Conservatives win by landslide

[brenthutch 388]

4 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Well, as you probably guessed, I am not too excited about it. So, let me explain why--or why I THINK it doesn't excite me (just so you know how this works in a progressive's brain)

Let's first address your particular points:

Now, not saying that this isn't a good thing, but it does not excite me that much. Emotionally, I am not very concerned with the advantages of one country over another--yes: of course I can "think straight" and can want it to be better in the country I happen to currently live in, so I hope you know what I'm saying--but I am much more concerned with something that is better for all of humanity. So The US being better off than others, in itself does not excite me quite THAT much.

 

Yes (if that's true, which it probably is) But not tremendously exciting, because "jobs" is kind of an old paradigm. I am aware that we are still far away from this, but in the long run the paradigm of "jobs" (=having to spend most of your life doing something that is often not in alignment with what you would naturally want to offer the world) are something I hope we will move away from (and yes, that sounds like hippy-dippy ideas, but with increase in automation, AI and changing economic landscapes I think we are actually at the beginning of the time where this movement may start)  --now again: I can see how jobs for thousands RIGHT NOW is a good thing.--not sure if it outweighs the dangers though.

20 minutes ago, normiss said:

Based on the reduced price of oil, the added cost of extraction due to the additional work involved with fracking, and the environmental risks, haven't fracking efforts been reduced?

Isn't there less of it than the initial efforts?

Lastly: It is still based on old (boring) technology, using a resource that is limited (yes: everything is limited, but this one is relatively MUCH more limited than others) and emotionally I am drawn towards much more advanced technologies and resources.
So in summary: I would at most see it as a stopgap and this would even be WITHOUT considering any of the negative impacts on environment and people who live close to fracking operations. 

"A large majority of studies indicate that hydraulic fracturing in the United States has had a strong positive economic benefit so far. The Brookings Institution estimates that the benefits of Shale Gas alone has led to a net economic benefit of $48 billion per year. Most of this benefit is within the consumer and industrial sectors due to the significantly reduced prices for natural gas."

That is what I call progress.

[mbohu 77]

5 minutes ago, Coreece said:

missed the point that it was that rush for progress that got us into this mess in the first place

Trying to keep it away from AGW as a specific issue, so generalizing:

It sounds like you are saying that technological progress has now led to unintended consequences that created bigger problems, that we would not have had, had we slowed down our progress. (I am surprised you're saying that in this regard...but like you said: let's stay away from that topic)

You are right in that and there are many other examples: Nuclear technology, weapons in general, travel that has made global pandemics more likely, etc.

In these cases, the way I would still be for progress, would be that we now have to think even further (rather than retreat into old ideas.) We have to start to think in terms of systems-theory and complexity-theory, so we can start addressing these more complex problems. And yes: Slowing down in certain areas (and speeding up in others) may be part of that equation--that's why I am trying to understand the conservative viewpoint (or psychology) a little more. I am aware, that beyond the rhetoric of daily politics, there are some valuable general ideas that each side is holding and some sort of synthesis is ultimately needed.

[Coreece 190]

20 minutes ago, mbohu said:

It sounds like you are saying that technological progress has now led to unintended consequences that created bigger problems, that we would not have had, had we slowed down our progress. (I am surprised you're saying that in this regard...but like you said: let's stay away from that topic)

I was trying to show why it might be good to slow down a bit and how progress isn't always a good thing, and in fact can be counter-intuitive as well.

You asked the question, I was just trying to provide a bit of perspective.

. . .and I can share your enthusiasm about new exciting technology as well, but I think it should be marketed as such without all the political nonsense.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Coreece

[mbohu 77]

3 minutes ago, Coreece said:

without all the political nonsense

I think we can agree on that: Less Nonsense!    (it's BORING!)

[billvon 2,426]

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I was trying to show why it might be good to slow down a bit and how progress isn't always a good thing, and in fact can be counter-intuitive as well. . .

I'd say that most of that progress was good, even if people aren't ready for it.

When Loving vs Virginia made interracial marriage legal in the US, it was absolutely against the will of the people.  At the time VERY few people were OK with blacks marrying whites.  But the Supreme Court "legislated from the bench" and made that the law of the land.  (More specifically, made it illegal to prohibit it.)  Even though that caused a lot of angst, it was a good thing, and we are better off for it.  We should NOT have delayed it until people "felt better" about it, because it was the right thing to do.

Quote

and I can share your enthusiasm about new exciting technology as well, but I think it should be marketed as such without all the political nonsense.

