Hello and welcome to Pie Ponders, in which Pie – that is me for those who destroyed too many neurons with alcohol– raises questions on various topics of great importance. As usual, this is not a fully refined post, but just some thoughts and ideas I throw to the commentariat, in the hopes of better arguments through crowdsourcing. On to it, then!
There is a major issue with most human’s views of the world. This was very well described by the Bastiat phrase “what is seen and what is unseen”. This has to do a lot with opportunity cost and a lot with much else. In general, it is easy to see things on the surface. It is harder to go a bit deeper, a few layers down. I would say it is easy to see the obvious, but the obvious is not always that clear. If you go down a road, you may not think enough of the road not taken. Except when the traffic is really bad and you wish you took another route, but that is not the point.
What brings these musings, you ask? Just a couple of stray thoughts… A popular thing among our friends on the left (yes, meaningless designation left wing, but generally sufficiently fit for purpose) is to claim that well why do libertarians complain of big government on the internet, if big government invented the internet. Or the smartphone. Or, in the end, whatever. Like most things these people say, this is stupid on multiple levels and I shall briefly go into it.
Let’s start with the easier levels. Let us assume the premise, which is wrong and dumb, but let’s assume it. The government “invented” the internet. First, the government did not do shit, it took tax money and financed some scientist. Second, just because the government financed some things that work, does not mean most things governments do also work. Third, most of the R&D by government that is praised by the various lefties was done as part of military & defense research, one of the few areas where conservatives and non-anarchist libertarians see a clear role for the state. And probably one of the last areas they would seek cuts from.
Let’s go to the next level. Did the government really make the internet? No. Anyone with half a rational though on the issue realizes this. This excludes all left wing and some of the right. What is the internet? Spoiler alert: it is not a network or a communications protocol. The communications protocol is just one of many possible. The internet is every single website and piece of content created. This was not done by state agents. Tax financed researchers developed various networks and communications protocols. And most were unused and did not account to anything. The internet, like soilent green, is people.
Should we go to another level? Okay, okay, the internet is many things, but without that government funded research it would be a nonstarter. Ehm no. Was there no R&D before massive government involvement? Yes there was, most of the industrial revolution, early electricity and its applications, lights telephone, radio, airplanes and much more. At some point, the state increased its involvement, due to mostly war, and manage to crowd out some of the private sector. Would things discovered by tax funded R&D not exist without it? Off course they would. Those people innovating when working for state research facilities would have done so anyway. A lot less in taxes would mean a lot more private investments. Would private innovations stop suddenly in 1950? Why would things not be invented anymore? There was plenty of research in networking besides ARPANET.
Another stupid meme is one of showing a smartphone with components originating in government research like touchscreen and such. This is equally irrelevant. Sooner or later, those things would be invented outside government and there is no reason to think otherwise. Many things through history were invented independently, by various people in various places. If something that is a generally useful technology was not invented in a certain research facility in a certain year, are we to believe it would never again be invented?
To go back a bit, making a chip or a touch screen is not really what makes the modern smartphone. Making these things cost effective and widely available is. Making a phone for 1 million, why even government can do that. Soviet Russia had itself some discoveries in government labs – after all everything was government, but those ended up nothing or bad products.
So no, the government did not create the internet, the internet uses some things researched under a government program. Those things would have been researched anyway – maybe in slightly different forms, maybe worse, maybe better. But the internet is not a network or a communications protocol. The smartphone would be just fine without government, because researching a touchscreen is not what makes a smartphone and there is zero reason to believe it would not have been discovered anyway.
One can say war accelerated innovation, but one can also say government secrecy due to war slowed it down some. Also the massive cost and destruction of war, the lives – and potential inventors – lost in it, all these things surely put a damper on invention. In a more libertarian world maybe we would not have the exact same tech as today in all respects, but we would have something comparable. I think even better.
But my main curiosity is how do people end up thinking like this? Can anyone, looking at the history of private innovation, at independent discovery, at general human endeavor, think well this particular thing would not have been innovated without government? I do not see the logic of it. Are people so incapable of thinking that without government involved in X, something would be different but not inexistent? The US government financed some early airplanes. If the government financed ones would have been successful a bit earlier than the Wright brothers, would we say we would have no airplanes without government? Can anyone think that if Newton would not have formulated his theorems, no one would have until this day?
These are the things that make me believe there is no real way to get common ground among people. If they truly believe that without government touchscreens would not exist. And this, off course, extends to any area of government intervention, healthcare, education and, probably everything these days. And if they think this, it means they do not understand that for everything government did that they see, there are unseen opportunity costs. While you can never truly know how things would have been if some factor or other was different, you can speculate. And you need to. Otherwise there is no critical judgement possible to things done. We don’t know what would have happened if the US pulled out of Afghanistan after 6 months, let’s say. But that does not mean one can never criticize the never-ending war.
AlGore invented the internet
Nice article Pie, now
up With People!
Plus ManBearPig!
Not OT per se, maybe Meta T:
Pie, if I haven’t said this before, I really enjoy reading your stuff. You bring up interesting points and you offer a good springboard for discussion.
Plus One, One additional vote! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!
/In The Count from Sesame Street’s voice
And he knows English better than I do ..
Not saying much…..
People believe that which they *want* to believe and then they look for and build justifications around that. Period. We all do it to a greater or lesser extent. It starts in childhood and never goes away.
Recognizing that, trying to build structures and systems that account for it, is the difference between being self-aware and not; and between being moral or not, in my opinion. Statists come in two flavors: those who refuse to even acknowledge this ineluctable fact of human nature and those who try to exploit it for power over others. Ultimately, however, that is the only distinction that matters: there are those who believe they should have power over other people and can’t keep their fucking mouths shut and mind their own business vs. people who would like to be left alone.
The people you’re discussing – the “GOVT invented the Net!!!” knuckleheads – are just statists who want power over others and this is their way of building justifications for it. That’s all it is. From the early Emperors to the Women’s Christian Temperance Union to the modern Left, it is always the same thing: those hyper-concerned with the “mote” in their neighbor’s eye and a certainty there’s no “log” in theirs. Fuck those people.
The idea of the government being the sole or most important source of development and innovation is pretty new in human history. To the extent that relationship existed in the past it was simply in the form of the government behaving as a patron to inventors, artists, and creators generally.
I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote. I didn’t say that people have always believed the State is the creator of all good things. I started with the largest premise that people create reasons to justify what they want to believe. The modern state obviously post-dates human beings, but way back when people had the Divine Right of Kings (and we didn’t have Adam Smith yet). In one way it was a lot more honest: it was simply “might makes right.” The most powerful enforced their will at the point of a sword. The people who love power gravitated to becoming functionaries in much the same way that class always has.
