NorthSideSox72

In a seperate thread, there was much debate about the opt-in fire protection scheme in place in a rural TN community. One aspect I brought into that discussion was the potential conflict the rules might have with Duty to Act laws. I do not know what the Duty to Act laws are in Tennessee, I am only familiar with them in the states where I have carried an EMT license. I've actually taught CPR and basic first aid, years ago, and one of the topics I discussed was the two action laws regarding rendering aid - Duty to Act, and Good Samaritan. Virtually every state has some version of both of those. One, Duty to Act, requires certain individuals (some or all of Doctors, Paramedics/EMT's, Nurses, Cops, etc.) to render aid when someone is in need. Good Samaritan laws are there to protect individuals not "on duty", usually regardless of medical background, in instances where they voluntarily render aid (protected, meaning, from legal liability, except in cases of gross negligence or reckless abandonment). In the case of one state (Alaska), Duty to Act actually extends to ALL citizens of the state, requiring them to render whatever assistance they can. So, here is the topic for debate... how do you feel about Duty to Act laws? Should people be required to render aid by law? Should it only cover doctors? Paramedics/EMT's? All citizens? Where does privilege that goes with licensure end, and paternalistic law begin? Should it even be a states issue, or should it be federal?

Also AD, let's follow your theory that this is about publish or perish. Part of finding subject matter and theories to explore for scientists in any field, is breaking ground. At this point, since the vast, vast majority of science sees climate change is real and at least partially anthropogenic, simply restating that fact isn't breaking new ground. So, your theory actually points to scientists NOT wanting to go along with the wave. Instances of intentional mistatement are rare at best.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) YEs. When climatolgists get data showing a half degree rise, they start cherry picking and ignoring data unitl they get a 4 degree rise because that sounds scarier. They been caught doing stuff like that so many times that anyone who was sceptical to begin with just doesnt' believe anythign they say anymore. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:29 PM) You may only see one if you have your head buried in the sand. I don't deny the fact that there are some changes noted. I dispute the severity of them and the honesty of most of the people delivering them. Too many agendas and too much money involved. Yet you seem to not see, or care, that many of the most vocal proponents for your position either lied, exagerated or rellied on data that was not entirely accurate, and what is worse, don't care that they did so. I found this an interesting read. http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/re...ysical-society/ This is pretty strident, and overstated. So many times? Most are dishonest? Come on now.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 05:08 PM) To each their own. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but you clearly have a group of fans (greg) that will forever be content with 2005. For me, 2005 raised the bar. I expect and want more because of 2005. 1 playoff appearance since then is unacceptable to me. Pretty sure I said in that post, I want more. I've also made clear in inumerable posts the specific things that pissed me off about this 2010 team - there was plenty to be mad about. I just want people to avoid hyperbole and jumping off a cliff over it. QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 05:38 PM) Thank you. I want to slash my wrists when I hear, "Well, with everything that went wrong this year, we still won 88 games." "A little retooling and will be just fine". Just like after 2006. "Hey, our entire pitching staff fell apart and we still won 90 games." A full offseason of rest didn't help much in 2007. 2006-2007 is a good point, sort of, but let's see what the offseason brings. I'll say this for the 3rd time at least... how this team looks in April will depend mostly on money. If the team is allowed to increase payroll a little bit, then I think the "a little retooling and we will be fine" thing is pretty accurate. If it goes down, especially by a lot, then unless KW pulls about 4 rabbits out of his hat, 2011 will be a non-contending year.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:29 PM) You mean 2001 when KW took over? And yeah, caulfield likes to remind us plenty that we're in the top 5 or so in games won since then. Only numbers that matter for me are 2/10. Our playoff ratio in a division that doesn't feature the Yankees or Red Sox. It all matters. 1 championship - only, what, 3 other AL teams have that? 2 playoff appearances, or 3 if you count 2000 - how many there? Not sure, probably less than half. Wins? Probably still top 5. Years in contention late in the season? All but one that I recall, maybe two. Probably only a few teams there. Any way you look at it, the idea that this organization hasn't been successful under KW is hilarious to me. Do I want more? Of course I do! But let's have some perspective here. QUOTE (Real @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:44 PM) 2009 version 2.0 How'd that work out for you, KenKen Twins wrap this up easily in 2011 if we're starting guys like Castro/Flowers, Quentin, and Viciedo LOL, yea, a 79 win season is the same as an 88 win season.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 01:47 PM) Nothing of note here. We're always in win now mode. We just don't win nearly enough. Trivia question... since 2000 when KW took over, which teams in the AL have won more games than the Sox? Which ones have gone to the playoffs more often? There are some of course, but I think you'll find its not all that many.