THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 17 Jul 2010 07:13 On Jul 16, 7:56 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >so who do you trust? > > A few close friends. > > The military. > > After those, I'm kinda drawing a blank. good honest answer. thanks.
From: Larry G on 17 Jul 2010 07:14 On Jul 16, 8:01 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >so there are no environmental groups you support? > > I've never considered supporting one, so no, not currently. If I find > one that is attempting to repeal expensive and unnecessary > environmental rules, I might even join it. but you'd think that a group that wants to "undo" environment laws is a group that "supports" the environment?
From: Larry G on 17 Jul 2010 07:57 On Jul 16, 9:30 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > > > > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 15, 10:35 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 14, 9:30 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent > > >> >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: > > >> >> >> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental > >> >> >> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. Yeah, they're > >> >> >> wackos. No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything > >> >> >> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in > >> >> >> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country > >> >> >> in general much more than any other goal they may have. As I said, I > >> >> >> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are > >> >> >> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. > > >> >> >The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good > >> >> >thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. > > >> >> Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better > >> >> environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years > >> >> and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, > >> >> and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. > > >> >> And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of > >> >> those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY > >> >> mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution > >> >> from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. That is, if its > >> >> manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US > >> >> inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the > >> >> environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the > >> >> environment of OUR PLANET. It doesn't matter if they're spewing > >> >> (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all > >> >> still on this planet. Screw everybody equally, and internationally, > >> >> with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a > >> >> little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. But > >> >> right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. > > >> >> >A rich > >> >> >country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s > >> >> >environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse > >> >> >for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason > >> >> >must lay elsewhere. > > >> >> You bet the reason is elsewhere. It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz > >> >> what the whole thing is about is harming the US. China, et. al., can > >> >> have a pass. They don't care. > > >> >> >Who funds the environmentalists? > > >> >> Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. I > >> >> don't really know. I'd expect George Soros is one source. > > >> >> >Who pushes for the foreign and trade > >> >> >policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? > > >> >> Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've > >> >> had only ourselves to blame for that. > > >> >> >What sort > >> >> >of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and > >> >> >economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? > > >> >> The Al Gore sort. > > >> >> >Who benefits > >> >> >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and > >> >> >money to further the creation of those conditions? > > >> >> The Al Gore sort. This global warming nonsense is just another > >> >> attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously > >> >> expensive. I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. > > >> >so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted > >> >for environmental policy? > > >> Some are, some aren't just as in any major operation. There probably > >> some wackos in the EPA that got hired because they were wacko going > >> the other way (the environmental harm of x isn't that great). > >> Sometimes the wackos are overridden in any government organization, > >> sometimes not. In whatever organization you were or are in, did or do > >> you have always confidence in the competence and sanity of management? > > >yes... but is NONE of the EPA and NO Environmental Group believable/ > >acceptable in environmental issues? > > >do you believe or trust NONE of them? > > Probably the smartest thing is to trust neither side (none of the > sides) implicitly but weigh everything for your self. Track record > also counts. In many ways trust is an inappropriate term. In the > field where I made my living, mainframe computer systems > administration there were two main ways of controlling work flow (JES2 > and JES3 on IBM computers for those interested in detail). Both had > and have their passionate supporters. I trusted the integrity of both > sides but it was up to me and my management to decide which was better > for us. The people in the EPA with the best intentions and diligent > research can come up with what many believe to be wrong decisions > either because the people in the EPA weight factors differently > (including requirements for proof and jurisdiction) or there is > fundamental division on what the data means. It is nothing new in > science for those who believe in theory X to try to freeze out those > who support Y. The idea that sanitation mattered was fiercely > resisted. Whether you believe in global warming or not, you should > recognize there is an enormous amount of money and power at stake for > each of the sides and many of the players. This alone should cause us > to look at BOTH sides with skeptical eyes. Incidentally there may be > a more important reason than global warming to be worried about carbon > dioxide and that is acidification of the oceans and what it can do to > the ecosystem there. > > Personally I believe that we should become more energy efficient and > pollute less for a number of reasons such as peak oil and water source > contamination. I even make that the basis of SOME of my decisions > although probably it is more lip service than anything else. I am not > certain about global warming and if it exists (there are a number of > signs pointing to it) how much is solar activity, how much is > pollutants, how much of it is changing the reflectivity of the land, > and how much is that we are just producing a lot more heat world wide. > On the latter, air-conditioning at the site is probably a net producer > of heat completely ignoring the heat needed to produce the > electricity. Subsidy of mobility probably is counter-productive if > you believe in global warming (Al Gore's trips anyone). > > In the case of the EPA, you have to believe that they have correctly > identified the problem, correctly identified the solution and have > correctly identified the implementation. We don't have consensus here > on many of the highway issues even among the professionals here. Why > should the environmental issues be different. > > Clark Morris if we do not trust institutions to make the calculations and decisions that you discuss above, what does that mean? Given, the good, the bad and the ugly of the EPA ... really no different than our Military in that both carry out their missions but not without some major failings... why do we "not trust" the institution of the EPA and we do trust the institution of the Military? The equivalent comparison here... is whether or not one trusts the DOTs or the FHWA to do ...roads... or not. If you do not trust the DOTs and FHWA to do roads - then what? make sense what I am asking? If you do not trust the institutions that we have to perform the assigned missions - then who do you trust to do it? and if you don't trust any of them other than the military - does that mean that the military should be in charge of the country?
From: Dave Head on 17 Jul 2010 09:33 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:57:44 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 16, 9:30�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> >> >> >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 15, 10:35�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 14, 9:30�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent >> >> >> >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental >> >> >> >> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. �Yeah, they're >> >> >> >> wackos. �No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything >> >> >> >> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in >> >> >> >> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country >> >> >> >> in general much more than any other goal they may have. �As I said, I >> >> >> >> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are >> >> >> >> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. >> >> >> >> >The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good >> >> >> >thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. >> >> >> >> Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better >> >> >> environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years >> >> >> and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, >> >> >> and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. >> >> >> >> And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of >> >> >> those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY >> >> >> mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution >> >> >> from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. �That is, if its >> >> >> manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US >> >> >> inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the >> >> >> environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the >> >> >> environment of OUR PLANET. �It doesn't matter if they're spewing >> >> >> (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all >> >> >> still on this planet. �Screw everybody equally, and internationally, >> >> >> with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a >> >> >> little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. �But >> >> >> right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. >> >> >> >> >A rich >> >> >> >country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s >> >> >> >environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse >> >> >> >for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason >> >> >> >must lay elsewhere. >> >> >> >> You bet the reason is elsewhere. �It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz >> >> >> what the whole thing is about is harming the US. �China, et. al., can >> >> >> have a pass. �They don't care. >> >> >> >> >Who funds the environmentalists? >> >> >> >> Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. �I >> >> >> don't really know. �I'd expect George Soros is one source. >> >> >> >> >Who pushes for the foreign and trade >> >> >> >policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? >> >> >> >> Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've >> >> >> had only ourselves to blame for that. >> >> >> >> >What sort >> >> >> >of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and >> >> >> >economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? >> >> >> >> The Al Gore sort. >> >> >> >> >Who benefits >> >> >> >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and >> >> >> >money to further the creation of those conditions? >> >> >> >> The Al Gore sort. �This global warming nonsense is just another >> >> >> attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously >> >> >> expensive. � I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. >> >> >> >so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted >> >> >for environmental policy? >> >> >> Some are, some aren't just as in any major operation. �There probably >> >> some wackos in the EPA that got hired because they were wacko going >> >> the other way (the environmental harm of x isn't that great). >> >> Sometimes the wackos are overridden in any government organization, >> >> sometimes not. �In whatever organization you were or are in, did or do >> >> you have always confidence in the competence and sanity of management? >> >> >yes... �but is NONE of the EPA and NO Environmental Group believable/ >> >acceptable in environmental issues? >> >> >do you believe or trust NONE of them? >> >> Probably the smartest thing is to trust neither side (none of the >> sides) implicitly but weigh everything for your self. �Track record >> also counts. �In many ways trust is an inappropriate term. �In the >> field where I made my living, mainframe computer systems >> administration there were two main ways of controlling work flow (JES2 >> and JES3 on IBM computers for those interested in detail). �Both had >> and have their passionate supporters. �I trusted the integrity of both >> sides but it was up to me and my management to decide which was better >> for us. �The people in the EPA with the best intentions and diligent >> research can come up with what many believe to be wrong decisions >> either because the people in the EPA weight factors differently >> (including requirements for proof and jurisdiction) or there is >> fundamental division on what the data means. �It is nothing new in >> science for those who believe in theory X to try to freeze out those >> who support Y. �The idea that sanitation mattered was fiercely >> resisted. �Whether you believe in global warming or not, you should >> recognize there is an enormous amount of money and power at stake for >> each of the sides and many of the players. �This alone should cause us >> to look at BOTH sides with skeptical eyes. �Incidentally there may be >> a more important reason than global warming to be worried about carbon >> dioxide and that is acidification of the oceans and what it can do to >> the ecosystem there. >> >> Personally I believe that we should become more energy efficient and >> pollute less for a number of reasons such as peak oil and water source >> contamination. �I even make that the basis of SOME of my decisions >> although probably it is more lip service than anything else. �I am not >> certain about global warming and if it exists (there are a number of >> signs pointing to it) how much is solar activity, how much is >> pollutants, how much of it is changing the reflectivity of the land, >> and how much is that we are just producing a lot more heat world wide. >> On the latter, air-conditioning at the site is probably a net producer >> of heat completely ignoring the heat needed to produce the >> electricity. �Subsidy of mobility probably is counter-productive if >> you believe in global warming (Al Gore's trips anyone). � >> >> In the case of the EPA, you have to believe that they have correctly >> identified the problem, correctly identified the solution and have >> correctly identified the implementation. �We don't have consensus here >> on many of the highway issues even among the professionals here. �Why >> should the environmental issues be different. >> >> Clark Morris > >if we do not trust institutions to make the calculations and decisions >that you discuss above, what does that mean? It means we know where some of the enemies of American prosperiity reside. >Given, the good, the bad and the ugly of the EPA ... really no >different than our Military in that both carry out their missions but >not without some major failings... why do we "not trust" the >institution of the EPA and we do trust the institution of the >Military? There's a whale of a lot of difference between the military and the EPA. The EPA are a bunch of wild-eyed extremists that wish to use the ruse of protecting the environment to make all kinds of excessive regulations that do, to the maximum extent possible, harm US industry. These people are sitting in cushy air conditioned offices getting paid sums of money that are currently being examined with outrage by the press since they're gov't workers and are not experiencing the contraction in salaries that are being caused by their policies that, along with the gov't-beloved but otherwise mostly hated income taxes, sending all our industrial jobs overseas. The military, on the other hand, are composed of some of the country's best people who volunteer to risk their lives in far-off lands for causes they may or may not agree with while getting paid wages well below the averege scale of the common civilian. They can be relied upon to do what is best for our country, and no, if they are ordered to do something that they know is going to harm the country, they will NOT follow that order. Try to get them to collect up all the firearms. Its not going to happen. >The equivalent comparison here... is whether or not one trusts the >DOTs or the FHWA to do ...roads... or not. The EPA is a special bunch of leftist wackos. THe DOT and FHWA are simply trying to make things better for the American people. _SOME_ at the EPA probably aren't on the inside of this movement, and _ARE_ actually simply drawing a paycheck and fulfilling their job requirements, but I think most that are there are believers in one or another group's philosophy, such groups as socialists or communists, that are out to harm the US by killing its industry, and perform their own roles whenever they have a chance to do exactly that, possibly / probably without the knowledge that the other people in the same room are doing the same thing, but for a different ideology, that has the same methodology and goal. >If you do not trust the DOTs and FHWA to do roads - then what? They do roads mostly OK. They're not peppered throughout them with a bunch of anti-American employees and leaders. >make sense what I am asking? If you do not trust the institutions that >we have to perform the assigned missions - then who do you trust to do >it? The EPA is special. >and if you don't trust any of them other than the military - does that >mean that the military should be in charge of the country? Absolutely not. Such a thing would still devolve to a dictatorship. Not wanting to go there.