Not generally possible.  As soon as it comes out it's often labeled as "progressive" or something, or the CEO is liberal (or conservative) so people decide the technology the company develops is, too.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, mbohu said:

Very consistent with your screen name! I didn't think about this before, but is that the reason you chose it?

 

Just wondering though, why WOULD someone want to slow down progress? That seems so counter-intuitive for me.

Ha - No - Think of a turtle on his back in freefall - That's Turtlespeed.

 

Anyway - Progress is good.  The speed at which progress manifests is not always good.

Locally in the US - For instance -

1) LED lighting - I am a huge fan - Progress is good - Took MANY years to get perfected to the point it is now.  Yes, it had it's opposition.  I was opposed.  I can see my error.  Still the progress took its time, and got it right.

2) Obama Care - Progress . . . but a shit show.  Perfect example for why we need to slow down.  It was pushed on us as an agenda, and it was known that it would fail.  It was a purely political "Aha Moment" and a grandiose moment.

3) Self driving cars - Progress - But right now its a shit show! Quite a few people getting hurt. (Not sure about in other countries)

4) Fracking - Progress - but a total shit show!  Environmental impact seems unacceptable - and just all kinds of bad.

5) Green New Deal - Progress - Also a huge shit show.  It's just another "Aha Moment", and unsustainable at the present time.  Back off and look into it reasonably.  Spend the effort into helping other countries get to where we are before trying to go so far ahead of them that our part is still eclipsed by theirs.

Just my thoughts.

Doers that answer your question?

[normiss 622]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

"A large majority of studies indicate that hydraulic fracturing in the United States has had a strong positive economic benefit so far. The Brookings Institution estimates that the benefits of Shale Gas alone has led to a net economic benefit of $48 billion per year. Most of this benefit is within the consumer and industrial sectors due to the significantly reduced prices for natural gas."

That is what I call progress.

Meanwhile, Wall Street reports a negative cash flow of $9 billion per quarter in the fracking industry.

A key reason for the terrible financial results is that fracked oil wells show a steep decline rate. The amount of oil they produce in the second year is drastically smaller than the amount produced in the first year. Production in the average well declines 69 percent in its first year and more than 85 percent in its first three years.

I don't think progress means what you think it does, in this example.

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Doers that answer your question?

Yes. Thank you. It certainly does answer the speed question: So you're not for slow speed after all! 

I also agree with 1), 3) and 4) (I do like LEDs, I really don't like fluorescents, and I have to admit that I use incandescents wherever LEDs don't work.)

Re. 2) I can't feel but that it is too slow. I lived a little less than half my life in a country that has universal healthcare and I just can't for the life of me imagine how anyone would not want that.--completely independent of political persuasion.

Re. 5) I know too little, but I always thought it was meant to set an extremely ambitious goal in order to get maybe 20% of it done eventually. It's not a tactic I necessarily think is best, because it encourages "the opposite side" to do the same, and everyone to just move further and further apart. But again: I know way too little about the specifics. (and some of it does sound like political theater, of course.)

[jakee 1,257]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The same message that Clinton got.  It doesn't matter how many votes you get.  If you don't end up in the White House or 10 Downing, it doesn't count for squat.

Exactly -which has absolutely sweet FA to do with the message Turtlespeed said was being sent.

[wmw999 2,146]

Ah Turtle -- some of that shit-show-on-the-way-to-progress is society adjusting to the innovation, as well as the innovation being modified. Do you think electricity (which most of us agree is good) was a completely trouble-free roll-out? Cars? Fencing (remember the range wars?). I can even remember regretting somewhat getting a square parachute, because I missed the quiet of my round.

Each was a new system; people who had really learned the old system, and even more how to game it, were often against that change, because they'd gotten really good at the way things were. Change can be painful for them, especially if they've built their livelihoods on this. Again, in skydiving, consider the old-timers who come back to the sport and have trouble figuring out landing patterns. We didn't NEED no stinkin' landing patterns.

What we had (and are moving back to) in medical care was just about the worst possible solution for anyone without a direct profit motive, and a direct profit motive generally favors the most powerful/biggest entity, because they have more influence on the market. So the drug manufacturers and insurance companies rule our medical system. Is that really ideal? What would be a better solution? Like any project, it has to be possible to implement, which meant that drug-lobby and insurance-lobby-influenced congresscritters had to be able to vote for it without goring their own oxen (we talk about Citizens United if we want to talk about all that lobbying). So it was a shit show, designed to move the needle somewhat, while we figured out what needed to change in our society, while we also figured out what to change in the medical care system.