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) What a joke of a post. Why even bother wasting anyone's time? I don't think he was saying Balta is lying, he was talking about the method of discussion at the margins. But maybe I misunderstood.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) ANd yet he is saying 'I don't have to prove thier guilt, they have to prove thier innocence'. I wonder who is next on the Obama admin hit list. He is making Nixon's enemies list look weak by comparrison. Going to go down as the most petty President in history. Well that's a bit much - most petty? Anyway, the real solution to all of this is real campaign finance reform, which seems unlikely. This is one of the few true failings of the Constitution, leaving the financing of campaigns in the hands of the campaigners. Not that I blame the framers, because they probably couldn't have forseen this, but its a serious hen house problem that needs to be addressed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) I'm aware of that...but the reason I chimed in on this is that I read through the discussion and saw you specifically adopting one of their talking points in the bolded text without noting why it is invalid. That's how misinformation spreads. What? I didn't adpot a talking point, I specifically and clearly brought up the talking point versions of both extremes, and said that in a vacuum, each is silly. The only ones spreading misinformation are you and anyone else characterizing my words as something they were clearly not. Why is it so damn hard for people to understand being reasonable on this topic?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 02:08 PM) Jake Tapper, ABC: TAPPER: But what do you say to people who argue you are demonizing an organization for a charge that nobody knows if it’s true or not? AXELROD: Well I’m not demonizing the Chamber of Commerce. I’m simply suggesting to them that they disclose the source of the $75 million that they are spending in campaigns and put to rest, put to rest the questions that have been, that have been raised. TAPPER: Isn’t that like the whackjobs that tell the president he needs to show them his full long-form birth certificate so he can put to rest the questions that have been raised? AXELROD: The president’s birth certificate has been available to people. TAPPER: The long form? Absolutely assinine that this is in the news. But, you have to rally the base somehow, despite how patently dishonest and slimy you look. I agree, it is assinine that we still have people bringing up Obama's birth certificate.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 01:58 PM) "stop ruining the environment" isnt a valid rejection of "it will cost too much". I think that is what nss is trying to say. Yes, that is part of what I was trying to say. You can't take either of those quotes and run with them, you have to see both sides. And Balta says that below - in a very general sense, costs are high, but costs of inaction are similarly high... QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 02:15 PM) Let me see if I can articulate the disconnect here and why it is frustrating the "damnit do something!" side here. I want to highlight a few bits of this post in particular. Now, there are 2 problems here with the statement I've bolded that should be challenged specifically. First and foremost...the science tells us that there are going to be massive climactic issues in every country, not just the united states. A person who states that spending a trillion dollars on solving this problem is a rough decision is correct. However...the counterpoint is that choosing to do nothing on the problem does not equal choosing to spend nothing. Quoting a trillion dollar cost to doing something is a strong argument for doing nothing, but that is only the case if the cost for doing nothing is also zero. Between changing rain patterns, droughts, sudden inabilities to grow crops, massive losses of habitats and biodiversity, hell even small things like "all of the water here is too hot for me to use to cool my nuclear reactor any more"...the losses associated with Climate change are potentially at least the same order of magnitude as the costs associated with fixing the problem. The costs of fixing it are huge. The costs of doing nothing are equally huge and cannot be neglected in this discussion. The country is in a difficult financial position yes...so why are we prepared to spend hundreds billions of dollars on disaster recovery and potentially trillions on adapting our society? The answer is...the status quo is assumed to cost nothing, and this is simply untrue. Second...the other implicit assumption is that the costs of doing something, especially in the short term, are high. Study after study shows that there is still significant low-hanging fruit, in terms of energy efficiency, that could be brought online right now that would actually save people and businesses money over the next 10 years. That's the other reason why my side gets frustrated when people talk about the cost of solving climate change; the other side doesn't get frustrated by wasting money on energy in a dozen different ways, but gets extremely angry when the government steps in to try to do something about that waste. But I again feel like I am being shadow boxed here. You highlight my statement and say you disagree, yet... you agree. I'm saying you can't just go full boat on this, and you say there is low hanging fruit - that is not an argument, that is agreement. You say that climate change will effect all countries, and have large scale effect - I said the same thing. You are really arguing with the "do nothing" and "it doesn't exist" crowd, not me.

