No need to apologize since it's not your fault (unless you did the project management for the site). I just get cranky when people without a clue try to geographically restrict the one truly global entity we have on our planet - especially on some issue that isn't just a problem for people living in north america. And since the project is think-tank funded, it leaves the aftertaste of being an address-gathering stunt. We'll see what they say.

Does Kato found the Kato Institute? No one stops a sidekicking free-market libertarian think tank.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
What's to keep this from becoming the status quo if it isn't already? This, in a nutshell, is why I fear the Ron Paul Love-o-lution. Foxconn could not happen today in America because of regulations, but with each little bit of accountability that republicans, libertarians and democrats strip away, the closer we get.

You vote with your wallet, that's how. If you don't like the Foxconn way of business stop buying their products. It's more powerful and effective than any politician will ever be.


In a world where the most abusive corporations are the most successful, where wage slavery, layoffs and outsourcing equal Wall Street success, where Wal*Mart is the President of our consumerist democracy, the concept of "voting with you wallet" is impotent to the point of meaningless.

Foxconn makes products for both Apple and Microsoft, so people who want to vote against Foxconn with their wallets don't get to use computers or the internet. No food from big agra either, or drugs from big pharma, so dissenting members of a consumerist democracy don't get the luxury of produce or medicine.

Consumerism is not an effective form of democracy. "Voting with your wallet" is the kind of pseudo-populist nonsense that corporate think tanks come up with to manipulate gullible people. I'm surprised how successful they are in getting regular folks to regurgitate their propaganda, but I guess that's why they get the big bucks. A world champion has no business regurgitating this kind of propaganda.

He is also a major sponsor of the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine, among many other corporatist think tanks and publications.

It's amazing to me how ensconsed in the bubble the right is these days.

Let's break it down:

1. Ideological subversion propagation - Radical conservatives begin pushing their ideology to all members of society through churches, schools, and supposedly independent policy research "think tanks". This begins in the early 30's, and is a systematic campaign aimed at chipping away at the credibility of embedded liberalism, America's original ideology. The "threat of communism" is conflated with traditional American values like empathy, solidarity, and equality.
   
   
2. Destabilization - The 1960's reads literally like a textbook example of a country in crisis. A presidential assassination, two proxy wars, a mexican standoff with nuclear weapons, a counterculture protest movement, race relations getting strained with protests and violence, and the then-dominant Democratic party coming apart at its seams over disagreements about the war and civil rights.
   
   
3. Crisis - This one is clear. The oil crisis of the 1970's was our key takeover crisis moment. It basically ushered in an end to embedded liberalism as the American way of life. So many aspects of our political life and the way our economy was run was radically changed in the aftermath of that crisis, even though it was a walk in the park compared to today's economic problems.
   
   
4. Normalization - Conservative Republicans won 3 terms in a row, from 1980 until 1992, followed by a conservative, Southern Democrat who won in part because a third party candidate split Republican support. Party-line economists have treated the works of John Maynard Keynes the way their forebears treated the work of Karl Heinrich Marx -- they pretended it had nothing worthwhile to say, and tried their best to erase it from academic discourse. The Democrats of today consider reforms Republicans proposed in 1992 massive ideological win for the left.
   

Take the bananas out of your ears, morons.

Anyways, this is actually a pretty astute observation about how radical political and economic change happens. It's not necessarily planned like our conservative takeover was, but the framework for all ideological revolutions start with an ideology becoming commonly known, then during a period of destabilization and crisis, people may turn to the new ideology.

This is literally what more than a few libertarian bloggers say is their raison d'etre -- to make sure the ideology is lying around for when a crisis hits.

However, anyone who thinks some Russian-led infiltration of "Marxist-Lenninist" ideology happened or is happening is fucking deluded. It would've been a real trick considering your average American doesn't have a fucking clue what Marxism is...because the right stigmatized knowledge of it!

