DanG

Sure there was provoking. That doesn't mean that the provokers were at fault for what happened after that. The troops should have been better led, better trained, and shown restraint. Frankly, the military is often not the best at crowd control, that's not what soldiers (outside of MPs) are training to do. The infantry is trained to kill people and blow stuff up, and that's unfortunately what they did. You can't blame the shooting on anybody except the shooters. - Dan G

I wouldn't shoot other people who weren't throwing things. I'm fairly certain of that. The Kent State thing was a giant cock-up, and there really is no excuse for the actions of the National Guard soldiers that day. And I'm talking from the Governor all the way down the chain. - Dan G

It's an interesting article, and I really don't see why anyone who actually understood it woud view her words negatively. I was most intrigued by the comments below it. The first one (when I read it, others may have been posted since) essentially said, "I don't understand what she is saying, but it clearly means that Kagan is a communist." People are stupid. - Dan G

How did you know, while driving by, that these men were being arrested for being illegal immigrants? - Dan G

That's choice 1 (just spun to get a dig in). So if you don't think carbon is a problem, and shouldn't be regulated/taxed/controlled, what were you talking about when you said cap and trade would take money that should be going to schools, roads, and cities, and giving it to Al Gore, et al.? Are you just saying that if you don't make businesses pay for carbon output they will make a larger profit and then pay more in taxes? I'm tired of guessing what you're thinking. Help me out here. - Dan G

Only if you immigrated. If you are born here you can speak whatever language you want. The problem I have with this bill is that it doesn't just allow the cops the check citizenship, it requires the officer to check if he suspects that a person is illegal. Cops are basically being told that they had better check everyone. This logically turns into a requirement for everyone to be able to prove citizenship at all times. Show me your papers, comrade. - Dan G

I fail to see how giving you a ticket for something you admit doing is being a douchebag. If the cop gave you a ticket for something you didn't do, then that is douchy. Running over a child because you were speeding (like the cop in the OP) is certainly douchy, regardless of who does it. BTW, I log about 600 miles a week commuting. I usually drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit, but I never tailgate, and never weave through traffic. I'm also not under the impression that putting 30k+ miles per year on my car makes me Dale Earnhart brought back to life. Slow down, the life you save may be a 4 year old child's. - Dan G

You've really lost me. I'm not sure how shcools, roads, and cities got into the debate. As I see it there are three choices: 1. Carbon is not a problem, carbon producers should be allowed to pump as much as they want into the atmosphere. 2. Carbon is a problem, we should regulate it, but not through cap and trade. 3. Carbon is a problem, we should regulate it through cap and trade. Is there a fourth choice that I don't see? If so, what is it? If not, which choice above do you fall under? - Dan G

Did you read the linked article? It's really short, and no big words. - Dan G

There's nothing of any substance regarding cap and trade in that article. It just talks about some of the people who have invested in a voluntary cap and trade market, and implies that each of them is a baddie. All fluff, no meat. Do you have any substantive objections, or is it just, "Gore and Obama like it, and Glen Beck tells me its bad?" - Dan G

Great. Then you should have no problem with a plan that protects our valuable natural resources, and improves public safety, and reduces the demand on the military. And if you want to call buying carbon credits a tax, then it still fits just fine into your worldview. I'm glad we can agree that cap and trade is a good plan. - Dan G

I suppose if you want to charaterize every amount of money paid to a government entity as a tax, then it is a tax. Of course, that is a lousy definition. When you pay a tax, you don't receive a valuable good or service in return. When you buy a carbon credit, you do. You can turn around and resell that credit at whatever price the market will bear. You can't do that with your tax return. To look at it another way, I went to a public university. I never considered my tuition to be a tax because I received a valuable service in return. If you want to call my tuition a tax, then I suppose buying carbon credits is a tax, but I think you're stretching the definition for rhetorical purposes. - Dan G

Could that be because you are white? - Dan G

Two people quoting from the Bible is "attacking Christianity"? Is your faith really that vulnerable? SIUC. - Dan G

This American Life on NPR recently aired a show devoted to the history of the change in the DSM regarding homosexuality. It was very interesting. I'll not try to recount the whole thing, but it was not an overnight change, and there was plenty of evidence to back the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. It was obviously a very charged debate, and some psychiatrists still feel homosexuality itself is a disease. On the other hand, a psychiatrist assisting with an orientation change today would be considered to be committing malpractice. - Dan G

Can't watch streaming video at work, so no, I'll go ahead and disagree without seeing it. And just because I haven't seen this particular video clip doesn't mean I'm living in a cave. Do you disagree with what I said, or are you just picking at nits? - Dan G

