51. Monkey, Business

Comment #107959 by Rtambree on January 5, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Yes, I know, but over half of Bell Labs' funding was from the government, peaking in 1960 when most of the cutting edge research that the Bell Labs (New Jersey) complex is famous for, was taking place.

52. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107624 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Don_Quix

I notice from your avatar, you like Carl Sagan (as we all do).

I just found five hours of Carl Sagan's Royal Insitution lectures from 1977 (same venue as Dawkins' Growing Up in the Universe), free for viewing at their website... www.rigb.org
You have to register (it's free) and then "purchase" the five webcasts (also free).

53. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107588 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 7:38 pm

58. Comment #107575 by theillestatheist

>Surely the rabbi,after watching himself in this, will become an atheist.

If only it was so easy. Don't underestimate the power of confabulation, self-delusion, cognitive dissonance, pre-dispositions to believe, etc.

There's a saying: you can't employ reason to argue someone out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into that position in the first place.

In other words, atheists also have their own delusion that rational argument will make an impact.

Personally, I think different approaches work for different people (who will have different genomes and environments). The in-your-face approach from Hitchens may work for some, a good science education may work for others, having a high standard of living with economic security may work for others.

54. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107581 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Thanks Tack - that 431mb file came down in 3 minutes - impressive server speed!!

55. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107481 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 3:41 pm

>Quote...
1) Munitions are used, US companies get tax payer money to manufacture more (profits up)
2) Infrastructure gets destroyed, and American companies get no bid contracts to repair them (money laundered through another nations destroyed infrastructure)
3) Companies over bill the US govt. (Haliburton 2 billion over billed to Dept. of Defense).
4) Companies then fund campaigns

It's a pity it can't be a "Science Industrial Complex".

You could have hundreds of probes, for example, being sent to all parts of the solar system. Contractors could still overcharge, get wealthy, CEOs could still buy their private jets, give donations, get lower tax rates for themselves, etc, but the "machine" cranks out knowledge instead of destruction. Make NASA the new Pentagon.

Americans would be safer, as there'd be fewer relatives of 'collateral damage' pissed off with them, and we'd know more about our place in the cosmos.

The rich wouldn't be threatened. They'd still be on top. The poor would still be poor and have no access to health care, etc.

So why not?

Ditto for cancer research, or longevity research, or participle physics, or telescopes or whatever else can "plug in" to the current system.

56. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107413 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm

>as a gross violation of Nazi Germany's national sovereignity?

Not at all. If it's to reverse the violation of Poland and France's sovereignty, that's fine.

But the issue I was banging on about isn't sovereignty or even legality, it's about the one-sidedness of your "system" - in order words only a few rich countries can seek justice via counter-terrorism under your rules, but it's denied to the majority of the world's poorer countries.

57. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107404 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 1:05 pm

>First, tell me: Have I advocated vigilante justice?

Yes, international counter-terrorism is "vigilante justice". You do it without regards to international law, without permission from the host country, and in all likelihood, innocent people will get killed as collateral damage during the extraction. You're judge, jury and executioner. That's exactly what it is.

58. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107401 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 1:03 pm

> said not too long ago on this very thread that I was in favor of slashing the US military budget at least by 50%, and probably way more than that.

Yes, I remember, and I shake your hand for that (although not one of the candidates is advocating that, so it's rather hypothetical). However foreign counterterrorism operations do require a hefty military/intelligence budget, and to defend themselves from any retaliation from the host country.

59. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107395 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:59 pm

>This is really disheartening.

I find it disappointing that you haven't answered any of my questions on this page? What recourse is there for countries that don't have the resources to engage in vigilante justice that you advocate?

60. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107394 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:57 pm

>where the focus was on matters related to rationality and science

We'll talk about whatever we goddamn want to, dad. Contribute or butt out! :)

61. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107389 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Quill,

>Because to my knowledge I've been saying that other countries are entitled to the same rights as the United States.

>You are being very quick to interpret things that I say as Imperialist. I never indicated that the rules which apply to other nations do not apply to the US. I think perhaps that's just what you would like me to have said.

That's very magnanimous of you, considering that the USA outspends the rest of the world combined in military force. How are these other countries supposed to do it without retaliation?

62. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107386 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm

>Call me old-fashioned! It doesn't matter what country you're from, you deserve justice

So ALL countries can seek justice by carrying out violent actions in another country without permission?

Let's be clear - is this what you're advocating? I'm sure the Venezuelans would like these rules.

63. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107380 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm

>So it's not important to punish criminals?

Of course it's important. The point is that it's a recourse only powerful countries have (maybe 5 or 10) out of the 180+. How do you suggest the other 170+ countries seek their justice?

64. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107377 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:42 pm

>But the real world the rest of us live in has this sort of thing taking place all of the time, whether you like it or not

Actually most of the 180 countries in the world don't engage in that. I'm sure they would if they could though, but they just don't have the military budget or intelligence services or resources to seek this type of vigilante justice you're advocating, hence the ICC.

In essence, what you're saying is "Might is right, like it or lump it, America Right or Wrong".

65. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107369 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:32 pm

>So Palestinians are free to come to the US and kill or capture US lawmakers

Oh no, that's different, because, umm, you know, it just is.

66. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107363 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm

>Americans feel that they have some special rules

Exceptionalism

As in... you must open your markets and allow our corporations in - that's free trade. But we'll protect our own markets with massive subsidies.

Or, you can't have a single nuclear weapon or WMD, but we can have enough to destroy civilization.

67. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107360 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:23 pm

205. Comment #107354 by mikecbraun

>that country should use stealth to kidnap said criminal and take care of him/her off of U.S. soil.

Imagine that? All hell would break loose. The Pentagon, the neocons would go beserk - "violation of sovereignty, kill them all, etc". Whatever country did it would get flattened the next day.

68. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107357 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:20 pm

>You know countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan are orders of magnitude more backward and more violence-soaked than the US

Yeah, but you're advocating some vague arbitrary rules here. They apply to other countries, but there always seems to be a reason why they can't apply to the USA, despite the overwhelming firepower the USA wields and the millions of corpses it has piled up over the years.

Under your criteria, Nicaragua and many other South American countries have the right to "consider" military action against the USA due to its harbouring of terrorists, and having already suffered violent interventions themselves.

69. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107347 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm

There's a reason why the USA didn't ratify the International Criminal Court.

70. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107337 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm

>If you have a backward, violence-soaked country that harbors terrorists and refuses to deal with international criminals upon request, I think at some point taking action without said country's approval within their borders could be justified

Many Latin American countries have requested extradition for terrorists currently residing in the USA involved in coup attempts and insurgency in their own countries, usually trainees at the School of the Americas, etc. US Homicide rates are off the chart, so it's a violent place. And levels of religiosity and creationism in the USA are comparable to Middle Eastern countries, so its pretty backwards.

So you have a backwards, violent country that harbours terrorists and refuses to hand them over...
What should the rest of the world do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

71. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107325 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 11:54 am

>Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

It might have been "Peace on you"

These foreigners' accents are hard to understand sometimes :)

http://www.masteroni.com/show.php?itemId=88098232

72. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107303 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 11:26 am

178. Comment #107297 by quill

>I am one of those people who thinks terrorists hate us for our freedom

Scandinavian countries are more free - nudity is acceptable, gays can marry, prime time TV has explicit sex scenes, abortion is not stigmatised, a lot of women are in politics, evolution is accepted, atheists are everywhere, western values are a lot more... western. The USA is much more Abrahamic by comparison.

So why don't the terrorists target Scandinavia? Surely, as targets, they're a lot easier too - their military defenses are wide open!

73. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107294 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 11:12 am

174. Comment #107292 by al-rawandi

>It is a screwed up system

And what's more, the system seems to only ratchet up one way. Looking back, Nixon looks pretty good. He had some good progressive liberal policies by today's standards.

In 30 years time, George W Bush might be looking pretty good.

74. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107288 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 11:04 am

167. Comment #107280 by konquererz

>I wish I had someone I could vote for with good conscience

Judging by an earlier discussion in this thread on Ralph Nader, even when you DO have someone who is a non-theist, non-military, non-corporate and scientifically literate candidate, you STILL can't vote for him because then you're "giving a vote to Bush" or whoever the worst candidate is.

So, once again, it's the system. Having a good candidate doesn't mean it's wise to vote for him, as it'll take votes away from the second-worst option.

You can't win.

Let's say Sam Harris was running as an independent third candidate in 2008. But say polls indicated that a vote for Sam Harris might increase Huckabee's chances of becoming President. Would you vote for Sam Harris? Would you sleep soundly at night?

Stupid system.

75. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107268 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 10:45 am

>There is too much of a corpotocracy for it too matter

The government's job is to loot the US Treasury and hand it out to the military, defense contractors, corporations, etc. In return, the corporations pay kickbacks to the government in the form of political contributions (an euphemism for bribe), promise to employ them when they retire (revolving door). Wars are handy in achieving this, and that's why the USA has been involved in dozens of military operations in the last few decades. Whether or not these wars succeed in their publically declared objectives is inconsequential. The important thing is the money is spent - trillions of dollars over the years.

The illusion of democracy is such that you have two factions that do the same thing - redistribute wealth upwards. Henry Ford said "any color so long as it's black". The US political system is "any party/leader as long as they follow the above rule".

76. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107255 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 10:30 am

Geez, watching you guys quibble over experience, as if it makes any difference...