Just more evidence that this man-child of a PotUS is either self-delusional, or a bigger sack of lying crap than Clinton ever was. He can only be talking about his stupid, piddling little $250 stimulus rebate check. This is typical Obama.

Like, "All the economists I talk to say my health care program will save you money..." Uh yeah - except the CBO, and about a dozen others that put his plan in the red. Who were these 'economists'? When did he talk to them? What did they actually say? What is their education, experience, and credentials? Sadly - Obama is the type of slimy snake in the grass you have to ask these questions to whenever he opens his mouth. As like as not these so-called 'economists' are leftist think-tank pinkos he chatted in passing during his college years.

Corporations fund the think tanks that tell you what to think. Are you a fan of Cato or Reason magazine? They are funded by the likes of Koch and Mellon Scaife, the same folks who fund all the hard right and neo-con think tanks. I take you at your word that your belief system is different from the corporatists, and I respect that, but regardless, you are still being led down a path by people who don't give a shit about these ideals; people who build up your ego by telling you that you are different, that you are special, that you have wisely risen above the two party nattering, but only on the condition that you obediently do as they say. What do you think will happen once you get your tiny government and deregulated markets? Utopia?

Conflating 'free market' capitalism with liberty is naive. The two are unrelated.

>> ^BansheeX:

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/2
GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.

Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk
It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.

@Psychologic, David Frum is a fantastic counterexample (and the one I expected someone to raise when I made my initial comment). Yes, it was obviously hyperbole, and I'm sure that in a party as big as the Republican party is, you could dig until you found a reasonable person.

However, David Frum isn't actually employed by the Republican party anymore, nor is he particularly well known. He just lost his job at the conservative think tank he was working for, and it's pretty obvious that it was because of his recent criticisms of the Republican party's tactics. I interpret that as "he was too reasonable, so the Republicans severed ties with him".

I'm sure there are other reasonable retired Republicans, or former staff members, and present employees of conservative think tanks.

However, I will say that none of the Congressional leadership, none of the party leadership, and none of the media stars of the right are doing anything to tamp down the violent rhetoric. In fact, most of them seem to be trying to dial it up.

Mostly though, I thought that was wholly laughable that someone would hold up Glenn Beck as a voice of reason against the violence. Especially coming from someone who I have some respect for as a thoughtful and reasonable person!

>> ^choggie:
"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.
Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?
There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!


There is consensus on this, regardless of how it fits into your world view. No internationally recognized scientific body holds a dissenting view on the reality of climate change. Not that there aren't exaggerated claims, politics and falsehoods from those who support the science side of the argument, but their actions do not discredit any of the standing research or the overwhelming consensus that climate change is real.

You are correct in saying I am ignorant of the specifics (as are you), which is why I choose take my 'bullshit script' from the 'so called experts' who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate change. You are free to take your 'bullshit script' from 'non experts' if you like, but it comes at the cost of your credibility, and doubly so when you make goofball AlexJonesian claims about ENSLAVING THE WORLD!!!!1!!

On the surface, a phony global climate change scare would seem to be a pretty complicated and esoteric means of enslaving the world. Don't you think there might be better, more efficient ways of putting us all in bondage? Buying governments? Building high tech mercenary armies? Destroying economies and then offering aid at a large premium? Destroying democracy under the banner of 'individual rights' and then picking off those powerless 'individuals' one by one? Creating massive unemployment to exploit the existing labor force via supply and demand? Creating some kind of deadly plague with an expensive proprietary antidote? These are just off the top of my head, but all of them would seem to be simpler, more logical, more direct avenues for world enslavement. I don't know, I'm no expert on world slaving.

I've got some logical issues with the conspiracy theorists that maybe you can help me clear up:

-How can you 'follow the money' and end up siding with industrialist polluters who stand to lose a lot of money if they are forced to clean up their act?

-How were the masterminds of this nefarious plot able to coordinate and control the research of many thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades?

-How do you get from 'climate change' to world enslavement?

-Are the underpants gnomes somehow involved in this conspiracy?

1) Create a global climate change scare
2) ??????
3) Enslave the world

These conspiracy theories are vague, illogical and contradictory. In your response you throw out several possibilities a) It's real and caused solely by the sun (which is like saying tornadoes are caused solely by wind and have nothing to do with weather fronts) b) It's real and was intentionally created by the military (for some mysterious reason) c) It's a hoax to enslave the world through carbon taxes (but only polluting corporations pay these taxes).

It all comes out like a bunch of hastily though out nonsense, especially coming from someone who seems to think he has a monopoly on the truth. I'd love to hear an attempt to fashion these random bits into something vaguely plausible. Who might have engineered such a plot? How did they get the ball rolling? What was their overall plan from start to finish? How specifically might they parlay this into mass slavery? What do they intend to do with this massive slave force?

>> ^Matthu:
I don't get global warming. I can't separate the truth from the lies in this case. It seems to me it was just a few months ago that someone obtained all kinds of documents to show that the scientists leading the charge to deal with global we're actually forging lots of their evidence. Litterally. Isn't that what happened?



Nope, only in the twisted imaginations of Fox News

There were scandalous memos detailing how to trick journalists and science magazines and so on.
Then, I didn't hear much more about that. I didn't hear their defense. I didn't hear anyone's outrage at the lies etc.
Wtf happened with that?


Those attacking the memos, calling them scandalous, were lying. People who actually looked at the emails themselves found that claims of fudging evidence was completely unfounded. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Also, I've heard others say what Winston said about the scientists lying about global warming to keep their jobs. Sounds likely to me. Their GLOBAL WARMING scientists if global warming was proven untrue tomorrow they'd have no job. Seems like motivation to lie.


Stop going to Rush Linbaugh and Fox News for your "news". If you really follow the money there are billions of dollars spent by the oil and gas industry paid to ad agencies, think tanks, lobbyists, etc. The climate scientists salaries pale in comparison.

If you want the real news http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies

"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.

Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?

There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Why would anyone prefer your anonymous, overtly partisan opinion over decades of research and peer review from thousands of non-partisan scientists who do this for a living? If you want to change the opinion of the pro-science crowd, you need to first change scientific consensus, so get to work.
Alternately, you could look at where your information comes from (corporate think tanks, conservative blogs, public relations firms) and try and figure what ulterior motives they might have for opposing this single, specific aspect of science.
Pro tip: The people who tell you what to think may not have your best interests at heart.


In short what I think he is saying; follow the money.

If the money comes from charitable organizations and not corporations then the science may not be politicized.

^Why would anyone prefer your anonymous, overtly partisan opinion over decades of research and peer review from thousands of non-partisan scientists who do this for a living? If you want to change the opinion of the pro-science crowd, you need to first change scientific consensus, so get to work.

Alternately, you could look at where your information comes from (corporate think tanks, conservative blogs, public relations firms) and try and figure what ulterior motives they might have for opposing this single, specific aspect of science.

Pro tip: The people who tell you what to think may not have your best interests at heart.

I'd like to see this guy's emails.

If he's actually interested in science and transparency, and not just influencing public perceptions of climate science, he shouldn't have a problem handing them over.


==================================== ==================================================
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]

==================================== ==================================================

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

The first link is about a study that counts references to liberal vs conservative policy groups and think tanks in news stories between '95 and '05. It counts the NAACP as a liberal policy group. I don't think reporting on the NAACP indicates a liberal bias. The study removes context from all these references, so it really proves nothing. Fox News mentions ACORN every 7 seconds: does that mean they have a liberal slant?

The second link says nothing about bias. People can have a personal political opinion while working in an objective manner, such as judges.

The third link is a results grid for a large survey of journalists, and again none of those results show bias. I don't think a survey could even provide direct evidence of a bias.

The last link actually says that the majority of journalists are moderates--not that their political view would have proved bias anyway.

Maybe you don't understand what bias is, or what the complaints about Fox News are.