Of course you are right, the carbon credit market would be created by regulation. It is not exactly orange juice, since ultimately people buy orange juice to drink. But do you really think that commodities markets are not already maintained by the government? Why is government paying farmers not to farm? Is that capitalism? We haven't ever had pure capitalism, and I'm pretty sure no one with any sense wants it anyway. The only role the government would have in the carbon market is deciding how many credits are available at any given time. Pretty much like the currency markets that exist today. There is absolutely no demand for currency today, except that businesses are required to trade in money to avoid taxes and other penalties. The carbon market would be just as artificial as the currency market. Carbon credits would be like the dollar bills in your wallet. You can trade them for other things, and if you don't need them, you can sell them to someone else. You don't want to go back to the barter system, do you? (Yes, I realize it is not a perfect parallel, but I'm just trying to show that the carbon market is no more artificial than other markets in existence today) - Dan G

I never disputed that energy costs would rise in the short term. I disputed Rookie's notion that every business would have to buy carbon credits. And yes, if a small business can't make a product for the cost people are willing to pay, then they won't make a profit. I would argue that if everyone's costs go up (as you state), then the competitive advantage will go to the more efficient company, as it should be. Why so down on capitalism? The exportation of jobs to China and India is a separate (although arguably related) problem. Giving American business free reign to pollute as they wish hasn't kept American jobs here so far. Maybe we need a better strategy to deal with that problem. - Dan G

So, the only test for a pollutant is whether or not you can tolerate it in the air you breathe without keeling over instantly? If that's your test, there are only a very few things that are pollutants. VX nerve agent comes to mind. Chlorine gas is obviously not a pollutant, since I eat salt all the time, and it has chlorine in it. Anything I can put in my body, in any form, and not die in minutes is not a pollutant. Got it. Well argued. - Dan G

Reading comprehension much? It's not a tax. It is a purchase of a valuable good for due consideration. That's what an auction is. Capitalism, apparently you don't like it much. Small business that don't emit substantial amounts of carbon won't need to buy carbon credits. If they do emit lots of carbon, then they are either not that small, or they need to factor the cost of that carbon into their manufacturing budget. Um, no. There's that pesky capitalism again. You should move to China, you'd be happier there. 1. I already said there would be anti-monopoly rules, just like any other industry. 2. A small machine shop would have no need for carbon credits. See above. Wow, you are really all about the workers. Again, China sounds like your kind of place. Workers of the world unite! Most DZ's (if not all DZ's) would not need to purchase carbon credits. How is cap and trade a free ride? Or is that just the party line that you are contracturally obligated the spew at least once per post? - Dan G

The way the plan should be implemented, in my opinion, is that a defined number of carbon credits will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Those winners now own the credits, and can trade them as they wish. There would have to be anti-monopoly restrictions just like in every other industry, but the government would not "hand out" the credits. In my plan, the money raised by the auction would go directly into debt repayment. Would that satisfy your concerns? - Dan G

Who said it would save the planet? Really, I'm asking for a specific person who claimed that cap and trade's goal is to "save the planet". I doubt anyone in any position of authority has actually made that statement. It sounds to me like something Beck would claim a supporter said just to make them sound loony. Cap and trade will help reduce carbon emmissions. It will be good for the ecology of the planet (not "save the planet"), and also good for the long term economy and energy independence of the US. That's enough for me. - Dan G

Cap and trade treats carbon emmissions as a commodity. It's like freaking orange juice. You want more, you buy more from others who want less. It is as pure as capitalism can get. Why do you hate capitalism? - Dan G

Is this really the best you're got? I didn't see the clip, but the best the obviously biased blogger can do is take one line and build an argument about racial division out of it? And you just jump on the bandwagon? I'm disappointed. What I understand Obama's point to be is that young people, Latinos, and whoever else he mentioned, were energized to vote in 2008, but apparently lost that energy in the off year elections. What wrong with Obama calling for them to get involved again? It's not racism, it just encouraging people who voted for you to vote again. That's just common sense. Tempest in a teacup, but I understand that there is a need to keep a constant stream of anti-Obama threads running. I just wish some of them had some substance about real issues. - Dan G

Let's stretch our metaphor legs, shall we? Everytime this guy named Bob walks out his front door, the peope on the block throw rocks at him. He always had bruises, cuts, scrapes, etc. He goes to see Dr. Ron, who says with great authority, "Well, Bob, clearly your behavior of choosing to walk out your front door is your problem. If you just choose to stay inside, all your problems will be solved." In your world, the bumps and bruises are the problem. In actuality, the problem is the people outside, who can't just let Bob live his life in peace. - Dan G