Proof Conservatives Know They're Done

[jan78]

It builds their name recognition, which turns into campaign volunteers and donations, which turns into them being portrayed as 'electable'.  They are not.

Indeed.  Elect me because I'm electable, basically.  Awe-inspiring.

[NowhereInTime]

Sure, they use fear. It's usually in reaction (or over reaction) to some policy or incident. That's a bit different than what you guys have set up. Say one politically incorrect thing at the water cooler and you get canned. Work is a place of fear. Go home and turn on the TV and the media bombards you with liberal fear. Home is also a place of fear. People are drenched in liberal fear and guilt from the time they wake up to the time they go to sleep.

How do liberals use fear???
Climate change?  Do you really think the idea of preparing for the change we are already witnessing is a "scare tactic"?  Do we need more Hurricane Katrina's?  Hurricance Irene's? Hurricane Sandy's?  How about Joplin tornado? California Wildfires and Washington Mudslides?  Want to see more people float away in the Red River?  Fall off the bridge on I-5?
You know, it disgusts me when conservatives wave off genuine concern for our planet's health with their contemptuous and cynical dismissal.  Great, you'll be dead in 50 years but what about your kids and grandkids?  Fuck'em?
During this whole financial crisis, who's been saying we need to spend stimulus to gear up the economy and who's been claiming that we'll head for an inflation explosion if we do? (and how's that coming along?)
Who always voices concern about "them" (Muslims, Communist China, gays, blacks, latino immigrants, etc, etc)?
You've got it backwards.  
Conservatives are always calling out and delineating differences between how they think life should be and how someone else lives. Conservatives are always trying to exclude based on gender, race, sexual preference. 
How you can possibly say this a liberal trait is mind boggling!?!  What liberal has ever had a message of exclusion?  Of exploitative difference?
Fiction author or not you can't just create your own universe and present it as fact.

[NowhereInTime]

Socialism sounds good.  It really does. 

I'm glad you agree.  Truth is, you will see ambitious people prosper even in a "socialist" system, you just won't see this disproportionate acquisition of wealth you see now.   You will see unambitious people game the system, much as they do now, but the upside is many of these people who currently turn to crime will be fairly fat and happy to sit home and shout "Jerry, Jerry." 

I know that makes your blood boil but the alternative (what we have now) is an insufferable amount of crime and drug activity that is rotting our nation from within. (Have you ever seen the schmucks on these shows?  They tape down in Stamford and several of my former crew members interned for Jerry/Wilkos/Maury and verified how ridiculous these people are.)
Our suburbs are being destroyed in a heroin crisis because kids today are overwhelmed with information and pressure to be self sufficient with so much debt and so little opportunity; many drop out and hide with Lady H.

Look, there are achievers and there are losers.  The key to really making prosperous people feel value in paying for the safety net is to see a country where crime subsides and the public doesn't hide behind locked doors or worry about that stranger on the corner. The key to making people in the safety net not feel left behind is help subsidize housing, food, and medical care so people aren't vengeful against society and/or tending towards criminality.

And maybe one of the keys to rebuilding our nation is a conservative idea that seems successful; charter schools.  I used to oppose them but have seen excellent results in the NY/NJ/CT area.  Perhaps, given how they close the achievement gap, we should examine them as an accessible alternative to traditional public schools.

[RealCool Daddio]

Socialism sounds good.  It really does. 

If you are in the middle class, it kicks ass:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-23/the-u-dot-s-dot-middle-class-cedes-gold-to-canada

[PB the Deplorable]

How do liberals use fear???...

Oh come on.

Everything from some little pukey agitator at work trying to get someone fired because they claim to be 'offended' or 'un-cum-fuh-bow', to the President of the United States siccing the IRS on his political opponents, to thuggy Occupy taking over public parks and terrorizing other people's downtowns.   

Please let me know if you need more examples


How about a few examples of scare tactics - everything from Rachel Carlson's 'Silent Spring', to 'global cooling', to 'global warming', to 'man-made' climate 'change'.  This is really about the Left shutting down industry and growing government.  On the way to Utopia and a totalitarian world government run by them.

They might want to stop crying 'wolf', because someday there really will be a catastrophe in the making and no one is going listen.  After all this fear mongering, the Left no longer gets or deserves the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, how many 3rd world kids have died from malaria since DDT got banned?  Millions.  How many Americans have died on our highways because of unsafe plastic cars due to Cafe standards?  Hundreds of thousands, if not more.

... climate change?  Do you really think the idea of preparing for the change we are already witnessing is a "scare tactic"?  Do we need more Hurricane Katrina's?  Hurricance Irene's? Hurricane Sandy's?  How about Joplin tornado? California Wildfires and Washington Mudslides?  Want to see more people float away in the Red River?  Fall off the bridge on I-5?...

Yeah, none of that ever happened until those damn bourgeoisie started heating their homes and driving cars

... During this whole financial crisis, who's been saying we need to spend stimulus to gear up the economy and who's been claiming that we'll head for an inflation explosion if we do? (and how's that coming along?)...

The stimulus didn't work.  It didn't do a thing except ratchet up the National Debt.  $5 Trillion dollars later and the recovery is one of the weakest on record, if not the weakest.  Keynesian 'solutions' exacerbate and lengthen the crisis (see FDR's extended Depression, Jimmy Carter's economy, Japan during the past 20 years) - what recovery we've had is due to the effects of Capitalism in the economy - it hasn't been completely destroyed yet.

We haven't had massive inflation due to the huge increase in the money supply yet because those new dollars are being warehoused - sitting in banks on deposit instead of out flowing through the economy.  Demand has been so weak those excess dollars haven't effected the economy.  Not yet.  Inflation begins as those dollars enter the economy.  A Central Bank that prints up the world's reserve currency has a lot of leeway and ability to manipulate currency in the short term.  We are still in the short term.

... Who always voices concern about "them" (Muslims, Communist China, gays, blacks, latino immigrants, etc, etc)?
You've got it backwards.  

Conservatives are always calling out and delineating differences between how they think life should be and how someone else lives. Conservatives are always trying to exclude based on gender, race, sexual preference. 
How you can possibly say this a liberal trait is mind boggling!?! ...

Conservatives want everyone to have the opportunity to be their best.  To the extent we discuss how other people live, yeah we don't want people to be criminals, we think they should put in the effort to become educated and support themselves and their families.  Other than that, we mind our own business.  A trait the Libs would make everyone else happy by emulating.


The people always putting everyone in categories, always counting noses, always spreading division, always using 'race' and the rest of it for political purposes - they are the racists.  They are the haters.  They are the ones pitting people against each other. 

The leaders of the modern Democrat party are no different than the old segregationists, they've just shifted gears.  Still oppressing, still dividing.  Still using race and any other way to divide us for their own gain.


The Muslems?  That's a different category - these people are no more compatible in a democracy than a cannibal would be. 

We are at war with Jihadist Islam - or to be more accurate, they are at war with us.  Until we can tell which are enemies and which are friends, we shouldn't be importing any of them.  We have very little to gain and much to lose.  They don't belong here.

The Democrats want the votes, want the customers (for their handout agencies), and want an issue to beat up the non-'Progressives' with.

... How you can possibly say this a liberal trait is mind boggling!?!  What liberal has ever had a message of exclusion?  Of exploitative difference?...

Anytime anyone disagrees with the Libs/'Progressives'/Left they go ape-shit with smears, lies, name calling, fear mongering, and all the rest.  They can't handle different opinions or ideas because deep down they know they are wrong.

Seems like just a few weeks ago some jackass New York politician said something about Conservatives having 'no place in New York'.  Talk about a message of exclusion.


If you need more examples, again, please let me know.  But it would probably save both of us time if you just scan the headlines for it first.

[PB the Deplorable]

... The key to making people in the safety net not feel left behind is help subsidize housing, food, and medical care so people aren't vengeful against society and/or tending towards criminality...

We've done this for 50 years.  It has failed miserably.

[NowhereInTime]

Oh come on.

Everything from some little pukey agitator at work trying to get someone fired because they claim to be 'offended' or 'un-cum-fuh-bow', to the President of the United States siccing the IRS on his political opponents, to thuggy Occupy taking over public parks and terrorizing other people's downtowns.   

Please let me know if you need more examples


How about a few examples of scare tactics - everything from Rachel Carlson's 'Silent Spring', to 'global cooling', to 'global warming', to 'man-made' climate 'change'.  This is really about the Left shutting down industry and growing government.  On the way to Utopia and a totalitarian world government run by them.

They might want to stop crying 'wolf', because someday there really will be a catastrophe in the making and no one is going listen.  After all this fear mongering, the Left no longer gets or deserves the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, how many 3rd world kids have died from malaria since DDT got banned?  Millions.  How many Americans have died on our highways because of unsafe plastic cars due to Cafe standards?  Hundreds of thousands, if not more.





Yeah, none of that ever happened until those damn bourgeoisie started heating their homes and driving cars




The stimulus didn't work.  It didn't do a thing except ratchet up the National Debt.  $5 Trillion dollars later and the recovery is one of the weakest on record, if not the weakest.  Keynesian 'solutions' exacerbate and lengthen the crisis (see FDR's extended Depression, Jimmy Carter's economy, Japan during the past 20 years) - what recovery we've had is due to the effects of Capitalism in the economy - it hasn't been completely destroyed yet.

We haven't had massive inflation due to the huge increase in the money supply yet because those new dollars are being warehoused - sitting in banks on deposit instead of out flowing through the economy.  Demand has been so weak those excess dollars haven't effected the economy.  Not yet.  Inflation begins as those dollars enter the economy.  A Central Bank that prints up the world's reserve currency has a lot of leeway and ability to manipulate currency in the short term.  We are still in the short term.


Conservatives want everyone to have the opportunity to be their best.  To the extent we discuss how other people live, yeah we don't want people to be criminals, we think they should put in the effort to become educated and support themselves and their families.  Other than that, we mind our own business.  A trait the Libs would make everyone else happy by emulating.


The people always putting everyone in categories, always counting noses, always spreading division, always using 'race' and the rest of it for political purposes - they are the racists.  They are the haters.  They are the ones pitting people against each other. 

The leaders of the modern Democrat party are no different than the old segregationists, they've just shifted gears.  Still oppressing, still dividing.  Still using race and any other way to divide us for their own gain.


The Muslems?  That's a different category - these people are no more compatible in a democracy than a cannibal would be. 

We are at war with Jihadist Islam - or to be more accurate, they are at war with us.  Until we can tell which are enemies and which are friends, we shouldn't be importing any of them.  We have very little to gain and much to lose.  They don't belong here.

The Democrats want the votes, want the customers (for their handout agencies), and want an issue to beat up the non-'Progressives' with.



Anytime anyone disagrees with the Libs/'Progressives'/Left they go ape-shit with smears, lies, name calling, fear mongering, and all the rest.  They can't handle different opinions or ideas because deep down they know they are wrong.

Seems like just a few weeks ago some jackass New York politician said something about Conservatives having 'no place in New York'.  Talk about a message of exclusion.


If you need more examples, again, please let me know.  But it would probably save both of us time if you just scan the headlines for it first.

First, to put it politely, your "examples" were more of your classic demagoguery unsubstantiated by any effort on your part.  "'un-cum-fuh-bow'" ?  This is substantiation? Despite Darrell Issa spending over $15 million of taxpayer dollars so far, any indictments on your IRS witch hunt?
And fucking Occupy, again.  Unreal.  What next, Alinsky?

"A Central Bank that prints up the world's reserve currency has a lot of leeway and ability to manipulate currency in the short term.  We are still in the short term."

Really?  Six years after Bear Stearns this is still "short term?"

And as to the "jackass" in New York?  That would be Governor Andrew Cuomo who wasn't saying conservatives weren't welcome in New York, but that conservative ideology wasn't welcomed by the New York voter.  But you should know this by now.

You guys are done.

How about this, 1st from the left:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/krugman-the-piketty-panic.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article

...then from the right:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/brooks-the-piketty-phenomenon.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article

When Brooks has to bring up the Inheritance tax as a way to stave of Capital tax, then you know you guys are done.

[NowhereInTime]

We've done this for 50 years.  It has failed miserably.

No, we really haven't. Not even close.  You guys keep gutting funding for food programs, education , nutrition assistance, housing assistance, workplace retraining, so none of these programs could ever flex muscle and really solve these incompatability issues you rave about.

[PB the Deplorable]

... And fucking Occupy, again.  Unreal...

What, we're supposed to forget about those assholes because Soros and Obama have them laying low for now?

[PB the Deplorable]

... And as to the "jackass" in New York?  That would be Governor Andrew Cuomo...

Correct

[PB the Deplorable]

No, we really haven't. Not even close.  You guys keep gutting funding for food programs, education , nutrition assistance, housing assistance, workplace retraining, so none of these programs could ever flex muscle and really solve these incompatability issues you rave about.

Nothing is ever cut.  A 'cut' in Washington DC - or any government handout program - is a reduction in the projected increase.

[Jackstar]

By the way, how many 3rd world kids have died from malaria since DDT got banned?

I am jumping in here, as I have never seen this idea before, and I wish to state categorically, that I am totally okay with millions of children dying, first, second, third, or eighty-fifth world, in order to prevent eggshells from being too thin.

Humans have thumbs. They can bounce back. DDT is amazingly toxic shit that has incalculably horrific effects on the environment.

Maybe they can use it in Fukushima now...

[SciFiAuthor]

I am jumping in here, as I have never seen this idea before, and I wish to state categorically, that I am totally okay with millions of children dying, first, second, third, or eighty-fifth world, in order to prevent eggshells from being too thin.

Humans have thumbs. They can bounce back. DDT is amazingly toxic shit that has incalculably horrific effects on the environment.

Maybe they can use it in Fukushima now...

Much of the DDT science has been proven to be junk or in error. The main points against DDT were as follows:

1. Cancer. Disproven categorically. To achieve results in lab mice they had to crank up the amounts of DDT to ten times that which would be present in normal ingestion during its use to produce a tumor. However, they were not able to see similar effects in rats and dogs. The US government itself realized the problematic nature of these studies and inconsistent or lack of effect in later studies and declared that there is no clear evidence that DDT exposure causes cancer in 2002.

2. The birds. The funny thing about the bird scare was that during the time of heaviest DDT use, the Audubon society was reporting record numbers of birds, in some cases species quadrupling. The only real effect DDT seemed to cause was eggshell thinning, and even that's been in question. However, the amounts of DDT needed for malaria control are far less than the amounts that were being sprayed in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. The eggshell issue is a drastically overstated problem that is solved with lower amounts.

3. All life in the oceans could die from DDT. This was an outright lie. The study at the heart of that claim was done by Dr. Charles Wurster, co-founder of he Environmental Defense Fund. He claimed to show that 500 ppb of DDT in seawater would cause phytoplankton to cease photosynthesis and presumably eventually all life on earth would go extinct as a result. There's a problem though, the maximum solubility of DDT in sea water is 1.2 ppb, meaning that his measurement was physically impossible. To get the measurement he had to use a saltwater/alcohol medium for the experiment that isn't present in nature. Alcohol also kills phytoplankton. Of course that didn't stop the environmentalists from screaming the study at the top of their lungs and governments writing policy on it.

The fact is, because of the problems with the studies, DDT would not be banned if it weren't for a single leftwing scare book, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. The vast majority of the studies she cited were distortions of the actual research, and she even made the claim that there would be no more robins within a mere few years even as the Audubon Society was reporting a twelvefold population increase in robins. People in high places bought it, the WHO found it to be a way around concern for dramatic population increases in Africa due to the control of malaria and out came the ban and the subsequent withdrawal of funding for malaria eradication and economic sanctions imposed on those countries that still used it.

This one liberal policy based on shaky science destroyed the single biggest global public health advance ever and has contributed to the deaths of millions, particularly in Africa, needlessly.

[Jackstar]

Do you also have an apologist's essay for the neonicotinoids that are killing all the bees?

[SciFiAuthor]

How do liberals use fear???

Did you mean it as a joke to say that, and then back it up with a paragraph full of fear mongering?

Climate change?  Do you really think the idea of preparing for the change we are already witnessing is a "scare tactic"?  Do we need more Hurricane Katrina's?  Hurricance Irene's? Hurricane Sandy's?  How about Joplin tornado? California Wildfires and Washington Mudslides?  Want to see more people float away in the Red River?  Fall off the bridge on I-5?

Already witnessing? It's been four of the mildest years on record for hurricanes.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2013-hurricane-season-ranks-nearly-least-intense/18392996

It's been so mild so that the upcoming IPCC report has to deal with explaining why the near-term projections from 2007 didn't pan out and why we didn't see more severe hurricane seasons.

Damaging hurricanes weren't invented yesterday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1715_Treasure_Fleet

That's the story of a hurricane that hit a Spanish fleet off Florida in 1715. Here is the story of the exact same scenario happening in 1733:

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

If a double whammy like that happened now, you'd chalk it up to global warming. Unfortunately it happened in the 18th century, so you can't claim it.

So yeah, occasionally a hurricane hits a city, but hurricanes are a natural phenomenon indigenous to Earth. So are tornados, I live in tornado alley and have for some time and we've always had tornados. Sometimes they hit cities. That's earth for you. California has always had wildfires. Actually, pre-civilization, fires were far more common and a natural part of the environment. What was unnatural is fire suppression:

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

You know, it disgusts me when conservatives wave off genuine concern for our planet's health with their contemptuous and cynical dismissal.  Great, you'll be dead in 50 years but what about your kids and grandkids?  Fuck'em?

It's precisely because you're out to fuck over everyone's kids (or kill them off with DDT bans) that we oppose you. You want them to live a lesser life to be sustainable. There's no reason to make them do that.

During this whole financial crisis, who's been saying we need to spend stimulus to gear up the economy and who's been claiming that we'll head for an inflation explosion if we do? (and how's that coming along?)

And how did that stimulus work out for you? It appeared not to work at all, and as far as inflation, well, just as soon as those banks we were talking about cut loose the capital then you'll see it.

Who always voices concern about "them" (Muslims, Communist China, gays, blacks, latino immigrants, etc, etc)?

I've been voicing concern about environmentalist-driven damage being done to the third world for years. Your ideologues are ass raping Africa, and you always turn a blind eye when I bring it up and back it up. Look, to create sustainability and a better environment you MUST address population numbers. What you don't realize is that your people are doing just that worldwide.

You've got it backwards.  
Conservatives are always calling out and delineating differences between how they think life should be and how someone else lives. Conservatives are always trying to exclude based on gender, race, sexual preference.

While mostly a talking point with questionable validity, you've combatted it with blacklisting and job environment fear. Like I said, in the cubicle world, say one wrong thing at the water cooler and you get canned. People live in fear when they go to work. They fear that someone will call them a sexist, racist, global warming denier, or offender of gay people and they'll lose their job. You created that climate. Fear keeps the cubicle people in line.

Then they go home and turn on the television for another healthy dose of fear from the liberals. You are out to keep people in a state of fear from the moment they awake to the moment they go to sleep.

How you can possibly say this a liberal trait is mind boggling!?!  What liberal has ever had a message of exclusion?  Of exploitative difference?

You yourself border on exclusion with your white male hegemony madness.

Fiction author or not you can't just create your own universe and present it as fact.

Well, I did used to be a cubicle person. You've got those people so scared shitless that it's not even funny. We're all going to die from global warming. You'll never work in this town again if you offend liberal sensibilities. You'll vote the way the union says. It's all fear. Fear, fear, fear.

[SciFiAuthor]

Do you also have an apologist's essay for the neonicotinoids that are killing all the bees?

I'm aware of the problem and it wouldn't surprise me that a broadband insecticide would kill bees. They are insects, after all. So if the studies are legitimately done and it's found to be a problem  then we have plenty of other options in regards to agricultural insecticides. We had no such thing after the DDT ban and it killed millions needlessly. 

[Jackstar]

it killed millions needlessly.

Had they lived, what would those millions of people have eaten? Oh--the increased agricultural production from using DDT in the first place, I suppose.

Carry on, carry on. Buzz buzz buzz.

[PB the Deplorable]

I am jumping in here, as I have never seen this idea before, and I wish to state categorically, that I am totally okay with millions of children dying, first, second, third, or eighty-fifth world, in order to prevent eggshells from being too thin.

Humans have thumbs. They can bounce back. DDT is amazingly toxic shit that has incalculably horrific effects on the environment.

Maybe they can use it in Fukushima now...

Beware the phony 'science' of the Left.

[SciFiAuthor]

Had they lived, what would those millions of people have eaten? Oh--the increased agricultural production from using DDT in the first place, I suppose.

Carry on, carry on. Buzz buzz buzz.

Increased agricultural production period. Remember, the world recently absorbed biofuel mandates without starvation ensuing. That would suggest that we have greater capacity than is widely believed. Enormous tracts of land that could be used for food production are used currently for cotton, tobacco, and other crops that aren't eaten.

Scare mongers have periodically predicted that we'd hit carrying capacity since Malthus invented the scientific scare book two hundred years ago. We never have because the scare mongers never take into account that mankind has the ability to problem solve.

[Jackstar]

I would have gone with, "they would have eaten US," but sure, your answer is okay too. More humans and thinner eggshells appears to be a problem that you can see being readily solved, okay, who am I to argue? I don't own Africa--the Queen does.

[SciFiAuthor]

I would have gone with, "they would have eaten US," but sure, your answer is okay too. More humans and thinner eggshells appears to be a problem that you can see being readily solved, okay, who am I to argue? I don't own Africa--the Queen does.

Well, cannibalism works in a pinch. I just don't buy into the big scares. The whole overpopulation thing too goes back to a single science scare book, "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. It was a best seller in the 60's and started this weird idea that we were near the point of overpopulation. Every prediction Ehrlich made in that book turned out to be flat wrong but the idea persists.

I don't think anyone knows what that number actually is given that technological development has always seemed to keep pace and solve the problems before they become problems. Personally, I don't think we'll ever see overpopulation because the trend of the world is towards affluence globally. It's well observed that as affluence rises birth rates plummet. Our own rising affluence will solve the problem for us and then someone will write a scare book about coming economically painful and socially chaotic population contractions. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Well, cannibalism works in a pinch. I just don't buy into the big scares. The whole overpopulation thing too goes back to a single science scare book, "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. It was a best seller in the 60's and started this weird idea that we were near the point of overpopulation. Every prediction Ehrlich made in that book turned out to be flat wrong but the idea persists.

I don't think anyone knows what that number actually is given that technological development has always seemed to keep pace and solve the problems before they become problems. Personally, I don't think we'll ever see overpopulation because the trend of the world is towards affluence globally. It's well observed that as affluence rises birth rates plummet. Our own rising affluence will solve the problem for us and then someone will write a scare book about coming economically painful and socially chaotic population contractions.

