So..... because 25 people died in the seventies, vaccines should not be mass produced and distributed by the government?

You must admit that as arguments go, this is pretty weak sauce, not to mention a fairly dull-witted position for a professional doctor to take. The problem is that he does not approach medical issues with the mind of a doctor, but rather with the mind of a partisan politician, conforming to a strict set of anti-government principals that are indifferent to the general well being of the public.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
That he doesn't oppose them, but being as they can cause harm potentially, they are best left to be negotiated by a doctor and the patient. The third party of the government isn't really needed as the side affects of certain medicines can endanger life and limb. And more over, just like pot and drugs, I should have a right over my body which includes what I don't want in it.

Personally, I'm all vaccinated, but a government crack down on putting stuff in me would be a pretty extreme thing. Though, maybe I missed your point entirely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How so?

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
This is also relivant

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Crosswords:
>> ^BoneyD:
Who was the Republican? Ron Paul?

Ron Paul would never vote for government run/backed anything.

Not exactly true, but he would never of voted for this. Let us not forget he is Dr. Paul and not Esq. Paul, as a tried and true doctor, his words should carry a bit more weight than his lawyer and lobbyist counterparts.


If Ron Paul's opposition to vaccines is not enough to convince you that he is a quack, then nothing will.

Don't talk about how "spot on" something is if you have no idea about it. If you really want to know something about the church's history regarding blacks, study this web site: http://www.blacklds.org/history

The government of the United States also has a history of racism and discrimination toward black people, but current members of government aren't accused of being racist just because their organization has a history of racist members. Members of U.S. government are welcome to cite examples from the Civil Rights movement in discussions of civil liberties, although they are part of the very entity that opposed that movement in the past. I don't see this as hypocrisy. I see this as progression.

I do not seek to justify the racist statements made by leaders of the church, but to explain that neither Joseph Smith nor the doctrines of the church were racist in any way, and that the church has long since left behind those policies. There is here an important distinction between policy and doctrine.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was one of the first religions to baptize and ordain black people. Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Abel, a black man, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership position holding the High Priesthood, in 1936. Joseph Smith opposed slavery, but is often misunderstood on this subject. Like many religionists of his day, in 1936 he believed that slavery was a curse upon the seed of Canaan, but he did not use this as a justification for slavery. He stated that God would abolish slavery in his own time. In 1944, he ran for president on an anti-slavery platform. http://www.blacklds.org/Aprilma

In March 1842, Joseph Smith wrote the following in a letter on the subject of slavery, "I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?"

In January 1843, on the "situation of the negro," Joseph Smith said:

"They came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on." http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#boil

While Joseph Smith was acting as mayor, "a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child."

"The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery."

Concerning the ban on blacks from the priesthood, it would appear that following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, certain members claimed that Smith believed that blacks were not entitled to the priesthood, although the overwhelming flood of evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was not racist, that he was anti-slavery, and that he believed that blacks were entitled to all of the same blessings of the church as other members.

An account of how the priesthood ban on blacks falsely came into being:

1879, Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, pg. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had "masters". This affidavit says that Smoot, "W.W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them" (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

But Coltrin says the ban was to be universally applied to all blacks. In L. John Nuttal’s Journal (pages 290-293) we find, "Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met. Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood." According to Coltrin, "…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.’" Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that "the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood." President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy "was allowed to remain". The other element that makes Coltrin’s story suspect is the claim that Joseph didn’t know Abel was black. Anyone who has looked at a picture of Abel has easily identified him as a black man.

From the Council meeting minutes of 4 June 1879 (Bennion papers as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Maas, Signature Books, pg. 101, note 29.)

Five days after Coltrin related his account: "Brother Joseph F. Smith said he thought brother Coltrin’s memory was incorrect as to Brother Abel being dropped from the quorum of the Seventies, to which he belonged, as brother Abel had in his possession, (which also he had shown brother J. F. S.) his certificate as a Seventy, given to him in 1841, and signed by Elder Joseph Young,Sen., and A.P. Rockwood, and a still a later one given in this city. Brother Abel’s account of the persons who washed and anointed him in the Kirtland Temple also disagreed with the statement of Brother Coltrin, whilst he stated that brother Coltrin ordained him a Seventy. Brother Abel also states that the Prophet Joseph told him that he was entitled to the priesthood."