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 212]

57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Ah Turtle -- some of that shit-show-on-the-way-to-progress is society adjusting to the innovation, as well as the innovation being modified. Do you think electricity (which most of us agree is good) was a completely trouble-free roll-out?

>>>No, I do not.  But with today's technology we wouldn't let that kind of roll out happen.

 

57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Cars? Fencing (remember the range wars?). I can even remember regretting somewhat getting a square parachute, because I missed the quiet of my round.

>>>Now imagine if everyone was required to use a Velo as a student canopy.

 

57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Each was a new system; people who had really learned the old system, and even more how to game it, were often against that change, because they'd gotten really good at the way things were. Change can be painful for them, especially if they've built their livelihoods on this. Again, in skydiving, consider the old-timers who come back to the sport and have trouble figuring out landing patterns. We didn't NEED no stinkin' landing patterns.

>>>I don't disagree with this. 

Surely, though you don't think we can just throw the "Old Timers" into a 6 way Head down while we figure out how to get them to understand a landing pattern.

 

57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

What we had (and are moving back to) in medical care was just about the worst possible solution for anyone without a direct profit motive, and a direct profit motive generally favors the most powerful/biggest entity, because they have more influence on the market. So the drug manufacturers and insurance companies rule our medical system. Is that really ideal?

>>>Absolutely NOT.  I do, however, believe in profit in business.

This is one of the few places we should have a larger committee involved in figuring out what price gouging is happening.  NOT government.  But that whole line of thinking is an icy slope.

 

57 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

What would be a better solution? Like any project, it has to be possible to implement, which meant that drug-lobby and insurance-lobby-influenced congresscritters had to be able to vote for it without goring their own oxen (we talk about Citizens United if we want to talk about all that lobbying). So it was a shit show, designed to move the needle somewhat, while we figured out what needed to change in our society, while we also figured out what to change in the medical care system.

Wendy P.

>>>Again the left is pushing their agenda by grossly over exaggerating, fearmongering, and lies.

Tell the truth.  Educate the public.  Slow down.  I believe we would have a much better system in place that we do now, had the congresscritters you speak of, been leveraged into having to make the concessions, and research, instead of striving for the glory moment for our Nobel Prize winner, in chief.

Instead we have an even MORE dysfunctional system, and a Trump.

Thanks, by the way.

I'm mostly kidding - But . . . I wholeheartedly believe, that the way the left handled Obamacare, is directly responsible for why we have Trump today.  There are simply too many people out there in the country today that will fight you to the death, and to their own detriment, if you try to force them to do something they don't understand, or are unwilling to do.

 

[brenthutch 388]

I think there has been a mixing up of technological progress and political progressivism.  The two have nothing to do with each other.  For example I would regard the rollback of The National Firearms Act of 1934  and The Gun Control Act of 1968, as progress. I would consider the opening of more federal lands for resource extraction, as progress.  "Progressives" have a more backward view on these matters. 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 388]

Here is where you end up when social justice warriors have their foot on the gas pedal.

 https://southpark.cc.com/clips/k9p0us/go-strong-woman-go

 

[DJL 232]

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Here is where you end up when social justice warriors have their foot on the gas pedal.

 https://southpark.cc.com/clips/k9p0us/go-strong-woman-go

 

To be fair Macho Man Randy Savage is probably on such a steroid induced hormonal roller coaster that he's grown ovaries.

[turtlespeed 212]

Here is progress!  And done with a bit of wit and humor.

https://news.google.com/articles/CCAiC05fX3ZmMVhpTXlnmAEB?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

[brenthutch 388]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdM1TIQilU

More progress

[turtlespeed 212]

On 12/15/2019 at 11:50 PM, mbohu said:

Re. 2) I can't feel but that it is too slow. I lived a little less than half my life in a country that has universal healthcare and I just can't for the life of me imagine how anyone would not want that.--completely independent of political persuasion.

This is part of the reason:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/100-children-greece-moria-camp-urgent-care-200127122102613.html

[billvon 2,426]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

This is part of the reason:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/100-children-greece-moria-camp-urgent-care-200127122102613.html

Refugees in an overcrowded refugee camp not getting medical care is a reason for less universal medical care?

Is last year's deadly Camp fire in California an argument for less firefighters?

[turtlespeed 212]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

Refugees in an overcrowded refugee camp not getting medical care is a reason for less universal medical care?

