 10 states hint at the extent of their concern, if not the exact scope of the transgressions. Several spoke of concealing mental-health histories and police records. They described falsified documents, wallet-size cheat sheets slipped to applicants before the military's aptitude test and commanding officers who look the other way. And they voiced doubts about the quality of some troops destined for the front lines.

*Doesn't surprise me much, and is especially bad news (though I understand the armed forces are currently desperate to get new recruits) considering our society is currently extremely permissive ("I'll do whatever I want; I should never be consequenced") and has a reality TV mentality (too many folks out there willing to do just about anything -- including kicking their grandmother over a cliff -- to get on TV or media attention).

Sad.

--Cindy

P.S.: Around January I saw a TV news segment, maybe on 60 Minutes, about a young man who enlisted and became quickly overwhelmed with military life. He complained to his family of being threatened and bullied because he was afraid of water (IIRC); there was a chance piece of video tape of him actually being accosted and punched by a sargeant the day prior to his alleged accidental drowning in the training swimming pool. I've not heard anything more about this. His parents suspect he was murdered for being afraid of water, of wanting to leave the military. I've not caught any additional news as to the inquiry or if there was a formal inquiry.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-03 09:23:53

The common thread? We deployed too little to Iraq.
Too few troops without proper training.

Not exactly. The common thread is we have troops trained and equipped for one mission being expected to carry out another. Our army kills people and blows stuff up, and they do it exceptionally well. They aren't meant to guard borders, police cities, or build democracies.

More troops wouldn't be addressing the problem, it would be the same as deploying the First Armored Division to New York City to stop muggings, then complain wildly when someone gets run over by an Abrams. We need occupiers, a force trained and equipped to maintain order, hunt and find guerrillas, and carry out any and all administrative functions on a national or local level for as long as is required. It's a very different mission.

I'll not go into greater detail right now as it would be somewhat redundant and it's time for lunch.

Pax

BWhite · 2005-05-03 09:31:20

The common thread? We deployed too little to Iraq.
Too few troops without proper training.
Not exactly. The common thread is we have troops trained and equipped for one mission being expected to carry out another. Our army kills people and blows stuff up, and they do it exceptionally well. They aren't meant to guard borders, police cities, or build democracies.
More troops wouldn't be addressing the problem, it would be the same as deploying the First Armored Division to New York City to stop muggings, then complain wildly when someone gets run over by an Abrams. We need occupiers, a force trained and equipped to maintain order, hunt and find guerrillas, and carry out any and all administrative functions on a national or local level for as long as is required. It's a very different mission.
I'll not go into greater detail right now as it would be somewhat redundant and it's time for lunch.
Pax

Good mid-course correction. :up:

Okay then, we need to train a nation-building force.

Agreed.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-03 10:02:45

Okay then, we need to train a nation-building force.
Agreed.

Which only makes sense if we're going to use it.

BWhite · 2005-05-03 11:03:56

Okay then, we need to train a nation-building force.
Agreed.
Which only makes sense if we're going to use it.

Pre-Bush the GOP hated the idea of nation building, right?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-05-02 13:09:00

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#127 2005-05-02 13:20:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#128 2005-05-02 13:50:06

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#129 2005-05-02 14:24:06

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#130 2005-05-02 14:26:49

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#131 2005-05-02 14:28:14

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#132 2005-05-02 14:31:03

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#133 2005-05-02 14:53:46

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#134 2005-05-02 15:00:28

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#135 2005-05-02 15:04:19

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#136 2005-05-02 15:13:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#137 2005-05-03 07:08:50

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#138 2005-05-03 07:22:15

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#139 2005-05-03 07:25:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#140 2005-05-03 07:59:37

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#141 2005-05-03 08:06:31

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#142 2005-05-03 08:09:08

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#143 2005-05-03 08:37:16

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#144 2005-05-03 08:47:58

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#145 2005-05-03 08:53:46

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#146 2005-05-03 09:21:50

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#147 2005-05-03 09:23:53

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#148 2005-05-03 09:31:20

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#149 2005-05-03 10:02:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#150 2005-05-03 11:03:56

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer