Grr. My keyboard is messed up, and I can't press the right arrow and space at the same time. I got to level 19, where you *have* to go counterclockwise. -_-
That lady who had her cat's larynx fixed for 10 thousand pounds a few posts ago should set something like this up so that Fluffy can start paying off his bill.
Err... most U.S.-born citizens haven't even read the Constitution. It would be fun to have a nation-wide naturalization test and kick out all the people who flunk it whether they were born here or not. (Say goodbye to most of Congress.)
However, just because you avert one bad decision doesn't mean that others aren't being made simultaneously. Regardless of the congressional decision not to give the Fed and the Treasury new authority, the Federal Reserve nevertheless used its current authority to add $630 billion to the world's money supply. In other words, people won't be paying for it consciously; they'll be paying for it through inflation:
I used to help curate at a museum, and I often had to do write-ups of artists like this guy. Believe it or not, but the "poop" concept has been explored before. Italian artist, Piero Manzoni ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Manzoni ) did a piece (or rather many "pieces") called "Merda d'Artista" or "Artist's Shit." More recently, American conceptual artist Tom Friedman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Friedman_(artist) ) has a "self-portrait" that consists of his own feces rolled into a perfectly smooth, spherical ball (a feat he's done with bubble gum as well, and he has an extensive resume when it comes to working in human pubic hair.)
Personally, I have to share others' distaste for this kind of conceptual art. Not because of a particular aversion to feces or because necessarily even because of the Freudian implications. It just.... gosh, guys, we get it, alright? Modern art is a farce. Duly noted, now pull up your pants please. Now can someone kindly do something worth making?
I'm reminded of a quote by an old art teacher of mine. He was talking about vomiting, but it applies equally to defecation:
"Vomiting is one of the lowest forms of creation in everyday life. You ARE creating something, but nobody wants it."
Byrd, I think that's part of his point. Despite the non-correlation, though, desire for lower oil prices is often used (or at least, I've seen it often used) as a political talking point by both major parties as a means of playing on the concerns of people (read: voting demographics) who are otherwise apathetic. Both sides twist the argument to their own platforms, but essentially the outcome of both sides is to provide a pretext for intervention under the guise of saving the American economy, which the U.S. government seems to invariably bungle when it comes to the region of the world in question.
In the following page, the U.S. department of energy blames OPEC's adjustments to oil prices as the catalyst for recessions:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/oildep.shtml
But recessions are the result of the prices of *all* commodities being retroactively adjusted for inflation. Therefore, the adjustment of oil and other major industrial sectors right before a recession is to be expected. Does OPEC have an effect on our economy? Of course. But addressing OPEC over the devaluation of the dollar as ways to prevent recessions is like treating a runny nose on a patient who has cancer.
There are other, more valid arguments against importing oil from certain regions. Not wanting to indirectly bankroll terrorist groups through oil producing nations is another argument altogether (which doesn't have much to do with "dependence"), as is the argument of energy sustainability (which doesn't have so much to do with dependence on *foreign* oil as it does dependence on all oil, foreign or domestic.) But this guy is addressing the argument that the American economy is floundering under the pressures of foreign influences, when that is a drop in the bucket compared to what we do to it ourselves.
Interesting article, but the solution that it's vaguely gesturing toward is a dangerous one; give the government your money so they can make *everybody* happy. Also, they somewhat discredit themselves with their evaluation of the Cato Institute. While I certainly don't agree with everything from Cato, I doubt you could label them "neocons." I'm sure some of them are greedy, but neocons? They need to think up a better word for "poo-poo heads" than that; Cato is pretty anti-intervention whereas neo-conservatives are strongly interventionist.
I don't doubt that the study points to two kernels of well-known truths: that money can't buy happiness and that Americans are workaholics. While redistribution of the wealth would be *a* solution, without consent taking from someone something that they earned is still essentially theft (and thus not a particularly moral solution, even if it has an attractive product.) Unfortunately for expedient social idealists, the only conscionable solution is to trust people's better nature (or prompt it through example) via philanthropy. That way, people with excess crap can get rid of it and feel good about it without coercion or morally dubious state intervention. The reason the ends never justify the means is because future generations will tend to treat previous means as the floor, not the ceiling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ3Q-Qw9jCQ&feature=related
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html
However, just because you avert one bad decision doesn't mean that others aren't being made simultaneously. Regardless of the congressional decision not to give the Fed and the Treasury new authority, the Federal Reserve nevertheless used its current authority to add $630 billion to the world's money supply. In other words, people won't be paying for it consciously; they'll be paying for it through inflation:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9MTZEgukPLY
@oezicomix: Hey, I'm a freelance artist too!
Personally, I have to share others' distaste for this kind of conceptual art. Not because of a particular aversion to feces or because necessarily even because of the Freudian implications. It just.... gosh, guys, we get it, alright? Modern art is a farce. Duly noted, now pull up your pants please. Now can someone kindly do something worth making?
I'm reminded of a quote by an old art teacher of mine. He was talking about vomiting, but it applies equally to defecation:
"Vomiting is one of the lowest forms of creation in everyday life. You ARE creating something, but nobody wants it."
In the following page, the U.S. department of energy blames OPEC's adjustments to oil prices as the catalyst for recessions:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/oildep.shtml
But recessions are the result of the prices of *all* commodities being retroactively adjusted for inflation. Therefore, the adjustment of oil and other major industrial sectors right before a recession is to be expected. Does OPEC have an effect on our economy? Of course. But addressing OPEC over the devaluation of the dollar as ways to prevent recessions is like treating a runny nose on a patient who has cancer.
There are other, more valid arguments against importing oil from certain regions. Not wanting to indirectly bankroll terrorist groups through oil producing nations is another argument altogether (which doesn't have much to do with "dependence"), as is the argument of energy sustainability (which doesn't have so much to do with dependence on *foreign* oil as it does dependence on all oil, foreign or domestic.) But this guy is addressing the argument that the American economy is floundering under the pressures of foreign influences, when that is a drop in the bucket compared to what we do to it ourselves.
I don't doubt that the study points to two kernels of well-known truths: that money can't buy happiness and that Americans are workaholics. While redistribution of the wealth would be *a* solution, without consent taking from someone something that they earned is still essentially theft (and thus not a particularly moral solution, even if it has an attractive product.) Unfortunately for expedient social idealists, the only conscionable solution is to trust people's better nature (or prompt it through example) via philanthropy. That way, people with excess crap can get rid of it and feel good about it without coercion or morally dubious state intervention. The reason the ends never justify the means is because future generations will tend to treat previous means as the floor, not the ceiling.