The modern Leftist/Statist, however, has a bloody history of govt slaughter that they have to hide from, so they can’t come out and simply admit they want power over others. Instead they construct elaborate shell games and cons to hide their use of force through proxies, like the police through payoffs to the unions (see Chicago and the fedgov with the FBI for good examples of this), or the teachers unions, or the EPA, DEA, IRS, etc. or to justify giving more power to govt – this includes the “govt created the Net” nonsense, among other things. These people are slaves arguing in favor of more slavery. It’s the same urge. They just think they’re going to be the house slaves and the deplorables will be out in the fields picking cotton.
The people you’re discussing – the “GOVT invented the Net!!!” knuckleheads – are just statists who want power over others – I am unsure, many are but some just don’t bloody think
Are people so incapable of thinking that without government involved in X, something would be different but not inexistent?
Yep. There are a lot of people who believe that if the government doesn’t do something, it doesn’t exist. And they believe this even though they are surrounded by things that the government didn’t do.
#youdidn’tbuildthat
Meh ROADZ!
I think there are a lot of people who look around at the various trappings of society without which they couldn’t survive–a clean, reliable supply of water; modern medicine and medical facilities; permanent, reliable shelter–see government’s hand in society, and conclude that government created those things either directly or indirectly. Government is really just another one of those things produced by a society, but a lot of people see it as the thing that causes everything else to come to be rather than a mechanism by which society manages itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocpSbE6LL0I
fIREHOSE – Another Theory Shot to Shit
from the hand of a government man
came these papers
came these signs
came these good things
from this machinery hums come
oiled and whirling
fast, strong
tightness, meshing
meshing forever
(pert near)
steel gear inside gear
and smoothness
engaging, releasing
lapping and plunging
then
slow
down
to
vote?
ah hah hahahahahahahahah
Not created, sustains universally. They believe that the free market is a patchwork of collusion, greed and intolerance that is evil because it is built to benefit owners, execs, and shareholders. To reduce it down to a simple example. What keeps a private electric provider from cutting off power to a rural area when it’s no longer profitable to service that area? Such a hypothetical raises their egalitarian hackles.
I’ll not analyze the lack of mature thought involved in such a mentality… I’ll leave that to y’all.
What keeps a public electric provider from cutting off power to an area where there’s a lot of people who don’t support the government?
Absurd as it seems in the U.S., it happens all over the world (along with communications blackouts and other things).
The idea that market power is uniquely bad is what bothers me about anti-capitalists.
Yep. There are a lot of people who believe that if the government doesn’t do something, it doesn’t exist.
Bastiat’s comment about socialists and the lack of a state religion meaning people won’t believe in God comes to mind.
apropos
The internet, GPS and smartphones have one thing in common. @Noahpinion says think military spending
https://twitter.com/bopinion/status/1202250315241791489
No one wants to hear this, but defense research is important and good:
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1202313800067629056
Gave us computer, Internet, microwave oven, Jet liner, SUV to name a few
This argument has been made to me multiple times by socialists. That the government invented the internet.
I remember the government version pretty well, though, and it sucked.
And pointedly, I don’t hear a lot of socialists saying “Hey, lets move money out of redistrubtion and into the Military Industrial Complex.”
Most of the things the “government” “invented” are products of the Military Industrial Complex. Not community organization. Not medicade. Not the EPA. Not HHS. Not the Department of Peace.
One could argue, that is because War/Killing is the spot that governments have a vital interest in succeeding at. Everything else, as long as they can mumble along, they can get a pass.
In fact, I make that argument specifically. There is a ‘market’ in war-fighting, and nation-states who fall behind get forced out of the market (either by getting wiped out, or because the current leaders get voted out). Thus, they maintain competency here.
SQA testing is taken a lot more seriously when people’s lives are on the line.
Look at Minnesoda. How many IT projects have cost hundreds of millions of $$ and not worked when rolled out (MinnCare, LARS, etc). Nobody even loses their jobs when they fail so spectacularly*.
I doubt the military would be so forgiving if a contractor tried to sell them a new thing and it didn’t work at all and got lots of people killed.**
* OK, the one guy who raised alarms at how bad the new licensing system (pre-rollout) got fired
** The osprey in its early iterations seemed to kill more Marines than a convoy of Lebanese truck bombs.
That one was because the Osprey was jammed down the Marine Corps’ throat by one general and Boeing putting component manufacturers in a BUNCH of different states so that Congress kept screaming about “JOBSZ!!!” while my friends were dying in a piece of technology we didn’t need and couldn’t even escort with existing assets. (A Cobra cannot match the speed of an Osprey, so all USMC doctrine for attached escort became obsolete with the fielding of the V-22. When I asked this question to the general who came to sell us on the benefits of the Osprey, the ass-kissers all laughed. The tactical guys all came up to me afterwards and told me I would be a fine pilot, but my career wouldn’t go very far.)
Someday one of the better learned Glibs needs to write an article why the Air Force and Navy need to (essentially) be the only ones allowed to fly fixed wing aircraft.
Its amusing to recall that there was much concern early on about whether an air force would be Constitutionally permitted, so that it was originally part of the Army and not a separate branch.
I’m trying to figure out why you think the Navy needs aircraft.
Transfer them to the Air Force and foster inter-branch cooperation.
I seem to recall the Osprey Working Group’s conclusion was something like – “The Osprey is aerodynamically inclined to invert itself, pitch nose downward, and fly at high speed into the Earth.”
Unciv, I’m sputtering with rage at your suggestion. 🙂
The USAF should be focused on space only, not terrestrial aviation. Let the Navy handle MAC and reconnaissance stuff, and devolve all ground support to the USMC (while downsizing Army into a small cadre of experienced NCOs and officers).
So l0b0t – you’re suggesting just a few minor changes for the 21st Century of warfare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse#The_Japanese_air_attack
Oh, no, l0b0t, there’s no room for the USMC in a properly refactor military. The Navy doesn’t need an army or an air force.
Leap, it doesn’t need to be the navy operating those aircraft.
The navy is duplicating functions for no good reason.
Like all government functionaries UCS, you assume duplication is a bad thing, when the free market of the military industrial complex has proven otherwise. Real life doesn’t line up in nice, neat rows like your chessmen at the beginning of a game. Its more complicated than that.
And why can’t the air force fly off carriers?
They don’t want their honest, God feerin airmen subjected to the rum and buggery of sea life. Obviously.
Why doesn’t the AF run the planes on a ship?
Mostly interservice rivalry, I’m sure.
I did learn something interesting when I was touring the Yorktown in San Diego. Carrier captains are pilots, not boat-drivers. The chain of command is set up so that carriers are run by and for the flyboys. I assumed they were run like any other ship, with the flyboys and their planes basically crew and cargo. You don’t refer to the people on a carrier as sailors, but as crewmembers.
“there’s no room for the USMC”
There never has been; that’s why the navy crams us together in tiny holes over their fuel tanks.
+1 Minitel
The argument is tiring, because they never argue that Government Spending was neccessary for this to happen. It’s just how it happend. For example they could argue that Government Spending got us a Man on the Moon. But was that beneficial? What other advances could have happened without that extraction of wealth and talent on 1 specific problem?
But even this ignores that the govt simply grabbed all of Hughes Aircraft’s scientists and prior research of putting satellites in space and the Surveyor program. My friend’s dad was a rocket scientist during the 60’s and turned down a chance to work on the lunar lander because, his words, “it was obviously a dead-end [project].” According to him, anyone with any sense went into commercial and military aviation tech because putting a man on the moon was really a matter of tweaking what had already been done by Surveyor. Now they would just need to make the capsule suitable for human beings, but they’d already done the hard part.
one should only look at the wiki of microwave ovens or jet airplanes to see the ton of research mostly private that led to those…
Funny thing this noah guy is considered super right wing by some
Airlines came directly, literally, out of WW1 aircraft. Italy, Russia, Germany, and England all had large (huge — wingspans > 100ft) bombers. Italy was particularly well set to launch civilian air travel, which it did. The story of how that fell apart is both sad and a little funny.
Caproni Ca. 4 variants
Nice alt text or whatever it’s called.
i’m blushing
the Wright brothers stole the glory of inventing aircraft from the government !!!
hmmm this was meant as a reply to myself up-thread 🙂
The European s were far ahead of the Wright Bros in RnD, they just flexed first
Aurel Vlaicu, Traian Vuia and Henri Coandă for the win
I think one should be careful to hold so much to the argument that “if X hadn’t invented it, someone else would have” because many inventions are not obvious (and even more are only “obvious in hindsight”). There are lots of incremental improvements and the like, which come independently from multiple sources, and the occasional moments of shared epiphany over major breakthroughs like Newton and Leibniz discovering calculus around the same time. But many things may not have happened (and may have already been missed) had things played out differently. The problem is to account for which variables actually mattered to the discovery and which ones were irrelevant. Typically, that “the government” was involved is one of those irrelevant variables; yes, it took money and time to discover many things, and yes government funded laboratories can be sources of innovation. But ultimately it was people who made these discoveries, and it was other people who decided to share them with the wider world. The government is one of many instruments through which such ends can be achieved, and there is no guarantee that the government will achieve those ends no matter how much money or power you throw at it.
I think the stronger argument should always be along the lines of Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn created TCP/IP, and DARPA gave them the right amount of support (time, money, intangibles) to do it. Similar innovations were taking place in the public and private sectors around the same time, and there were other patrons who could have supported Cerf, Khan, and others.
Mmmm…. I’m not sure. I’ve played around with this in my head, and i go back and forth. Individuals add flavor to history, but i’m not convinced, except in a few extraordinary cases, that they immediately “Changed” history from barreling down the course it was on. Many inventions were co-developed. Would they be the same as they are now if things were different? of course not. But i have little doubt that we would have Jet Engines regardless of German Funding for it during WW2. Because these solved real problems, that many people were asking. The inventions and discoveries that are likely not to be rediscovered are the ones that have limited applications.
I think a good SLD article would be government and hard science that has no practical use. Things like touching the sun, looking for bosons, that kind of stuff. It enhances mankind’s knowledge, but I don’t see a way to monetize it in a way like asteroid mining or space tourism could.
for most technology stuff I believe they would be invented sooner or later… By special people in special circumstances maybe, but very few things would be truly unique. And the most very useful would be invented sooner or later in a free society.
There is a lot of overlap, and as I said a lot of related work was already going on. But the right combination of ideas at the right time can still be critical. The argument that “it will happen eventually” could be used to justify shutting down all private sector research just as much as it could be used against public sector research.
OT.
Man i love being told to go to meetings, where my opinion has nothing except to cast one vote, and then “we” conclude after 25 min, that “we” don’t have enough info to make a decision.
Take a Magic 8 Ball to the next meeting..
Could be worse.
We have a group meeting every few weeks for a mob of devs to share knowledge (about 30-50 devs on call). It is a online meeting so I usually log in so the higher ups think I’m interested and then wander off to do productive things.
Yesterday the organizer hit me up 20 minutes before the meeting to ask if I’d say a few things about a particular service I wrote. His request was easy enough, but it irritated me that I couldn’t skip it and had to listen to the problem devs drone on and on.
That was bad enough, what really sent me over the edge was that the meeting veered off topic almost immediately (so I was still on deck to share my tidbit of info), and degenerated into a “group design” exercise. (Fuck agile acolytes in the neck for thinking this shit makes sense). So I had to listen to a bunch of jackasses get into various dick measuring/pissing contests. (example point of contention: Should the list of features use the term ACE or ACL? (access control List or Entity))
An hour of that shit. And I never got called on to spout my one line “These pretzels are making me thirsty!”
Yup. Mine was a Triage meeting to size a Bug for working on. This happens twice a week and takes ~11 developers (each team submits a dev because why have the team that actually is going to work on it do the sizing?). Then the team leads spend time arguing about how critical this actually is before deciding that there isn’t enough info so we aren’t going to vote on it anyway.
Reminds me of having to present to the change review board because I needed something inside of the standard timeframes. Droning on and on, until it was my turn, two or three sentences, maybe one pro forma question, and rubber stamped. Less than 5 minutes and wasted half an afternoon.
And they were all like that. If you’re going to rubber stamp everything, why even have a review board?
Heavy processes usually stem from either exceptional incidents or aggressive ass-covering, and often both.
Because one time some idiot did something really, really stupid. So now everyone has to suffer.
HR would have kittens if you singled out the ignoramus and made an example out of him.
“Let us assume the premise, which is wrong and dumb, but let’s assume it.”
Even if we assume that the government is a net positive regarding technology. That does not translate to me having to accept trillion dollars annual deficits, $25 trillion in debt, and $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities (at least). How do we get wins when the media brainwashed the masses into believe that increasing the government by 5% instead of 10% is a “draconian” budget cut that will put barefoot babies out in the frozen streets? I would be happy at this point to see anyone addressing spending. Minarchy is like a pipe dream in comparison to that and we can’t even get that.
Huh, my 2020 calendar has two Romanian castles in it.
I didn’t know they made castles that small in Romania.
1. Who has calendars anymore
2. It’s not the size of the castle is the energetic defenders
It’s easier to glance to the left of my monitor than to pull up the teeny tiny calenders in the computer.
Besides, I like the stock photos of fortifications and manor houses. The 2020 one has an advantage over the 2019 one in that it actually says what castle the picture for the month is of.
WRONG!
Your calendar should be to the right of your monitor. Everyone knows that.
That’s where the thermometers go. There’s not enough room for a calendar there.
Sheet it’s 79 degrees in this office. No wonder it doesn’t feel like this fan is doing anything.
Thermometer? WTF?
Are you some chick that needs to constantly complain about the temperature in the office? I’d think you would need a shelf to hold your driving gloves and a bottle of hot sauce more than a thermometer.
I want accurate data.
It’s also 16% humidity in here.
JFC Jimbo. I know you are just a simple upland redneck, but it’s pretty obvious that its called a glove box because its where you keep your driving gloves.
Leap: Prairie-billy is our preferred label.
Also, guilty as charged. I thought the glove box was where you kept your hideout bottle of butterscotch schnapps (for when you snuck out to the garage to avoid wife and kids).
I miss the good old days when you had specific things for single purposes, like marrow spoons and a box in a car specifically for gloves.
I miss the good old days when you had specific things for single purposes
Those days end the day that they banned polygamy. Now you needed a wife that could cook, clean, take care of the kids AND have sex with. Once you started down that path of generalization, it was all downhill from there.
^^^ Makes you wonder what the single purpose of the man is in the relationship
why do you need to look at a calendar? I look at my outlook calendar to see meetings and such.
Who said a damn thing about meetings?
1. People who went to the Moon
2. Nuke it from orbit
it was established in the comments of this very thread that going to the moon was pointless.
Pointless? Look at the jokes we tell about the rest of the World,
America, Fuck Yeah!
Pie, are you one of those punk kids who also doesn’t wear a watch because you can get time from your phone?
watches are jewelry. If I could afford a 5000 dollar or more watch I would wear one. In the meantime I get the time from my phone.
? I know my $20 Timex looks pretty good on my arm, but I wouldn’t call it jewelry.
My theory on watches is that you should go as cheap as you can. They all keep time pretty much the same and (if you are me) it is only a matter of time before you smash it up somehow. Why spend lots of money on something you know is going to get dunked in the water when you reach down in the lake to lip that big walleye?
My theory on watches is the timekeeping is irrelevant and if it is under 1000$ its not worth buying, and I am not joking. If I would ever buy a watch it would be mechanical automatic and used as an accessory. I do not need a watch to keep time. I have my phone. I would not put something on my arm for no reason.
I half agree with you. Watches are definitely jewelry, but after years and years of not wearing one and then just using my phone, I find it handy to be able to glance at my wrist and see what time it is rather than fish my phone out of my pocket. Also handy if you’re walking down the street with an umbrella in one hand and coffee in the other.
As for price, there are watches I want in the $2000 range, but I’m very happy with my Vincero nickel-finish and an automatic Seiko 5, neither of which cost me more than $100.
The timekeeping is irrelevant only if you never go anywhere without your cell phone. Some of us are occasionally not in the same room as our phone.
My problem with the $1K floor is that the name brand prices are hugely inflated, often to cover their enormous branding/marketing campaigns. You can get the same mechanical movements in any number of perfectly good watches. I buy watches based on their functions (second hand, day/date, etc.) and looks, and I don’t really care about the brand. So I spend in the mid-hundreds when I buy a watch, and I get one that is equivalent in every way except the logo for one costing multiples more. I don’t buy watches to impress other people, but if someone wants to pay for the brand, go right ahead.
I buy mechanical watches for the sole and sufficient reason that I like them.
I feel the same way about sunglasses. Too many scratched lenses on Julbos, Ray-Bans, and Oakleys have made me a huge fan of the $12 glasses sold in the fishing aisle at WalMart
me theory on sunglasses is that some cheap ones do not protect your eyes. But you can buy ones that do in the 100 Lei (25$) range. I have a pair of ray bans I payed 125 Euros on (I got a good discount) which I keep for special occasions and a pair of Polaroid which I payed 200 Lei on for day to day / work.
A buddy of mine swears by a pair of Polaroids he got on Amazon for cheap. They’re aviators, and so is he; he sells private jets, so he spends a lot of time taking clients out for test flights. They work for him and they look good, which is a pretty solid endorsement in my book.
I should point out here, that I have lost at least 3 cell phones over the years carp fishing. I might be OK now because they all seem to be way more waterproof than the early models. Even so, the #1 rule when fishing for the Queen of the River is to put the cell phone in the gear bag.
What would happen:
1) Go to the Mighty Mississippi with your buddies
2) Setup on some secluded river bank. Chum with corn, tie up illegal multiple line rig with corn and dough, put rod in y-stick
3) Wait (waiting includes drinking beer and horsing around with buddies)
4) Look over and see rod launch out of y-stick and head for river
5) tear off and leap into river to grab pole
6) make a great landing of 20+ carp. Get high 5’s from all your buddies
7) realize you left phone in pocket while leaping into river
8) ask buddies if you can sleep at their place for a few days until wife gets done being mad about needing to buy a new phone
9) Buddies all refuse (they aren’t stupid despite the fact they are friends with you)
10) slink home and face music
Best watch I ever had was a Stocker & Yale mechanical issued by the US Army. For all the things I left the service with, on the morning of my separation the supply sergeant tracked me down and demanded it back.
I remember you wrote that in the comments of one of my watch articles. I refer to those as “tool” watches. Designed for a purpose and a pleasure to use – similar to well made and well designed tool.
I just peeked @ Ebay, and its similar model is going for $600.
Which explains why I dont have one.
I have a story I’ve been kicking around for a decade; the world of the left come true. A one world government achieving all the glorious utopia they dream of. Except for one remaining free and libertarian state, the existence of which is hidden from the rest of the world by this government. The protagonist would end up learning of and traveling to this place and the juxtaposition of assumed passed time would become evident. This leftist utopia, seemingly decades of years more advanced than our current world, has been stagnant for centuries, and all the miracles of a sci-fi future exist in this hidden place. (not sure if this description really does justice to what I’m envisioning)
Anthem,
You mean like Atlas Shrugged? Or like the Probability Broach?
Don’t know the Probability Broach; but yes the idea germinated with the idea of Gault’s Gulch and the story points that weren’t explored in that slog.
Don’t listen to the ‘it’s already been done’ crowd. Everything has already been done, make it interesting/entertaining enough and you don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
I think he was asking more about style than comparing the idea.
Yep, I was asking about style. And you may like Probability Broach. Its the most Ruttin Tuttin Libertarian Shootin of the Secret Libertarian Utopia novels I know of.
And yeah, I can read the same thing again if its done well. I don’t know how many stories I’ve read about Batman spiraling into darkness and trying to figure out if he’s the baddy, but I’ll keep reading them if they are good (even if they don’t have Batman in them).
Probability Broach was probably my first brush with libertarian fiction, it was a free web-comic back in the day when I was a webcomic junkie. As a student who though well of the Swedish system, I brushed it aside at first, but the story caught my interest. Also there were talking monkeys. Right after I read the moon is a harsh mistress.