Is last year's deadly Camp fire in California an argument for less firefighters?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

There is no gradient - 

The universal healthcare in Greece failed these people.

Why are they not treated like the rest of the country?

Why is there a wait?

Why don't they take care of these poor souls universally the same?

Are the grecians more equal in some way?

[DJL 232]

43 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

There is no gradient - 

The universal healthcare in Greece failed these people.

Why are they not treated like the rest of the country?

Why is there a wait?

Why don't they take care of these poor souls universally the same?

Are the grecians more equal in some way?

You're being deliberately misunderstanding (Looks like we're all afraid to say "obtuse", might get you thrown in the hole at Shawshank.) by choosing such a specific failure in universal healthcare.  You know that's not how it goes everywhere.

[mbohu 77]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

This is part of the reason:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/100-children-greece-moria-camp-urgent-care-200127122102613.html

This really isn't related to universal healthcare. It's exactly because refugees do NOT have access to universal healthcare in Greece (not anymore) that the problem in the article exists: "In July 2019, the Greek government rescinded access to healthcare for asylum seekers and undocumented people "

Knowing how it works in these countries, it's not hard to guess which particular political side wanted access to universal healthcare rescinded for refugees. Can you guess?

Now, what I would say--and this really only applies in Europe, where there is a serious number of refugees from war-torn countries (serious as a percentage of population of the countries receiving the refugees) and where there ARE real social and medical safety nets:
I think it is better to limit the number of refugees allowed into a country rather than not provide proper service to the ones there. Europe has that problem: There is a great humanitarian impulse to let the maximum number in (alternatives aren't great, so what can they do?) but then there is backlash to that, from significant parts of the local population, and so, to politically make up for that backlash, they start curtailing what the refugees are allowed to do (in terms of getting jobs, proper accommodations, health services, etc.) That then ends up being the worst of both worlds (for the receiving country), leaving them with a large marginalized, poor and hopeless immigrant population (of course, for the immigrants themselves this may still be better than not allowing them in? It's hard to say--options just aren't good one way or another.)
 

But: Universal healthcare doesn't have much to do with this particular problem.

[turtlespeed 212]

41 minutes ago, DJL said:

You're being deliberately misunderstanding (Looks like we're all afraid to say "obtuse", might get you thrown in the hole at Shawshank.) by choosing such a specific failure in universal healthcare.  You know that's not how it goes everywhere.

No, I simply picked an example and posted it as . . .  wait . . . how did I word it? . . . Oh yeah!

Quote

This is part of the reason:

I'm not deliberately misunderstanding anything.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

11 minutes ago, mbohu said:

This really isn't related to universal healthcare. It's exactly because refugees do NOT have access to universal healthcare in Greece (not anymore) that the problem in the article exists: "In July 2019, the Greek government rescinded access to healthcare for asylum seekers and undocumented people "

Knowing how it works in these countries, it's not hard to guess which particular political side wanted access to universal healthcare rescinded for refugees. Can you guess?

Now, what I would say--and this really only applies in Europe, where there is a serious number of refugees from war-torn countries (serious as a percentage of population of the countries receiving the refugees) and where there ARE real social and medical safety nets:
I think it is better to limit the number of refugees allowed into a country rather than not provide proper service to the ones there. Europe has that problem: There is a great humanitarian impulse to let the maximum number in (alternatives aren't great, so what can they do?) but then there is backlash to that, from significant parts of the local population, and so, to politically make up for that backlash, they start curtailing what the refugees are allowed to do (in terms of getting jobs, proper accommodations, health services, etc.) That then ends up being the worst of both worlds (for the receiving country), leaving them with a large marginalized, poor and hopeless immigrant population (of course, for the immigrants themselves this may still be better than not allowing them in? It's hard to say--options just aren't good one way or another.)

But: Universal healthcare doesn't have much to do with this particular problem.

What you are describing is a possible fix for a broken system.

A system where universal healthcare is a large part.

 

Anytime you make one thing for everyone - it will fail.

 

[gowlerk 1,923]

14 minutes ago, mbohu said:

But: Universal healthcare doesn't have much to do with this particular problem.

Universal healthcare does not magically make resources available. It is too bad, that like a shithole country, America is too poor to afford it.

[jakee 1,257]

14 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

No, I simply picked an example and posted it as . . .  wait . . . how did I word it? . . . Oh yeah!

So why is it part of the reason to not want universal healthcare? How would the situation be any better without universal healthcare?