Because this policy was never explained, many members of the church sought to explain the ban, and they turned out to be very misguided.

President David O. Mckay said in 1954 that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the Negro...it is a practice, not a doctrine, and the doctrine some day will be changed."

In 1988, Elder Dallin Oaks, the man originally quoted in this rant, said "It is not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons...some people put reasons to [the ban], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated on by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be uneccessary risk-taking...The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent."

In 1981, Elder Bruce R Mckonkie said, "Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

I admire anyone who got through all of that. The same kind of misunderstandings occur on the topic of Native Americans.

I think that the church's past of racism is shameful and sad, but I feel strongly that it has no bearing on the current state of affairs. Many individual members of the church may be racist, but it is not a racist church.

I think the Keynesians about have that fight won now that they've shown how to explain the late seventies.

Keynesian economics? Never worked and never will. You can't spend your way out of recession or depression. FDR proved it. Obama is proving it again. The only thing Keynesian economics does is give the illusion of helping during a downturn by shuffling the deck a bit and creating massive inflation and stagflation. It doesn't help recessions or depressions. It merely prolongs them.

Most of those activities you mentioned require the use of force, so they can't be done by private citizens, because the use of force is exclusive to government. Any other activity that doesn't require the use of force shouldn't be done by government because it can be done (and will tend to be done better) by the private sector.

How exactly is force the exclusive domain of the government? What about the polluter that is forcing you to breath lower quality air? I can't do anything about that. I need a government to enforce my property rights over the air. Yes, the government employs force. It's our only recourse against the force employed by concentrated capital.


If anarchy was the end result of libertarian ideals, they would be called anarchists. Corporate oligarchies are much more likely when government regulates the economy, and gets in bed with corporations. You have to realize that any "archy" requires government, force. It can't sprout out of markets where force is not allowed.

Please explain to me the law of nature which prevents corporate oligarchy in the absence of government force. Collusion is the rational selection for a small number of powerful agents. They reap the return, prevent entry into marketplaces, and price gouge when privy to exclusive control over an inelastic market (such as healthcare). You've been reading Ludwig too much... I'd recommend reading more of his brother Richard's work. He actually contributed to knowledge.


Does that overhead in the private sector have anything to do with excessive government regulation of the healthcare insurance market? Maybe it would be less of a burden to compete in a market that is almost 60% provided by government?

Hopefully not. I'm a single-payer kinda guy. Like I stated, healthcare is an inelastic market like police, fire, and water. As such, it should be provided by the government because the status quo of a small number of profit-driven actors in the market leads to price gouging.


Government and the Fed created the moral hazards that led to what you're attributing as the cause. A lot of people acted stupidly, you're saying it's cultural, that people "got greedy", ignoring the incentives and government guarantees that led people to believe there weren't any risks.

I'm not saying people got greedy (though the few did). I'm saying the majority of people got stupid. The laws that were in place to prevent the overextension of consumer credit were withdrawn. That is, they removed government intervention in the marketplace. That allowed unfortunate people to overextend themselves to the benefit of the few. Now, before you go off on some rant about the laws governing entrance into the sub-prime housing market, remember those laws would not have been nearly as dangerous had they not also repealed restrictions on debt securitization, turned a blind eye to insurance market regulation of CDS, and loosened fraction reserve restrictions. Those three de-regulatory events had, imo, far more reaching ramifications in this crisis. They removed the counter-party risk from debt initiators, and instead incentivized predatory lending. It was not government subsidy of the sub-prime market that distorted the incentives. It was the banks writing a junk bond, and slapping a smily face on it.


Ever hear of "cutting your losses"? There's no "sell high" here, the US can't pay back its lenders, not at the rate the US government is spending and willing to spend for the next few years, and not in a recession where government is ruining productivity. China will be part of the recovery effort alright, but they'll much rather do it without the US strapped to its back.
Think about it, if China lent the US more than a trillion dollars, it's better to lose that money than lend us 2 or 3 more trillions just to watch even more money go to waste. They don't need us.