Reagan was senile, Bush is a half-wit, Kissinger's an intellectual, Rumsfeld had plenty of experience, and yet they all have similiar policies.

The train is running on railroad tracks. Whatever corporate ventriloquist dummy you stick in the front cabin to keep the masses distracted makes no difference whatsoever.

It's the system, stupid. Arguing over experience and personality between all these theists is exactly what they would want you to do.

77. Monkey, Business

Comment #107231 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 9:51 am

>They also have completely different governments and differentl populations with different histo

What are you saying? Yanks are somehow more stoopid? Genetically inferior?

It wasn't that long ago that Americans and Swedes had a common ancestor, and evolution moves much more slowly than cultural development.

This sounds like the end of 'Bowling for Columbine' where Charlton Heston is trying to justify why Americans need guns, whereas other countries don't need guns. Europe's has had violent histories, Europe is racially mixed, and Australia is racially mixed (English, Italians, Lebanese, Chinese, Greeks, Arabs, Indonesiands, Vietnamese).

>The Euro model will not work in the US simply because it worked in Norway.

People are people. We are share the same DNA, the same genes and what little variation there is between genomes is largely not geographically and racially correlated.

78. Monkey, Business

Comment #107211 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 9:23 am

>I meant how did the system work out for people?

Exactly. That's precisely the criteria that should be used. Now you're learning. Not share prices, profits, or whether the industry is "flourishing", but how people are benefiting. The quality of lives of individual people is the most important measure.

79. Monkey, Business

Comment #107199 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 9:06 am

>Consolidating resources, finance and discretion with a strong central government is not always the best plan.

No one here said it is. It has to be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

Take the Human Genome Project. Craig Venter, through the private system, did it a lot faster, and cheaper.

Take the public health system of USA and any western European nation - the private system is much more ineffcient in this case.

So it depends.

All I'm saying is that "flourishing" or "success" for a business or system doesn't necessarily mean desirable. I'm sure slavery was defended as being "successful" but it didn't deliver the best outcomes for ALL.

>How did all the Soviet stuff work out in the end?

Actually, that Soyuz using 1960s technology is still going. Very reliable. Compare the Space Shuttle, which is much more complicated, blew up twice, and was the grounds for a lot of greedy profiteering from defense contractors (charging thousands for simple parts), and is now being scrapped.

80. Monkey, Business

Comment #107185 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 8:53 am

>when in this very thread someone mentioned that the Soviet space program was one example of socialism defeating capitalism in innovation.

No, examples such as V2, Korolyov's Sputnik & Soyuz programs, Apollo, Human Genome Project, Manhattan Project, lasers, transistors, early computer development (e.g. Bletchley Park), the HST, etc are examples of single-minded blank-cheque brute-force state-run "successes", as counter-examples to you stating earlier capitalism is a pre-requisite for innovation.

81. Monkey, Business

Comment #107155 by Rtambree on January 4, 2008 at 7:54 am

>MS has done some damage. But the tech industry
is still flourishing

Just because an industry is flourishing doesn't automatically mean it's good for consumers or innovation, competition, etc.

Monopolies and cartels can flourish. Slavery can flourish - it was "successful" for millennia. The Soviet rocket program, and German V2 program was innovative and "successful".

I would decouple 'commerical success' from 'desirable'. Sometimes the two can correlate, but not necessarily.

82. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106998 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:23 pm

>Because RN had no chance of obtaining a majority

So you don't vote for someone because they have no chance?

That's circular reasoning isn't it?

Anyway your strategy didn't work - Bush still got a majority. You make a deal with the devil and vote for a theist, can't sleep well at night, and you still get the Born Again as President. Worst of all possible worlds, huh? Stupid system, having to pre-empt everybody else.

But the original point is that there IS one, so your post #36 is wrong.

83. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106994 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm

45. Comment #106993 by zenmite

>and the election is between

If there's only two choices, sure, I agree with you. But we were talking THREE candidates, not two.

84. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106992 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:03 pm

36. Comment #106972 by Radesq
>since there isn't one

37. Comment #106973 by Fedler
>all we have to vote for are Godbotherers. The only other option is not to vote

You guys can choose theists over nontheists all you like. It's your vote, it's your country. But don't pretend you don't have a choice.

85. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106976 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Radesq, Fedler, Chris Bell

The last two federal elections did have a nontheist third candidate. Furthermore, he didn't support the Iraq War either.

86. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106970 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:04 pm

33. Comment #106968 by scooternyc

Agreed - Many of the American atheists on this site have admitted to voting for Godbotherers. One form of brainwashing gives rise to another.

87. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106948 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Dickhead #1 won, and it was a long way back to Dickhead #2, who has conceded.

God Blessed America.

