Dinosaurs survived the extinction event as well[0]. Conditions may have been bad but not so bad that generalized forms couldn't survive.
669 karma · joined August 20, 2014
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station#...
> I am passionate about problems that do the norm.
How can something so nonsensical contain so much meaning...
0. https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-exc...
> Churchill has the blood of millions on his hands whom the British prefer to forget.
If only citations mattered to people.
> Churchill was one of the few British officials in favor of bombing Irish protesters from the air, suggesting using “machine gun fire bombs” to scatter them.
A thought without action. War gaming is common. You suggest a full range of ideas and only use the most sensible option.
> In fact he argued that poison gas was more humane than outright extermination: “The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.”
Referring to tear gas. And they never used it! He was war gaming.
> Churchill was an open admirer of Mussolini, declaring that the Italian Fascist movement had “rendered a service to the whole world.”
That's called politics. Politicians have to flatter less than savory world leaders all the time.
> “the superiority of [the British] race” and that those who resisted would “be killed without quarter.” He wrote happily about how he and his comrades “systematically, village by village, destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation. Every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once.”
He was a war correspondent -- a journalist. He has to say these things. Coverage of wars is always heavily censored and filled with propaganda.
> He fantasized luridly of having Mahatma Gandhi tied to the ground and trampled upon by elephants.
Gandhi was asking for Indian independence while Imperial Japan was invading Bengal. Not great timing! In Churchill's eyes, Gandhi was sabotaging the war effort and breaking up the empire that he loved so much. Churchill and Gandhi were political enemies. No doubt every one is guilty of wishing this on their opposition... Hell, there's a common fantasy of killing "baby" Hitler in America.
> Thanks to Churchill’s personal decisions, more than 3 million Bengalis died of hunger in a 1943 famine.
Ignoring the fact that Japan was attacking India through Bengal... Bengal is a casualty of war not a "personal decision" of a racist imperialist. The author conveniently ignores the fact that Churchill asked the US for food aid to end the famine... The US refused because it was not possible to provide aid. So Churchill ordered Australia to begin shipping food but Australia's capabilities to ship food were not great because of...you know WORLD WAR 2. Should Churchill have ceded India to Japan? Would Japanese occupation been better for Indians? Not in China's experience!
Yes but you've missed the point. Those billions have turned out to be a net positive for the world. But at the time, why should someone dying of cancer fund a literal moonshot? Why should we antagonize the nuclear armed Soviets over a dead rock? Why this, why that?
> Also, your tax dollars are absolutely being handed over to private organisations in one way or another.
Then it incurs the same penalties! The opportunity cost argument still applies. "Why did we fund this business over that business?"
The majority of private businesses have no exclusive government support. They are free to fail with zero impact to society. This means their apps are crappier but no one had to suffer to make it happen.
The Soviets sent the first rocket to space in 1961. Twenty-one years later the first private space company launched its rocket using repurposed government technology.
There is no doubt that governments can do things. They are, after all, just groups of people; the same as private enterprises.
But while the Soviets were launching rockets, their citizens waited hours in line for their day's rations.
"The accepted norm is that the Soviet woman daily spends two hours in line, seven days a week, daily going through double the gauntlet that the American housewife undergoes at her supermarket once, maybe twice a week." Hedrick Smith.
When you marshal the entirety of society towards a goal you can accomplish great things. But always at a cost.
When a private business makes a terrible app, I can sleep soundly at night knowing I never gave anything up for that app's creation. If I see a beautiful, well-constructed, publicly funded app, I might be pleased at the attention to detail and admire the construction of the thing. But I have to wonder, what did I give up in return? How many people with broken arms waited in an over-burdened system for the prestige of a beautiful website?
The problem isn't that the government can or can not. Its the choice to do or do not. Its the opportunity cost to the society that poisons the government's action.
Which accounts for 4% of healthcare spending. Rare, unforeseen events are covered by insurance. That's how home insurance works. That's how car insurance works. That's how health insurance works.
> It's a mistake, and frankly barbaric, to think of healthcare as a "market."
I don't "think of" healthcare as a market. By definition, it is a market. Whether it functions well enough to any person's satisfaction is a matter of what that person values.
> It should be a public service to all in the pursuit of a just society.
Is a "just" society your only goal? A healthy society, a wealthy society, a free society. There are many goals which might conflict with a "just" society. How do you balance those objectives with social justice?
---
Edit: I forgot to respond to my main point. Namely, that I do pick and choose healthcare based on who provides the best price. I shopped around my dentist. I shopped around for my root canal, I shopped for some eye issue I had, I shopped around for my general practitioner, I ask for alternatives when the doctor wants to prescribe medications.
Which is to say. I do not shop around for health insurance (it is provided by my employer). I shop around for health care specifically.
Birth control? An annual (3 years in Washington) cancer screening and check up for your birth control prescription. Possibly covered by insurance but not REQUIRED. Which is different from OUTLAWED. Not that it matters, my wife's birth control costs $85 every three months and we can pay for it with our HSA. That's hardly emptying anyone's bank account especially when you compare it to the ACA which requires every citizen spend >$100/mo on insurance that does mostly nothing!
Bathroom laws? Oh yeah? Which one! There are none currently in existence. There were certainly more than a few that were considered but only one passed and it was repealed!
LGBTQ restrictions on adoption? Adoption by same-sex couples is legal in all 50 states!
LGBTQ workplace protections? There are certainly protections at the federal level. But yes, you're right. Places like North Carolina do not have any laws on the books which expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. But ask yourself, what is the practical effect on LGBTQ people? I would argue there is no effect. You might as well be in California. I have worked at many companies with many LGBTQ people and all of them were safer in their employment than I was! No company wants the backlash that comes from being perceived as anti-LGBTQ. Society has adequately regulated the protection of LGBTQ people where governments have not.
As for the apparent racism of rural areas. Having grown up with a great many black friends I've:
* Never met a black person who could not get a driver's license.
* Never been exposed to a dress code that prohibited black people.
---
Look I have my own gripes about rural living (the South specifically). But I won't lie or live in some bizarre universe where the South is hell on earth.
In other words, $350k home = $300k mortgage + $50k in equity. You still have debt. Its just that the debt was exchanged for something. Its the same equation for credit card debt.
No one takes on debt without receiving something in return.
Houston wages [1].
SF wages [2].
Houston rents [3].
SF rents [4].
San Jose rents [5].
Houston wiki [6].
Bay Area wiki [7].
The total geographic area as defined by the city or region's CSA.
> what does it include relating to uninhabitable/unusable space?
Examines land area without regard for zoning or habitability.
> Is average a mean or median wage?
Average means average. Mean.
> What are the rates of poverty in both regions?
Irrelevant.
> What the hell is an "elite of the world" defined as?
Don't know that's why I requested more information from the OP.
1. https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_houston.htm
2. https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_sanfrancisco.htm
3. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/tx/houston/
4. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/san-francisco/
5. https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/santa-clara-county/san-jose/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Houston#Metropolitan_Statistical_Area
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_AreaMedian salary for Houston: $61,708. Median salary for SF: $77,734. Does a 26% increase in salary explain a 250% increase in rents?
The Houston metro area:
* Population: 6.3 million
* Land Area: 10,000 sq. miles
* Average wage: $25.87/hr
* Average 1 bed rental rate: $967/mo
* Wage/rent ratio: 22% monthly income.
* Population: 8 million
* Land Area: 7000 sq. miles
* Average wage: $37.19/hr
* Average 1 bed rental rate: $2500/mo
* Wage/rent ratio: 39% monthly income.