At one point it was 'settled science'

[SciFiAuthor]

At one point it was 'settled science'

Oh I know. And even though it's thoroughly discredited now (Ehrlich really shouldn't have predicted that we were going to run out of aluminum before 1990) he still enjoys such prestige among the liberal intelligentsia that his co-author, protégé and fellow mankind hater John Holdren is Obama's science czar.

[onan]

... then someone will write a scare book about coming economically painful and socially chaotic population contractions.

Didn't Buchanan already do that?

[SciFiAuthor]

Didn't Buchanan already do that?

Yep. "The Death of the West" is just such a scientific scare book. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Just for fun, I'll toss out another big scare. This one originated with the eminent Carl Sagan and a group of climate scientists who alarmingly predicted in 1991 that Saddam Hussein's troops lighting the oil wells on fire in Kuwait could cause a catastrophe on level with a nuclear winter and destroy agriculture in Asia, possibly globally.

Well, they lit them and nothing of the sort happened. Sagan attributed it to the smoke not going high enough.

But that wasn't satisfying either. The funny thing is, Mt. Pinatubo released ten times as much sulfur dioxide as the oil well fires and did go high enough and dropped global temperatures by .9 degrees Fahrenheit, threw as much dust in the atmosphere as a regional nuclear war would, caused a 10 percent drop in solar irradiation over the course of several months and . . . . . get ready for it . . . . . global agriculture was entirely unaffected. Other than the direct effects on those near the volcano, the main effect on the rest of the world was spectacular sunsets.

That called the hypothesis of nuclear winter itself into question. Well, most of you are old enough to remember how the anti-nuclear crowd scared the shit out of us with that one. I remember seeing "The Day After" as a kid in the 80's and being scared out of my gourd for weeks.

So the next time someone blasts out fear in the name of science, remember Carl Sagan's folly. Or, if you really must continue on freaking out about the atmosphere, remember how in the 80's and 90's they told us that eggs were deadly and you damned nearly could expect a heart attack if you ate them. Now they tell us they're an excellent source of Omega-3 fatty acids and that one a day is just ducky. Science is dynamic, and it doesn't always get it right the first time.

[Jackstar]

I'm fully with you on the inanity of Sagan's overblown claims there, and certainly, on the clear fact that big scares are a wearisome canard of modern media culture.

However, you are not selling me on DDT as this wonder chemical with a bad rap. What's next, crystal meth in the water fountains in primary school?

Hey wait a minute... Numfar! Do the dance of joy!


Another idea that I have heard bandied about is that the number of humans that Earth was "designed to support" is ten billion. Supposedly, had that target been achieved sometime before 2000-2012, a different course would have been chosen. Instead, we are, where we are.

Of course, I have no evidence for this yarn, but it does seem utterly plausible and thoroughly rational. If I were making a planet with beings with ten fingers, and there were ten planets...

Anyway, we've got seven billion and change, mostly living in sordid squalor, right? I think if we planned our cities wisely, all human physiological wants and needs could easily be provided for.

Hang on though, let me finish building and playing with the attack systems and defense weapons. Wait! What's that? SQUIRREL!!!

[SciFiAuthor]

I'm fully with you on the inanity of Sagan's overblown claims there, and certainly, on the clear fact that big scares are a wearisome canard of modern media culture.

They get worse, you should see Greenpeace's opposition to ITER. They either flat out don't know the difference between fission and fusion or they don't want the advancement of humanity through the development of limitless energy.

However, you are not selling me on DDT as this wonder chemical with a bad rap. What's next, crystal meth in the water fountains in primary school?

I'm simply stating that there is ample evidence that the science behind the ban was questionable. The ban resulted in a serious detriment to malaria eradication--one that cost a whole lot of lives in Africa--and I want that justified. Your environmentalists made that claim, the claim became policy, and then the claim was called into serious question afterward after a lot of people died. Now you guys don't seem to want to own the science done since the ban, but that's not objective. Well, that's not how the world works. You need to tell me why this case of global malpractice occurred, where the flaws in your system were, and how you fixed them. I see no evidence that you have fixed them, you continue to hold some seriously anti-humanist ideology, and I believe you liberals owe Africa some reparations for it.

After all, you yourself stated that you don't give a shit how many people die to save the earth. Well, that's justifiable if the problem is sufficiently threatening. But it doesn't appear that it was. That shifts the line from pragmatism to murder. Justify it. The blood is on your hands. Let's not wait a century for reparations. Justify it.

Hey wait a minute... Numfar! Do the dance of joy!

I prefer the dance of the well-mixed martini.

Another idea that I have heard bandied about is that the number of humans that Earth was "designed to support" is ten billion. Supposedly, had that target been achieved sometime before 2000-2012, a different course would have been chosen. Instead, we are, where we are.

Yes, I heard that too. But that line has been continually revised upwards for 200 years. Malthus had his own number before he insisted that a Malthusian correction would certainly occur. It didn't, agricultural technology improved faster than he had anticipated. He was wrong. But politicians listened to him, Malthusian ideas were cited when Britain wouldn't send food relief to Ireland during the potato famine. They were overpopulated and all. No, actually their spuds had a disease that we've now cured and they're thriving. The end result is that the Irish are largely no longer British because the British Government's response to the famine fucking sucked, and it's now unlikely Ireland will ever see a famine again. Human reason saved them, but it doesn't erase the fact that Malthus made a scare claim, the British Government bought it, and the governments of the time left a million people to starve for their own good in the name of population sustainability.

Well, here we are today, 150 years later. The same old Malthusian claims and a much faster rate of technological development. Yet you're willing to buy that we won't solve our problems through technology?

Of course, I have no evidence for this yarn, but it does seem utterly plausible and thoroughly rational. If I were making a planet with beings with ten fingers, and there were ten planets...

Anyway, we've got seven billion and change, mostly living in sordid squalor, right? I think if we planned our cities wisely, all human physiological wants and needs could easily be provided for.

Actually, the third world has done nothing but improve. I spent time in Honduras last year. Sure, it's a shithole still. But everyone had an Iphone. If you don't believe that anecdote, look at the performance China's economy over the last two decades. Affluence is globally rising.

Hang on though, let me finish building and playing with the attack systems and defense weapons. Wait! What's that? SQUIRREL!!!

Putin aside, the world's done nothing but get more peaceful. It's no longer a matter of governments nuking each other (or at least wasn't before this year) but a matter of anti-government terrorists planting localized bombs while their governments fought them. Putin aside again, I believe it can be demonstrated that the old nation states fighting each other on a grand scale is largely over. It's now a matter of dissidents fighting their own governments. Well, that's a whole hell of a lot better than WWII.

[Jackstar]

Oh man. It is on like Donkey Kong.

But I gotta get to a keyboard for that. And pack a lunch. 

[pate]

...the smoke not going high enough.

But that wasn't satisfying either....

Apologies for drumping, er drunking, er JUMPING into this thread or something...

Anyhow, I saw some talk about DDT and millions not being able to eat...  I was wondering if anyone mentioned the rise of malaria in third-world countries since the global ban on DDT...

My great uncle had some sort of spray can from the pre-DDTban days, think RAID flying insect killer... anyhow, he probably had more than one, but the one that we got to play with sure knocked those persnickety southern flying roaches right out of the sky, but the tree-frogs around still managed to find things to eat...

Anyhow, I think directed application of DDT to control specific insect outbreaks, be they mosquitos in marshes in general, or crop destroying bugs in particular was pretty effective...

With that, I continue my search for some smoke to take me high enough...