From: Clark F Morris on 17 Jul 2010 11:06
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:57:44 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 16, 9:30�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:35:36 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> >> >> >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 15, 10:35�pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >> >> >> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 14, 9:30�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Brent >> >> >> >> <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On 2010-07-14, rally2xs2 <david.h...(a)navy.mil> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> The ones that are suggesting / enacting new, tighter environmental >> >> >> >> controls are all 'round the bend, over the top, etc. �Yeah, they're >> >> >> >> wackos. �No new / tighter controls are needed, we achieved everything >> >> >> >> we needed about 20 years ago, and those initiatives that are now in >> >> >> >> progress have as their aim the damaging of US Industry and the country >> >> >> >> in general much more than any other goal they may have. �As I said, I >> >> >> >> think their mostly anti-capitalists, socialiist / communists, and are >> >> >> >> using the issue as a weapon against us, the American people. >> >> >> >> >The problem isn't that better environmental controls aren't a good >> >> >> >thing, the problem is that rich countries like China get a pass. >> >> >> >> Those are both problem things, I think, especially when "better >> >> >> environmental controls" are unreasonably expensive, which, after years >> >> >> and years of simply raising the standards, and raising the standards, >> >> >> and raising the standards, all that are left _are_ unreasonable. >> >> >> >> And, another reason that I believe this is all part of an effort of >> >> >> those that wish to attack the US and its industry is that NOBODY >> >> >> mentions anything like a pollution tax, to be applied to pollution >> >> >> from both US _and_ foreign manufacturers. �That is, if its >> >> >> manufactured in China or Korea or whever, if they don't allow US >> >> >> inspections and envirnomental monitoring, or if they do and fail the >> >> >> environmental standards, they get that taxed extra for damage to the >> >> >> environment of OUR PLANET. �It doesn't matter if they're spewing >> >> >> (insert your favorite pollutant) in China or Korea or Japan, its all >> >> >> still on this planet. �Screw everybody equally, and internationally, >> >> >> with these super-expensive requirements, and I'd be inclined to be a >> >> >> little less suspicious of the ultimate goals of these people. �But >> >> >> right now, I think thier ultimate goals are to harm the US. >> >> >> >> >A rich >> >> >> >country like China isn't even held to mid 1970s let alone 1980s >> >> >> >environmental standards. That level is dirt cheap now, there's no excuse >> >> >> >for not using it from an environmental point of view. Thus the reason >> >> >> >must lay elsewhere. >> >> >> >> You bet the reason is elsewhere. �It is that nobody gives a S, 'cuz >> >> >> what the whole thing is about is harming the US. �China, et. al., can >> >> >> have a pass. �They don't care. >> >> >> >> >Who funds the environmentalists? >> >> >> >> Left wing sources to a large extent, I believe, but I'm guessing. �I >> >> >> don't really know. �I'd expect George Soros is one source. >> >> >> >> >Who pushes for the foreign and trade >> >> >> >policies that have shaped the shift of manufacturing to China? >> >> >> >> Oh, we're doing that all by ourselves with our taxation schemes. We've >> >> >> had only ourselves to blame for that. >> >> >> >> >What sort >> >> >> >of people spend their time trying to manipulate the political and >> >> >> >economic conditions of the world for their own benefit? >> >> >> >> The Al Gore sort. >> >> >> >> >Who benefits >> >> >> >from the conditions being created and has had the influence, time, and >> >> >> >money to further the creation of those conditions? >> >> >> >> The Al Gore sort. �This global warming nonsense is just another >> >> >> attempt to bring this country down by making things ridiculously >> >> >> expensive. � I am _sooooo_ tired of such nonsense. >> >> >> >so the EPA is really a bunch of enviro wackos and not to be trusted >> >> >for environmental policy? >> >> >> Some are, some aren't just as in any major operation. �There probably >> >> some wackos in the EPA that got hired because they were wacko going >> >> the other way (the environmental harm of x isn't that great). >> >> Sometimes the wackos are overridden in any government organization, >> >> sometimes not. �In whatever organization you were or are in, did or do >> >> you have always confidence in the competence and sanity of management? >> >> >yes... �but is NONE of the EPA and NO Environmental Group believable/ >> >acceptable in environmental issues? >> >> >do you believe or trust NONE of them? >> >> Probably the smartest thing is to trust neither side (none of the >> sides) implicitly but weigh everything for your self. �Track record >> also counts. �In many ways trust is an inappropriate term. �In the >> field where I made my living, mainframe computer systems >> administration there were two main ways of controlling work flow (JES2 >> and JES3 on IBM computers for those interested in detail). �Both had >> and have their passionate supporters. �I trusted the integrity of both >> sides but it was up to me and my management to decide which was better >> for us. �The people in the EPA with the best intentions and diligent >> research can come up with what many believe to be wrong decisions >> either because the people in the EPA weight factors differently >> (including requirements for proof and jurisdiction) or there is >> fundamental division on what the data means. �It is nothing new in >> science for those who believe in theory X to try to freeze out those >> who support Y. �The idea that sanitation mattered was fiercely >> resisted. �Whether you believe in global warming or not, you should >> recognize there is an enormous amount of money and power at stake for >> each of the sides and many of the players. �This alone should cause us >> to look at BOTH sides with skeptical eyes. �Incidentally there may be >> a more important reason than global warming to be worried about carbon >> dioxide and that is acidification of the oceans and what it can do to >> the ecosystem there. >> >> Personally I believe that we should become more energy efficient and >> pollute less for a number of reasons such as peak oil and water source >> contamination. �I even make that the basis of SOME of my decisions >> although probably it is more lip service than anything else. �I am not >> certain about global warming and if it exists (there are a number of >> signs pointing to it) how much is solar activity, how much is >> pollutants, how much of it is changing the reflectivity of the land, >> and how much is that we are just producing a lot more heat world wide. >> On the latter, air-conditioning at the site is probably a net producer >> of heat completely ignoring the heat needed to produce the >> electricity. �Subsidy of mobility probably is counter-productive if >> you believe in global warming (Al Gore's trips anyone). � >> >> In the case of the EPA, you have to believe that they have correctly >> identified the problem, correctly identified the solution and have >> correctly identified the implementation. �We don't have consensus here >> on many of the highway issues even among the professionals here. �Why >> should the environmental issues be different. >> >> Clark Morris > >if we do not trust institutions to make the calculations and decisions >that you discuss above, what does that mean? Trust does not mean agreement or acquiescence. > >Given, the good, the bad and the ugly of the EPA ... really no >different than our Military in that both carry out their missions but >not without some major failings... why do we "not trust" the >institution of the EPA and we do trust the institution of the >Military? Both institutions must be watched and challenged on occasion. Both have people who are following agendas that may or may not be in consonance with the whole organization let alone the government or the majority of the given country. Remember that power is not to be trusted blindly and that profession of ideals may not coincide with practice. The US government was set up with fragmented bases of power to curb excesses, not necessarily prevent them. The doctors who resisted Lister's ideas on sanitation were trusted by their patients. Given the complexity of the world and even most of our institutions we can't check or consider everything but we must reserve the right and duty to do so when we see what we believe to be the incorrect goal or the incorrect means of accomplishing it. > >The equivalent comparison here... is whether or not one trusts the >DOTs or the FHWA to do ...roads... or not. Do you give a blank check and carte blanche to someone who is remodeling your kitchen? Are there alternatives that have different trade-offs? In my example above, both JES2 and JES3 are provided by IBM thus there is something other than trust involved. Have you not read the questioning of the way the various DOTs have done some things here? > >If you do not trust the DOTs and FHWA to do roads - then what? > >make sense what I am asking? If you do not trust the institutions that >we have to perform the assigned missions - then who do you trust to do >it? > >and if you don't trust any of them other than the military - does that >mean that the military should be in charge of the country? > > Dave implicitly trusts the military. I look upon the military just like any other institution, something run by people who have differing values and mindsets. It may well have more cohesiveness and enforcement of values but it also has its warts. |