Traveling from Fremont, CA to Edmonton, AB today. Spotify, earbuds, air travel, and stupid comments on Glibertarians. It’s like I died and went to Heaven. Or SFO. 🙁
Leaving for BHC AZ in a few hours, driving, drinking coffee, streaming Classical KUSC, good travels to you Sir!
To you as well. I just ordered a double Bulleit rye at the airport bar. Lost productivity.
Honestly, the entire question of “the government invented the internet” is an exercise in hypotheticals. Government research simply channels resources into a defined end. In this case, it happened to be a computer network capable of withstanding a nuclear war. Of course, computer networks existed well before the internet. Without ARPANet some other network might have scaled up to that level. Or maybe not. You can’t ever really know. What you can know is that the resources would have gone to some other use. Perhaps that would mean a cure for diabetes or a cure for Alzheimer’s.
As for the smart phone? Please. Touch screens aren’t essential to the smartphone, as anyone who ever had a Blackberry can attest. And the smartphone itself was hardly in itself any technological breakthrough. Steve Jobs simply realized you could bundle a bunch of existing technologies together in a new and cool way. It was the bundling, more than any of the technologies, that defined the breakthrough.
Without ARPANet some other network might have scaled up to that level. Or maybe not – off course. But I strongly believe it would. Or multiple networks which would have interconnected. Which may have some issues but may have ended up more robust and less centralized.
But I strongly believe it would.
Again, maybe. Remember, modems weren’t exactly groundbreaking technology. They’d been around for a couple of decades. And, yeah, there were BBS services that had content. But, mostly, they hadn’t made a commercial go of it. It’s certainly possible that some player would have come around and built the scale that I suspect was necessary for commercial success. But, it isn’t obvious.
Well, at least 2 teams at Xerox PARC were working on networking — Lisp and Smalltalk. Smalltalk birthed the GUI now omnipresent in personal life. Both Jobs and Gates referenced it.
Networks were springing up all over, and the business and research benefits were obvious long before Tim Berne’s-Lee’s nasty little idea. (No, URI’s nor URL’s are not all that great.)
So I think something like “the Internet” was inevitable by the mid 70s, if not considerably earlier. Would it have played out differently absent ARPA/DARPA? Duh. Circumstances alter cases. But the foundations were there, so I’ll stand by inevitable.
Xerox’s behaviour just baffles me. They go to all the trouble to set up PARC, do all this effort of developing stuff… then never bother to exploit their own work.
Amen. They invented so much stuff, and never really figured out how to monetize anything that wasn’t a copier. It’s tragic.
TI had some similarities, on a smaller scale.
But to waste the treasures of PARC is just mind-boggling.
Sadly, a lot of the parts of the story I’m familiar with came down to personalities.
Some of the military forces divisions seem to have been driven by personality, and personality conflicts, as well. Viz. the confusion over whether and how to use aircraft. The US was particularly hobbled in this regard, IIRC.
TI got in on the government gravy train hard. They marketed themselves into a de facto government granted monopoly on calculators in schools.
We might not have “the Internet” but we would still have the world-wide-web, which is what matters.
Better porn. This is always the answer of what we missed out on.
We would have had VR porn in 1980, if we hadnt gone to the moon.
If the alternate America has sexbots instead of some stupid flag on the stupid moon, it is clearly the better version.
Alternate history: Gary Hart is elected President in 1988 after caught with his sexbot on the Monkey Business. No one cared.
Some government had a need to be able to drop a bomb anywhere in the world with a high degree of accuracy. So this government funded private companies to develop, launch, and maintain a network of satellites that transmit position data that will let other devices calculate where they are relative to the satellites and thus where they are on the earth.
Some private companies launch their own satellites to take high resolution pictures of the surface of the earth and sell those images to many other companies and as well as to governments. Some combination of private companies and governments turns those satellite images into various databases of streets.
Another private company creates a fleet of vehicles with cameras mounted on the roof and satellite receivers that know how to listen to the satellites the transmit position data. They drive this fleet of cars across ALL the streets (eventually) and collect pictures of the world tagged with the position data received from satellites, and thus tagged to street locations. This company then combines their pictures and street locations with databases of streets made by other companies from satellite images to make a new and improved database of streets. Then this company develops an application to sit on a device that can listen to satellites transmitting position data and to read a database of streets and then compute a route from point A to point B.
Therefore, the government invented google maps.
That’s how we do this right?
When Mr. GT & I were trying to get to Maumee Bay State Park (yeah, yeah, I know) last summer, Google Maps led us very precisely into a Toledo scrapyard.
Confirms your conclusion.
Yeah, GM just tried to send me through Vegas to get to BHC,
I think not,
GPS, good for War, good for Peace
I spend a few moments every now and then trying to figure out how private industry would have created the functional equivalent of GPS without needing billions and billions of dollars to develop and launch the GPS satellite constellation.
I imagine it could be done just as well in developed areas by triangulating off cell towers.
They only started with 27 satellites, now who knows…
https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/
30 in operation. 2 in checkout. I believe the 11 Block IIR satellites are all past or nearly past their planned life cycle. The government is having problems getting replacement up in a timely fashion (as I recall).
how private industry would have created the functional equivalent of GPS without needing billions and billions of dollars to develop and launch the GPS satellite constellation
Capitalism is quite adept at assembling resources for large, expensive projects. it managed to put up a constellation of satellites for satellite phones (Iridium?), I think it could have managed GPS satellites.
Iridium may not be the best choice for capitalism…
https://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-of-iridium-5615034/
I wasn’t addressing whether it was a good idea, merely whether capitalism could put up a constellation of satellites.
They did, so the answer is yes. They also lost all their money.
So the question is – how best to monetize something like GPS?
as did many enterprises
So the question is – how best to monetize something like GPS?
Probably licensing the software to translate the GPS signal into something usable.
So the question is – how best to monetize something like GPS?
GPS provides position and time. Lots of commercial applications can benefit from that.
I can certainly see how some business or consortium could start a service in high-population areas and build incrementally to global services (see cellular communications). Satellites aren’t necessary to do that.
GPS was basically a global service on day one (ignoring the actual build up of the constellation). I don’t think there is a business case to do that as a commercial service.
The US government did that to conduct warfare anywhere and everywhere from the start.
My understanding is that banking now relies heavily on GPS for time-keeping.
GPS is actually one of those things I know fairly well.
The initial capital investment for satellite GPS was far and away beyond any corporation’s reach. I don’t think anybody outside of the US government could have done it.
That said, local ground based GPS exists as high precision add-ons to satellite GPS and are paid services. They’re used in construction, surveying, seismology, building monitoring, etc… Sub-millimeter accuracy is possible.
Trimble runs one of the largest such networks https://www.trimble.com/trs/findtrs.asp
Yes. GPS is basically a bunch of very accurate clocks. Accurate enough to have to consider special relativity factors.
The location accuracy of satellite GPS is driven by signal code comparisons. The highest accuracy possible from satellite is currently 30 cm and is reserved to the military (the P-Code).
Look, as every science fiction movie of the last four decades has shown us, corporations are going to control all of outer space and we will all live in damp, pipe-riddled hallways with bad lighting.
And be wearing the same one piece silver suits
So long as there is some bright blue fluid to drink or inject that makes me feel good I’m okay with that.
as long as I get a plastic codpiece to wear, I’m good.
Ooooh I’m sorry chipsnsalsa but the only thing we have left is this brass bikini.
Iridium folded. The government took it over for a while.
The new Iridium may be privately held, but I believe it stays afloat because of government contracted services for safety-of-life communications. But, it’s been a while since I was paying attention to SATCOM services.
My understanding as well.
I was using an early military version of GPS in the 91 Gulf War. We also had something call “PLARS” that was the ground based alternative. It had 2 problems – getting the towers set up in an exact location which was tricky in a flat desert, and not outrunning the signal in a moving battle.
GPS wasn’t initially thought of as a guidance system for close air support. We already had lasers and radar beacons to make hits an almost certainty. I still think gps guided bombs are generally a waste of money and an example of defense contractors fleecing the taxpayers.
I still think gps guided bombs
There is some movement to less expensive “close enough” precision bombs that are guided inertially
This is the second story along these lines. I hope they turn it into a series.
House Hears Testimony From Renowned, Unbiased Legal Scholar Hillga Clintonheimer
It has a twist ending you’ll never believe!
… woodchippers?
It has a twist ending you’ll never believe!
Sorry, already read the H & H Extended Universe story. Not putting myself through that again.
I know who I’m pulling the lever for next year!
https://babylonbee.com/news/nation-accused-of-sexism-for-rejecting-cruella-de-vil-as-presidential-candidate
Heh
Listening to David Stockman on Tom Woods today. Not very impressed with his take on the Fed. He has the right conclusions but his reasons are all wrong. It strikes a lot of “Muh Manufacturing” and “Stupid Tech”. Yeah NASDAQ is up, and manufacturing is down. the Fed may have some hand in this, but i don’t think Tech is completely over valued and that the world will be perfect if we just had manufacturing back.
Also he raisese the “Real wages have been stagnant for 40 years” which i’ll dig around for, but i’m pretty sure that “factoid” has a lot of flaws.
Russ Roberts has a number of youtube videos questioning it.
Depends on the source. Some stagnant sources exclude benefits. Some lump part time and full time together. Some incorporate the CPI into their adjustments for inflation.
All assume that family structure is the same in 2019 as it was in 1969…
Stockman is a good man, but he approaches the problem from a different angle and kind of sort of reaches the same conclusion as you, but not quite the same. He kind of reminds me of Peter Schiff and his jihad against cryptos. In Stockman’s defense, though, he may be too obsessed with manufacturing, but at the same time others are really devaluing the value of manufacturing.
I remember a couple of years ago, when Walter Block and Nick Gillespie debated, Block rightly pointed out that Gillespie’s obsession with denigrating manufacturing and shrugging at government actions to make them less competitive was as much an industrial policy as those who want the government to prop-up these industries. That’s a fair point that people often ignore.
That’s true, and the Fed policy has seemed to help prop up a bubble in unprofitable tech companies, so it could just be my internal biases going off when i think i hear someone saying “Manufacturing good, tech bad”
I use to get the same way when someone made comments like that, so I understand and probably agree more with you than Stockman. Walter Block’s response to Gillespie during that debate really made me think about it from the other perspective and in a lot of ways the government does prop-up tech, including all of our free trade agreements that are geared toward disadvantaging manufacturers while protecting tech. It’s very telling that the people who oppose our tariffs on China (WSJ and writers at Forbes, for example) agree that we should tariff China for not enforcing Western IPO laws. But, that’s off topic from what Stockman was saying. I’m only saying that Trump and his supporters are not the only ones pining for industrial policy.
+1 Stock Market Bubble
Here’s some internet, for ya! https://youtu.be/6Z0a3qznw4E
A time machine to a bygone era of double knit polyester, sideburns, cocaine, and rock n roll.
Also, a nice Les Paul, a nice SG, and a Precision Bass. Nice setup.
I wore out my first P bass, so I bought a new one, turns out I like the old one better,
I just got the all tube Orange Rocker 32. Damn, is it sweet.
gonna OT myself cause this shit is funny
https://twitter.com/ComradeJinjin/status/1200809314916749312
I must be missing something.
Someone clearly hasn’t read Mao. Go educate yourself
I’d rather not.
I suppose not everyone finds tankie fights funny
I feel deeply distraught reading that, because it sounds an awful lot like one true libertarian fights. I do not want to have anything in common with tankies.
We need to create a “Socialist” State and advertise it for all socialists to live in. Then they can spend the rest of their lives arguing with each-other about this stuff.
social fascist, social imperialist
never seen any of those terms before now.
All ways of saying “That guy is not like me even though his policies are almost identical”
Libertarians do the same thing.
That’s why I’m a rule-consequentialist classical liberal, and not a Libertarian.
Ahhh Brothers and Sisters Argue. It’s the natural order of things. Like Libertarians and Communists. Or Libertarians and Socialists. Or Libertarians and Conservatives. Or Libertarians and other Libertarians. Damn Libertarians, Ruined Libertarianism.
Next up:
democratic fascist
democratic imperialist
Hey, if its good enough for democratic socialism . . . .
Pretty sure: Democratic Fascist => Elizabeth Warren
Democratic Imperialist => Trump
Historical:
DF: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr
DI: Teddy Roosevelt
Now that you mention it, Trump definitely has some TR similarities. Not quite the rugged outdoorsman type, but in demeanor and style I think you can draw some parallels.
“Splitter!!!”
https://twitter.com/NBCSCapitals/status/1202441770321219585
Ovechkin casually using a torch on the bench.
can’t hate this guy.
His stick blade pattern is called the Crazie Ovie.
Save all your last drugs for me…
https://youtu.be/jK53G3VEHKQ
All I’ve got is Tylenol.
Conservative publication writes something worth reading- America stunned.
https://www.redstate.com/jeffc/2019/12/05/blacks-don%e2%80%99t-vote-%e2%80%98free-stuff%e2%80%99-anyone-else/
“Blacks Don’t Vote for ‘Free Stuff’ More Than Anyone Else”
FTA:
“Yes, it is also a common argument that conservatives make about most Democratic voters, especially when it comes to presidential elections. In this vein, it makes sense considering the fact that many of the Democrats vying for the nomination are pushing free college and free healthcare.
However, this label has been specifically applied to black Americans by the right over the past few decades. In this instance, conservative pundits claim that blacks vote Democrat mainly because they wish to keep their food stamps, welfare payments, and other government benefits.