Actually, they do. If our dollar were to suddenly become worthless, they would have no currency reserves. While I agree, they have the upper hand in this, they've already seen what a collapse of consumption on our soil does to their own economic growth. Without that growth, the chinese government doesn't have a political toothpick to stand on. I think you'd be surprised with the swings in currency valuation these days just how much higher the dollar could yet climb back. Our workforce is skilled, and increasingly well educated. In any event, it doesn't make sense to sell all at once. What they'll probably do is wait until the systematic risk has stabilized, and then slowly convert their treasury notes into special drawing rights at a rate which will not drastically undermine valuation of the dollar. I agree however, they will likely discontinue purchasing the debt, forcing us into "quantitative easing" (another winner from the PR team).


The Constitution is a good reference, most things the federal government does that are not expressly authorized in the Constitution are excesses.

So the market for nuclear weapons, particularly when wielded by militiamen, shouldn't be regulated?


NetRunner, is that you? I guess you think hyperinflation is a synonym for "awesome".
If you actually studied Austrian economics and you think it's "non-mathematical" and "BS", yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're beyond help.

Net who? No, I'm afraid there can be more than one educated progressive. I didn't say hyperinflation... I said inflation. Between 2 and 4% inflation is a good thing. If you disagree, you are beyond help.

As for the Austrian school, yes, it's BS. It's been discredited repeatedly. The predictions don't hold water, so they say "you can't use mathematics because people are too complicated." Even the Chicago school monetarists (many of whom worked with Von Mises) know it's BS. Once you run out of room with monetary policy what should you do is the only argument left. I think the Keynesians about have that fight won now that they've shown how to explain the late seventies.


Don't worry about that. Keep rules simple, no fraud, enforce contracts, no use of force. Everything else will tend to sort itself out. Also, don't be afraid of technology.

No force, but enforce contracts. Right. You show no regard for the existence of externalities, nor the rampant exploitation of the commons by the private sector. In fact, you explicitly removed that single section from my post indicating either your ignorance of basic economics, or an intentional dodging of the topic.

It's easy not to worry about how the rules are set up so long as they are benefitting you. Once you see that not everybody is getting a fair deal, you realize the moral, and even selfish reasons for entering a broader scoped social contract. In the end, we all benefit from a well educated, healthy society. We just need to put up the VC.

It bothers me how he kept glancing away from Conan while he talked. I doubt he had a teleprompter, but that's what it looked like.

>> ^Crosswords:
I predict in the future, now, people won't even bother to listen to you unless your message comes through on a cellphone/blackberry/iphone.


"Don't ya just hate people who walk up to you and try to start a conversation? Look, I'm not paying seventy-five bucks a month to have to make eye contact while I'm talking. If I wanted to be bound to your physical proximity for the duration of our interaction, I'd buy a pair of handcuffs."

The new Terminator movie is mixed loud as fuck and there must be directions from the studio for theatres to set volume at 11. Terminator: Salvation is the loudest movie I've ever seen, and for a few years there I was seeing avg. 2 movies per week at the cinema.

I received a copy of DaVinci Code as a gift a couple years back, and couldn't even make it through the second chapter. The writing style is so... so... fucking SHITE that I felt embarassed to be reading it.

Here is the first paragraph in the book:

Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas.

I can't even keep track of who is the subject in that paragraph. Are "the 73 year-old man" and "Sauniere" the same person? Because the third sentence makes that somewhat unclear. Not good to be unclear three sentences into a novel.

I wonder if the lunar orbiter can get some snaps of all the junk we left behind there back in the seventies?

>> ^cento:
Seventy percent...
That statistic fills me with sorrow.

Especially considering the lengths the black community went to 40 years ago to gain equality for themselves.

I say, hell with it, if the Jesus freaks want to be asshole bigots and monopolize marriage let them. Just remove "marriage" from secular government. Make every couple get a civil union and then go get "married" by their priest/rabbi if they want.

I know plenty of non religious folk that would rather not be married if they could have the same rights while distancing themselves from religious asshats.

What's next, making it illegal for atheists to get married?