Unfortunately, very few musicians outside opera/classical sing in my range (bass/baritone), so I can't sound like any of them. Well, except that guy from the Crash Test Dummies - I can do their songs pretty spot on.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) I think that even on the economic level, "stop ruining the environment" is a winner. If we don't spend the money now to address the issue, it's going to cost us much more down the road. Not necessarily in terms of technological implementation, but in terms of lost or destroyed economic opportunities (loss of fisheries, droughts, floods, etc.). But I don't think "it will cost too much" is a valid rejection of "stop ruining the environment", even if that is a net economic loser. You're still doing it. Read my posts, and then tell me why you are arguing with me as if I am wearing a John Boehner mask.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) My point is that, whenever environmental issues are discussed, Republicans whine on and on about the economic impacts but never address the actual science and the actual environmental impacts. And that in the case of AGW, the economic costs of not acting outweigh the costs of acting, so the costs of acting are not a relevant concern anymore. And I agree with you. But you quoted my post, which did NOT endorse that method, and tried to make it out as if I did.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) We know ignoring it will have dire consequences. I just don't see how it's even an option to ignore things because it might cost a lot of money to fix. That is exactly my point. This drives me nuts on this topic. You have a significant portion of the GOP who has decided its good policy to bury their head in the sand and not only ignore the consequences of not acting, but just plain ignoring the reality of it even existing. Then on the other side, you have the environmental lobby choosing to ignore the fact that this country is already in difficult financial position, and that spending a trillion dollars on getting everything done they want to isn't a realistic option. Clearly, action is needed. Clearly, this money would be better use of capital and capitol than many other things we spend money on. And, clearly, we can't fix the whole world, nor can we even fix ourselves all at once.

Google invests 37.5% stake in wind power conveyance line on eastern seaboard, a line that will allow power balancing and delivery that is enough to power 1.3 million homes. Google sees the future here, apparently.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) "It costs too much money to change" is not a valid reason to continue destroying the environment, and that applies to more than AGW. And I didn't use that argument, did I? I stated that it will cost a lot, and you are damn right that is a valid point in the argument. You don't want the consequences of not acting ignored, yet you seem quick to ignore the costs of acting. You need to look at both.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 09:25 AM) The first point is only valid if you ignore the economic consequences of not addressing it. No, its very much valid as a discussion along WITH what you stated. Its only invalid if you take that into account but ignore the consequences of not addressing it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 07:53 AM) You'll have competition in either case. However, in the case of the depressed-supply market, moves to increase market share are expansionary. If I want to increase my market share in that case, I expand. I produce more of my product because I'm able to sell more of it. That involves investing in something to improve my business, I can't just rest on my laurels. If I start aggressively cost-cutting, it can go in the wrong direction by decreasing quality at a time when consumers are able to spend. That's an inflationary move. If I take an inflationary move by aggressively expanding in a demand-constrained market, I'm going to wind up wasting my investment. We have the capacity to create as many houses and cars as we could in 2007, and we have as many or more hotel rooms, service locations, etc. But now, if I want to expand my market share by building another factory, I build that factory and everything it produces sits there unsold. I open a giant new Vegas hotel and 2/3 of the rooms sit there empty unless I start aggressively cutting prices. I might increase market share but I've killed profit margins and I'm just playing for survival...and now every one of my competitors is forced to cut their prices to try to avoid losing market share. It's deflationary, and it pushes job losses throughout. The trap comes if those job losses then start forcing further cuts to avoid continuing market share declines; that's the deflationary spiral. We've managed to avoid the spiral so far by putting enough people back to work with the stimulus package that we stopped losing huge numbers of jobs; it did exactly what it was supposed to do at its size, prevent everything from spiraling down. But there's still a huge output gap, there is still huge unemployed capacity, and there is still a hugely depressed demand side that isn't going to be solved until people have money to spend. You seem to think that making aggressive moves to take over more market share mean a net increase in total market production. That is not the case. The total market can decrease, and has and will, while certain companies take chunks of the market that is leaving other companies because the struggle or fail. To try to extend my demand side argument to the shrimp boats, here is what typically happens. Demand decreases, prices paid for shrimp decrease, and some boats start shutting down (some temporarily, some permanently). Maybe 5 of 50 boats shuts down, let's say, to make it an easy number to work with. Among the other 45 shrimp boat captains, some of them will take some of the market that 5 boats was using. They can do it more cheaply than the other companies could, because labor is in abundance and expanding an existing business generally has less overhead than a parallel company (new or existing). And they don't actually have to push it back up to the level of all 5 - maybe they take 2 of 5 worth of market. But they do it more efficiently, and hire some of the people from those other boats in the process. They can sell more to make up the price gap, and still do well. This is a commonplace trend in recessions, its what usually drives the economy out of it (that and new shrimp boats or new shrimping technologies). But what ALSO tends to happen is, demand and prices only decrease by, say, 3%. But 10% of boats shut down due to various factors. This overreaction isn't necessarily intentional - its more of a Darwinian thing, the weak players die first when things get tough. But it inevitably happens beyond the actual decreases in demand. If you have any doubt of that, look at the overall economic numbers - GDP has been increasing for a number of quarters now, yet employment has yet to recover. Its the natural cycle of things.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 06:28 AM) On the way to work this morning, I saw on the outbound Kennedy where it splits into the Edens by Montrose, someone managed to graffitti the large I-94 to Milwaukee sign that spawns over all 4 lanes of traffic. How the f*** does someone get up there on a busy highway and manage to do that without getting caught? Thats impressive, not that I condone vandalism in any shape or form. That's just gross.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 12, 2010 -> 07:36 AM) You know, the more I thought about this post last night, the more I wanted to make an example of it...because I think it illustrates very well exactly the thinking of our political class right now and why the politicians have chosen to allow us to stay in this hole rather than get out of it; they're unable to think about anything but the supply side. Take your specific example...boats starting to close up shop. There is a huge difference between lowered demand and poor fishing conditions because the response is totally different. If the fishing conditions are poor and that is what has lowered demand, that is in essence a business problem; business has used its resources inefficiently and things need to be repurposed. Customers still have money to spend but they're choosing to spend it elsewhere. This is a supply side issue. This is more like the 2001 Recession. Consumer spending continued increasing through the full 2001 recession despite an increase in unemployment...the thing that decreased significantly was business investment. The solution on that issue is to help business repurpose itself. Fishing conditions have deteriorated? Well, either the government can step in and help clean up the oil that has ruined the fishing, or the Fed can create conditions such that it's cheap enough for the business to invest in new ways of producing non-oil-soaked fish. Business tax credits can make a dent here. Job training programs can make a dent. Better regulation can make a dent. In that case...it does exactly what you said; the better prepared companies will eventually find a way to make moves for increased market share, and those moves are inflationary; they buy out their competitors, or they invest in a larger fishing fleet. Eventually if you keep the business credits running, you push on the inflation button; that is 2006. On the other hand...if the problem is that their customers saw 1/3 of their wealth evaporate in the space of a few months and therefore stopped buying the product...no amount of supply-side intervention will do anything. If you offer business tax credits for expansion, cut the capital gains tax, and put more money in the hands of the wealthy, what can they do with it? If they invest in new ways to produce fish, it doesn't matter, because that doesn't make their customers able to buy anything else. They might invest some of it while investment is cheap, but they're going to be cautious because they won't know when their customers will return. The only way for them to truly make a move for market share is to make a deflationary move. They need to cut costs to undercut their competitors, or they need to increase the quality of what they're offering without increasing the price. So they cut half their staff and run their boats out there with skeleton crews, losing a little production but pushing prices down. Or they invest in a fancy new GPS system, but then they use that increase in productivity to cut back on employees. Neither of those efforts are inflationary. Our government is so used to thinking about big business that the sensible center has no means to deal with a