88. Monkey, Business

Comment #106719 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 10:12 am

> If I come up with a radical new treatment for HIV, say, today, it will cost me $1bn and around 10 years to get it into patients.

The Apollo program took about 10 years to come to fruition and cost many more times than that, without the need for private profits as you suggest.

89. Monkey, Business

Comment #106715 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 10:03 am

Hungerianelephant...
>I'd take issue with the notion that they "usually" do it by reducing competition

I would suggest that proactively reducing competition is the norm, not the exception...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

90. Monkey, Business

Comment #106701 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 9:30 am

Hungerianelephant,

You're conflating two separate notions here when you say..

"profit motive to drive development on, i.e. capitalism"

I would distinguish between the two. Capitalism, for me, is a free market, with many participants, both buyers and sellers, in competition, and where you get the rewards for incurring risk when innovating, and conversely you don't get rewarded if you don't innovate.

Whereas, profit motive, is maximising profits, whatever it takes, usually by REDUCING competition. In order words, profits go up by REDUCING capitalism: economic subsidies to farmers, tariffs, trade barriers, political donations, imperial invasions, buying out your competitors, restrictive covenants, maximising externalities, manipulating markets, deceiving buyers, etc.

Having lots of competition means profits are moderate. Profit motive is one aspect of capitalism but also undermines it. It's competition that's integral. Unfortunately there is a paradox ingrained within capitalism.

91. Monkey, Business

Comment #106691 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:59 am

That cat has Feline Acute Internet Addiction Syndrome - quick, prescribe it some overpriced drugs under monopoly control.

92. Monkey, Business

Comment #106666 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:31 am

#229 was just an attempt to stake out some common ground for all participants and to avoid misunderstandings and misattributions, which are a waste of time.

Thanks for remembering, Diacanu. :) These posts are so ephemeral.

93. Monkey, Business

Comment #106659 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:26 am

I'm with you on your anti-war analysis and stance, al-rawandi.

As for solutions, what about what was outlined in #277?

94. Monkey, Business

Comment #106650 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:15 am

284. Comment #106647 by al-rawandi

>I love the atheists who are anti-corporation but pro-war

I guess you don't love me then. :(

95. Monkey, Business

Comment #106636 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 8:09 am

>Honestly, I don't know what the solution is

There is no "Tablet from the Mount" solution from any ideology. Society is far too complex for any one doctrine to embrace it.

I prefer an empirical approach - look at what all 180 countries are doing, see which one is the best, and copy that.

Not that the present best solution is an "end point" - but it should be a starting point, for further improvements.

It's evolution - minor mutations, some adaptive, and some maladaptive, and hopefully the adaptive propagate.

96. Monkey, Business

Comment #106627 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:58 am

>Say what you want about me, but slander Anna, and you're going too far.

He he - nobody puts Anna in the corner.

97. Monkey, Business

Comment #106623 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:56 am

267. Comment #106621 by al-rawandi

>You are good at hurling the occassional bomb but I have never ever seen a post from you that could even remotely be construed as constructive.

I'm not sure who you are referring to here?

The posts are coming from everyone so thick and fast, and there are multiple conversations all interspersed.

98. Monkey, Business

Comment #106617 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:51 am

>What should we do about the Dr.'s who are diagnosing these diseases? Get rid of Doctors?

Of course not, but we can limit or monitor the kickbacks giving by pharmaceuticals companies to doctors for prescribing their medications (make disclosure compulsory if it can't be banned in the same way the financial advisors have to disclose kickbacks). It's nothing more than bribes, in the same way that political contributions are a euphemism for bribery and corruption.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman20020725

99. Monkey, Business

Comment #106609 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:41 am

257. Comment #106607 by al-rawandi

Rtambree,

PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE

I already have - twice, in case you missed it in #192, I gave it again in #240 for you. Please read the posts before you start shouting.

>When did a company create a disease and infect people to profit from the cure?

I didn't say they infect people. The invention of a fake diagnosis of a condition that isn't a disease, as in "DELIBERATE MISATTRIBUTION SYNDROME" and then supplying a medication for it is the "invention of a disease". Do you understand now?

100. Monkey, Business

Comment #106604 by Rtambree on January 3, 2008 at 7:37 am

246. Comment #106594 by hungarianelephant

>So would any other industry.

True. Automobile. Weapons exporters. Gadgets manufacturers.

> What's your point? Why single out pharma for criticism?

Because people's health is generally a higher priority than other industry domains. International comparisons reveal that under the US system, people pay more for their drugs, and get a lower quality of healthcare for the massive cost, than say Australia, NZ, Canada, United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries. The market system is grossly ineffcient in this example - and this matters because it's people's lives at stake.

Those Scandinavian countries must be a real annoying inconvenient example for the religious who claim that we need God to be moral, and for the right-wing pro-capitalists that claim only the free market can deliver the best results.