This stereotype paints blacks as lazy individuals who would rather live off government largesse rather than get a job. This particular trope is prevalent on the right — especially on social media and elsewhere. But it has also been prevalent in Republican politics. During the 2016 campaign, Jeb Bush repeated the claim that blacks support Democrats because of “free stuff.” When Mitt Romney ran against President Obama in 2012, he made the same argument.”
AND
“Instead of buying into tropes given to us by the media, conservatives will make true progress with the black community when they seek to truly understand what blacks want. It is only then that we can start presenting conservative solutions to a voting block that is open to them.”
“Blacks Don’t Vote for ‘Free Stuff’ More Than Anyone Else”
The problem is that everyone wants free stuff.
I saw the headline earlier, went “No shit, sherlock” and didn’t bother to open the article, moving on to other pieces.
Yeah, good point.
TL/DR: Conservatives should stop labeling an entire demographic group as moochers and maybe try campaigning for their vote every once in a while.
Republicans don’t even need African Americans to vote for them in order to win the presidency or most congressional races. They just need African Americans to not vote for Democrats, which is exactly how Trump won in 2016. Instead of playing on stereotypes, maybe Republicans could treat African Americans as living, breathing, thinking individuals who make trade-offs like the rest of us.
This is giving more credence to how the words were spun than to what I think was actually intended. I think Romney and Bush were extrapolating what they saw as the Democratic Party’s central purpose to one of its core voting blocs. What they failed to realize (and probably still don’t to this day, no matter how much they kowtow to elite opinion) is that the Democratic Party is, like their own party, not a monolith. At the same time Obama was winking to his progressive base on gay marriage and other social issues, he was also saying he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and visiting black churches. Why? Because that’s what black voters wanted. Every new welfare program was about getting dollars flowing through government, not getting or keeping black votes. This is a time-honored political tradition, going all the way back to FDR (and further back) telling the country minimum wage is about the freedom from want while selling it to labor unions as a way to keep whites employed. Politicians will be whatever people want them to be, and will ensure that people see what they want to see and only that. The Democratic Party is for free shit, black voters primarily vote for Democrats, but it does not follow that the reason they do is because of that free shit. That is the error.
Concerning the unions, that was only really true until the unions tied their pay to minimum wage scale.
There was a sea change from FDR to LBJ, although I don’t know when exactly unions did that.
Which unions have pay tied to minimum wage anymore? For most private sector unions, at least the contracts I’m familiar with, are lucky to hit COLA. Government unions are completely out of control COLA is the base with wage increases on top of that.
Not as many as used to be but it is still the case for many.
UNITE, UFCW and SEIU all have minimum wage stipulations, although not all are multiples, some just put an adder to the min wage and call it their floor.
Ah, those unions, and their main industries, make sense.
Marriage is visiting black churches?! I did it all wrong. No wonder I’m divorced.
The problem of hasty edits…
Yeah, I agree with that assessment.
I can only speak anecdotally, but I have known conservatives who do dismiss black voters as just wanting government handouts, which is ironic, because it’s really white progressives that demand government freebies (which explains why “free college” is all the rage with Democrats).
African American voters are really the low hanging fruit, in my opinion. Again, only from anecdotal experience, from the African Americans that I know they are increasingly uncomfortable within a Democratic Party that is increasingly higher income and increasingly obsessed with religious animus (considering the high rate of African American church attendance). But, I don’t feel like enough effort is made by the LP (that will require new leadership, if we’re being honest) and the GOP to actually campaign for their vote or at least convince them to not vote Democrat. If Democrats can’t get large African American turnout then that’s it essentially for Democrats.
LP (that will require new leadership, if we’re being honest)
Agreed. Sarwark has been a terrible leader, and I imagine the rot goes deeper than him. But, the LP was never currying many black votes because it was never really currying any votes at all. I don’t know if it will ever be a vehicle for anything other than protest votes.
the GOP to actually campaign for their vote or at least convince them to not vote Democrat
This seems to be Trump’s strategy, as you’ve already alluded to. As John at H&R said a long time ago, you don’t need to shift the vote by that much to put the Republicans in a better position than the Democrats. Unfortunately, although largely for other reasons, the Republicans are losing the other segments of the voting population.
If Democrats can’t get large African American turnout then that’s it essentially for Democrats.
Maybe. The two parties have survived a lot worse than a few lost votes.
I say “unfortunately” even though I’m not particularly enamored of the Republicans because the current crop of Democrats seems to be utterly terrible. Old school anti-communists they are not.
Yeah. I just view the Republicans as just stop gaps. They can’t ever get anything done when they’re in government, but they also stop Democrats from getting things done. They get judges in and that’s a positive, but that’s about all they do now, which is fine by me.
” truly understand what blacks want.”
Which is what? Something keeps them solidly in the Dem camp. Perhaps “what blacks want” (a racist assumption) is not whatever conservatives or libertarians are interested in pedaling because it violates their principles?
“Something keeps them solidly in the Dem camp. Perhaps “what blacks want” (a racist assumption) is not whatever conservatives or libertarians are interested in pedaling because it violates their principles?”
Maybe. But, I have a hard time buying this argument when the LP nominee in 2016 and half of the Republicans running that same year were more than willing to violate their supposed principles in order to pander to the LGBTQ lobby (“Bake the Cake” was pretty popular among Republican candidates and, of course, the LP candidate).
I think the main issue is that Libertarians and Republicans do not campaign at all in African American communities (other than Trump, ironically) and they don’t know what to campaign to them about. School choice is obviously an issue where most African Americans would be more aligned with libertarians and conservatives, but for some reason very few of these candidates are willing to campaign on this issue to that community.
Gary Johnson undoubtedly knows more LGBTQ people and their “allies” than he knows average black folks. Their concerns are alien to him, not because he’s a bigot*, but because they are outside his known world.
* = He’s still an idiot and, if tarran is right, a fraud
Agreed. And I did not want to suggest that Johnson was a bigot against African Americans. I’m sorry if it seemed like I was suggesting that. Nor, do I think most GOP or LP voters are bigots. I think the GOP and LP have become obsessed with an old base of support that just does not support them anymore and rather than trying to find new inroads with different demographic groups they just continue to try to appease a white suburban voter that is not interested in voting for them.
This isn’t really what they said, but it got taken out of context and became the “truth” via narrative building. In both cases, they were contrasting what they were going to offer black voters vs. what (they thought) the Democrats were offering. It’s not so much that country club Republicans think blacks are moochers, but rather that they are completely out of touch. At the national level, the Democrats are selling free shit to white progressives, not blacks. What they sell to blacks is “not being racist”. The ethos of the national Democratic Party vis-a-vis black voters was much better encapsulated by Biden’s “they gonna put you all back in chains” than by Mitt or Jeb’s “free stuff” comment.