collapse on the demand side. The solution to every problem previously is tax cuts and business investment credits. Eventually maybe business comes up with a super new technology that drags you out of that hole (solar panels on the ships!), but that's a roll of the dice and customers still might not have the money to buy them. The way out of that hole is to get the people who stopped buying fish back buying them. It's a demand side problem and it can't be solved without getting demand back up. In that situation, steps that usually would be inflationary produce no reaction, because the problem isn't on that side. This is all very interesting, but, you are focusing on only half my post. Well, its the wordier half, so its more like two thirds, but the point is, you are pretty much ignoring my comments about UE and GDP numbers. The demand side, I didn't go into as much detail, because I thought the point was actually simpler. How many shrimp boats is the lowered demand worth? And how far beyond that will the initial reaction go, causing the inevitable bounce? Which other boats will decide to take advantage of the overcorrection that always occurs? And what makes you think that you need an increase in demand to cause more competition? Or, what makes you think that aggressive plays in the market mean increasing output?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 11, 2010 -> 09:14 PM) A drunk who killed a woman and a former head of the kkk. Nice. And they say the witch in Delaware or where ever it is isn't smart enough to be in the Senate. I'd rather not have either of them in there. I've said before, Reid is probably my least favorite current Senator, at least of ones I know much about. Unfortunately, the GOP challenger in his election (Angle) is, amazingly, even worse.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2010 -> 04:53 PM) Read on The why is easy. Two reasons... 1. Addressing climate change costs money, a lot of it, and the US would undoubtedly be taking on a large chunk of it if they sign onto treaties and what not. 2. The conservatives here are playing to an increasingly angry religious base that sees science as some sort of trick on humanity. The first point is a valid one, and should always be part of the discussion. The second one is just kind of sad.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2010 -> 05:06 PM) The thing that I think counteracts your example is that the boats that are shut down can come back online at ease with just small repairs in the event that things turn around. That's the thing that prevents "aggressive plays for market share" from pushing inflation until you start running out of spare boats. There's also the bigger problem that if they produce more and go for a larger market share...they can't sell the stuff because it's contaminated by oil their customers have no more money. That continues to be the real problem...the demand side. It's not that they can't produce more, it's that they can produce plenty but can't sell it. That's what I was illustrating with the real difference in employment. People see a recession, they see UE go up, and they think no one can spend money. Except, well, that's not nearly true - the actual change in demand isn't quite so dramatic. GDP numbers show you this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) Here's the original post that got me started. The point I get from this is that the writer is arguing that "a bit" of growth will likely produce substantial inflation and increases in interest rates because of the volume of money that has been put out by the Fed. My disagreement is that I think it needs substantial growth before that becomes even a remote concern, not just a bit. On top of that...at current growth rates...the level of substantial growth it would take to trigger legitimate inflation will not be reached for half a decade or more, and we're about to go for contractionary fiscal policy after November. So yeah, if we're agreeing now, I still disagree with the sentiment in your original post. If I misinterpreted it tell me so. I think that interest rate increases are a decade away unless we actually get a >$500 billion-ish stimulus package through, and that ain't happening. I'll try an illustration... 50 shrimp boats in the harbor. Conditions start to deteriorate - lowered demand and/or poor conditions for fishing, doen't matter - and boats start to close up shop. The boats able to survive, in the short term, tend to play it careful, just waiting it out and trying to survive. But as more boats fail, you essentially create opportunity. Some of those surviving boats will start to make aggressive plays for more of the market share, because even when things are bad, there is still demand for shrimp, and capitalism still dictates competition to survive and thrive. This happens in every economic cycle, macro to the US or even specific to an industry. And when interest rates are insanely low, and labor easy to come by, you strike. Now, remember, we're talking 9.7% UE core, or 17% UE total. A healthy economy might be 7-8% core and 14% total, and a very healthy one at 5% and 12% or the like. So we're talking a band of 2 to 4% between current and fairly healthy. How many shrimp boats is that? And how many have already closed up shop? Not everyone will stay on the sidelines untul 2016, which would be 9 years of recession.