>> ^Sketch:
At 95% of precincts reporting, it looks as though Prop 8 is passing. Congratulations Californians, you've officially written BIGOTRY into the STATE CONSTITUTION! You officially care about CHICKENS more than you do about PEOPLE! I couldn't be more incensed and ashamed!


What REALLY saddens me is looking at the CNN exit polling on Prop 8. Most of the voting by racial demographic is surprisingly evenly split. Even the Latino vote is 53/47, which caught me off-guard with the strong Roman Catholic influences there. Only one racial demographic stands out from that near even split - African-Americans voted SEVENTY PERCENT in favor of prop 8.

Seventy percent...

That statistic fills me with sorrow.



*edit* link to CNN exit polling on prop 8:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

Thats seventies germany for you. Germans are known killjoys. And lack a sense of humor.

A great, great comedian.

He has ceased to be, bereft of life, he rests in peace, he has kicked the bucket, hopped the twig, bit the dust, snuffed it, breathed his last, and gone to meet the Great Head of Light Entertainment in the sky, and I guess that we're all thinking how sad it is that a man of such talent, such capability and kindness, of such intelligence should now be so suddenly spirited away at the age of seventy-one, before he'd achieved many of the things of which he was capable, and before he'd had enough fun.
(Completely stolen from http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/chapman_memorial.html, but applicable here as well)

He will be missed, like Mitch Hedberg and Bill Hicks.

Perhaps "ODOR in the court" might be more suitable. Someone must have given cheese to the "3 Second Cat."

Here's to CHEESE SOLIDARITY and the FROMAGE FIGHTERS! We need us a flag next time. We can march around and wave it!

Oh and I don't believe cheese stopped with the seventies . . .

My point was more one of probabilities. Which is more probable Obama getting hit by a bus, Clinton getting assassinated, or a 72 year old man dying from health complications?

And yes, I get that mental problems are not necessarily linked to old age, but they are more likely to be found among that age cohort. I know a few people in their seventies, mostly former college professors, who are of very sound mind and temperament. They are intelligent, thoughtful, and capable people. But that still doesn't change the fact that their worldview is sometimes colored by misunderstandings based on past biases and discourses. It is for that reason, not just how old McCain is, but how that informs his politics and policies, that I think his age is a fair issue.

Somewhat off topic now:
Isn't the whole idea of presidential requirements in its own way ageist? After all, you are required to be at least thirty-five years old. If such a lower limit can be placed because it is deemed that there needs to be a certain amount of maturity and experience to be president, why can there not be an upper limit which considers the effect of aging on the human brain and body? Or is it only ageist when you're complaining about, and/or discriminating against, old people?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'moody blues, never comes the day, music, seventies, live in paris, paris' to 'moody blues, never comes the day, music, seventies, live in paris, paris, 70s' - edited by jonny

"Skip-It is a children's toy invented by Victor Petrusek and manufactured by Tiger Electronics. During its initial release in the late-1980s, the Skip-It apparatus became a commercial success through its avid advertisements on daytime Nickelodeon broadcasting as well as other children's programming. The 'Skip-It' apparatus was designed to be affixed to the child's ankle via a small plastic hoop and spun around in a 360 degree rotation while continuously skipped by the user.

During a second production occurring in the early-1990s, the toy was manufactured with a counter on the Skip-It ball; designed to make the number of skips impeccably accurate.

Some Skip-It's have colorful glitter filled and covered plastic decorations that can be slid on and of the make colorful paterns.

There was a model which may have been called skiparoo or skip-a-roo that is from the 60's that was all plastic and had a red bell-shaped end.

There was also a model called the "lemon twist" which was made in the seventies. It was black PVC piping and had a big lemon at the end. It had little rocks inside that made noise as you twisted.

Marshall Swails of Irmo, SC won the 1995 World Skip-It Open at the 1995 Toy Congress in Wolfsburg, Germany. He skipped 300,546 times on his custom glitter filled Skip-It. What was remarkable about this achievement was that Swails was the only sponsored entrat, endorsing both Keds and BIKE. He worse simple white, canvas Keds and a pair of skin tight BIKE bicycle shorts with his name on the side. He did not wear a shirt." -[wikip.]