Chilly and grey at SFO. The weather sucks, too.
Candy Apple Grey in my earbuds.
Dead Set on Destruction
https://youtu.be/_xUA5Wprc0c
Just a good ole boy.
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/watch-toyota-camry-jumps-139-feet-parking-lot
The internet is just a series of tubes.
Another good article about demographics and voting patterns. This one is spot on. From ‘Liberty Magazine’.
http://libertyunbound.com/node/2083
FTA:
“These people are by no means dumb. They have advanced degrees, they make their living by analysis and application of facts, and they are financially very successful. Moreover, they made their own money. They are not the idle, coupon-clipping rich. Yet they are rich.
I reflected on my own friends. Many of them are progressive Democrats. Their ideas are, as far as I can tell, precisely the same as those of the people I just described, because they believe precisely everything the “progressive” media have to say. And these people are also rich.”
AND
“I’ll start by asking a question. What do you call a set of ideas and practices that, though impervious to fact, arouses such strong emotions that people will sacrifice to it their time, their energy, and (at least some of) their wealth, deriving from it their ethical validation and regarding everyone who takes another view as either ignorant or immoral? If you said, “That sounds like a fanatical religion,” you are right. There has never been a fanatical religion in the modern West that has not found wealthy people to support it, no matter how much it preached against wealth.”
AND
“With the very rich getting very richer and pledging ever more funds to the Church of Virtue Signaling, libertarians have a harder row to hoe than they did back in the day, when their principal opponents were the supposed representatives of the working classes — grasping labor unions and warmongering nationalists. The answer is not to try serving up libertarianism as its own substitute religion, as too many activists do. It is to preach the open, optimistic promises of a non-cult, to offer the calm and common sense that are treasured by the majority of working people — people who truly “just want to be left alone” by politicians, particularly those who make a religion out of politics. I think it is that desire, more than anything else, that elected Donald Trump, and libertarian ideas present a refreshing alternative to the rest of his message. It’s the “working class” — not the academics, and certainly not the rich — who are now our natural audience. It’s time to let them know that we’re still here.”
That’s an interesting take. The problem is that wanting the government to leave you alone has been cast as a radical position. Previously and maybe at best it was only embraced hypocritically, in that lots of people want the government to leave *them* alone while also wanting the government to get deeply involved in the lives of people doing things they don’t like. That said, I fully agree that selling the more pragmatic, common-sense breed of liberty as opposed to the highfalutin philosophically-rigorous version is probably a better tactic.
Agreed. I also think that his argument that libertarians need to stop pretending as if they are speaking to an upper-income base needs to end, because those are progressive voters and you cannot win them over by offering them a substitute religion from their progressive faith. Libertarians should direct their message at their actual natural base now: the working class.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/politics/joe-biden-push-ups.html
Christ. What an asshole.
Balko is on the case, in a very SF kind of way.
NEW HAMPTON, Iowa — Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Thursday angrily lashed a voter who questioned his son’s overseas business dealings at a campaign stop here, calling the man a “damn liar” in an unusually heated exchange.
The man — who declined to identify himself to reporters — said that Mr. Biden had “sent” his son to work in Ukraine and accused him of “selling access to the president.”
“You’re a damn liar, man,” Mr. Biden shot back. “That’s not true. And no one has ever said that. No one has proved that.”
President Trump faces the possibility of impeachment after pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. He has made debunked claims about corruption, and there is no evidence that the Bidens engaged in wrongdoing. But Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s son, did hold a lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The man suggested that the younger Mr. Biden “had no experience” in that field.
“I’m not sedentary,” Mr. Biden, 77, said. “The reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people know. And I can get things done. That’s why I’m running.”
He went on to encourage the man to do push-ups or go running with him, or take an I.Q. test with him, as the room applauded. At another point, he appeared to say, “Look, fat, look, here’s the deal.”
That’s going to go over really good in Iowa.
The man eventually told Mr. Biden he would not be voting for him. “Well, I knew you weren’t, man,” Mr. Biden responded. “You think I thought you’d stand up and vote for me? You’re too old to vote for me.”
No malarkey.
“He has made debunked claims about corruption”
Literally a lie, as the corporate press refusing to cover a story does not amount to it being “debunked”.
“The man suggested that the younger Mr. Biden “had no experience” in that field.”
The man didn’t ‘suggest’ shit. It is a matter of fact that Hunter Biden had zero experience in the energy sector when he got his job.
Just a minute, NYT. To be absolutely clear, _did_ anyone successfully debunk those claims about corruption? I think they’re still bunkful, and since neither Biden seems eager to appear before the Senate during an impeachment hearing to address them I believe the debunking will have to wait.
It’s accepted wisdom.
Bend over and accept it.
I would have immediately replied “Just like you lied about the guy who hit your wife’s car as being drunk at the time?”
And no one has ever said that. No one has proved that.
I think that second sentence is unintentionally revealing.
I can’t wait for the day when I’m challenged by a 70+ blowhard politician to a push-up contest because I call him out for being a scumbag. I would train night and day if I thought I could bait, I don’t know, whoever is going to be in Biden’s place in maybe fifteen to twenty years into a pull-up competition and get the guy to have a stroke.
You which other politician used pushups as a means of proving he was fit to be a candidate?
Mr. Peanut ?
FDR?
Jack Palance wasn’t a politician.
The man — who declined to identify himself to reporters — falsely claimed that Mr. Biden had “sent” his son to work in Ukraine and accused him of “selling access to the president.”
Something about the inline fact checking just seems a bit off to me. Perhaps if it was the shtick of every claim made by people, and the NYT did it all the time…
Heres a fun rehash:
“According to Sources who asked to remain anonymous, Mr. Biden “sent” his son to work in Ukraine and accused him of “Selling access to the president.”
I like the part where he starts to say “Look, Fat…” I can only assume he held back before getting the “ass” out.
The lawsuit over forced disclosure of confidential business information (the prices hospitals negotiate with insurers) has been filed.
Typically, the problem this is supposed to solve, won’t be.
Surprise bills are bills by providers who are not in your insurance company’s network. Having hospitals publish their prices doesn’t affect that at all. The insurance companies have that info (and so do the patients).
High out-of-pocket costs are driven by whether you have insurance, and if so, what the copay and deductible in your plan is. Having hospitals publish their prices doesn’t affect that at all.
If hospitals actually disclosed their cash pay price up front I’d buy your argument that the negotiated insurance rate was proprietary and confidential. As an uninsured (never insured unless you count the crap they include with your fees as a college student) person the thing that infuriates me to the point of actual hatred is the utter impossibility of getting a straight answer to the simple question “how much is this x-ray, test etc. going to cost me?” Even when you get an answer it is not a real number since 6 weeks later you get a bill from the hospital for the x ray, another from the company that employs the guy who took the X ray, and another bill from the guy who read the x ray.