Paleo-Skeptic's blog

There is a new project that I have turned my hand to, that has come to occupy a bit of what little free time I have available.

There is a feral cat that has taken up not far from me. She had a litter of kittens there, four of them. Here are two of them.

I called around last week to find try to find a no-kill shelter to take the kittens to. They will likely be split into two different shelters.

I will take the mama kitty in to get spayed in two weeks, paying for it out of my own pocket.

She's really not as friendly as she looks here.

They are living underneath an old trailer. Not enough room for me to crawl under.

I laid down some plastic, and spread out some old clothes on top of it to make them a bed. That way, they will get used to my smell.

On the weekends, these cats drink bottled water and eat sausage and sardines. But they have a rough go of it ahead of them.

Animals I care for, because we have a responsibility to them. I call this "good stewardship."

People I can only help, but not care for, as they have a responsibility to themselves. I call this "maintaining the fence," ie non-encroachment.

Animals have very few rights, while people have many. Were people to desire the degree of caring which I am obligated to provide to animals, then those rights must first be forfeited.

But I would prefer to strip no one of their rights, nor do I desire to encroach upon another.

Believing such a thing prohibits me from being a liberal in any way. 

This is one of a series that I wrote for my personal blog.  The series basically highlights why I don't care so much for liberals and absolutely abhor progressives; but my personal blog is rather uninteresting for the most part, and most of the commenters there I have known for several years.  A few of that series that I think will be of interest I will post here.  This is an expanded version.

What you see here is the most polluting power station in the United States. It was built in 1917, and commissioned a few years later. It generates 175 MW, which it delivers to two counties. It is known as Old Bessie.

From a bit different view.

At the bottom left, you see a part of the coal bed, above which is the coal handling area. Directly in front of the hoppers is the stack. To my knowledge, the hoppers are a part of the sulfur removal system, and indicate that Old Bessie has undergone at least one retrofit.

Here is another photograph which shows the coal bed.

Old Bessie will be decommissioned in late 2012, due to the fact that a new power station is being built nearby. This new power station will provide 3 1/2 times as much power, to be delivered to five counties, with near-zero carbon emissions.

It does this by means of a gasification system. The coal is pulverized, and then introduced to pressure, steam, and a chemical cocktail; something like a giant espresso machine. Most of the carbon is removed at this point, and sent to the pits, where it is sold off for asphalt manufacture. The liquid is piped to an evaporative column and refined to its component gases. Mercury, sulfur, and other contaminants are removed at this point. The gases are mixed with other chemicals, and are then known as “syngas.” It is this syngas which fuels the boiler, which powers the generator. This particular unit is equipped with two HRSG’s.

This is the fourth power plant that I’ve worked on, although my background is more in refineries and chemical plants; the third coal-fired power plant.

The first power station where I worked was a gas-fired peaking station. I worked mainly instrumentation there.

The second was a marvel of modern science which marked the introduction of Japanese technology in the United States; the second of its type in North America, as they had built one two years earlier in Southern Alberta, Genesee No. 3.

An engineering model for the Genesee unit:

There a quite a few innovations here. At almost every part of the plant there is some type of new technology which had never before been seen in the US.

At 790 MW, this is the first of the large-capacity supercritical boilers of its type in the US. It utilizes a spiral waterwall rather than the conventional vertical waterwall. It is designed for sliding pressure operation, unlike the conventional super-critical units built in the US. There are a number of sensors along the waterwall which direct a rotating water cannon, enabling it to knock off slag on the fly.  

The water treatment system employs a different type of chemicals, which was developed in Germany. The burner is designed with lower stoichiometric ratio, specifically for the low-sulfur bituminous coal of the Powder River Basin, which is classified as a severe slagging fuel. It produces lower NOx content. It exceeded anticipated efficiency during the testing phase.

The turbine is different. It was redesigned to be more efficient. The vortex nozzle is of a newer design, resulting in increased efficiency. 10 – 15 % of the efficiency of the turbine is a direct result of the redesign of the last stage blade. This required the introduction of newer types of steel, which required a few innovations in its manufacture. An overlay method of welding is required for the main bearings rather than the traditional sleeve method. The valves also require high-chromium steel. The axle of the turbine undergoes such severe stress during the start-up phase that it warps. There’s no way around it. Another device at one end bends the axle back into true on the fly.

There is also a urea pad there which produces ammonia on-site (an American technology).

The air quality control systems (AQCS) employ various designs based on the Japanese technology, including an SDS structure with a lime slurry. A portion of revision 9 of the prints was finalized according to my specifications.

I also worked in the turbine area, on the cooling system, and on the hydro-testing.

The second coal-burner that I worked on was of similar design. That one drew water from Lake Michigan, cleaned it up for use in the boiler, and then returned it later. It was engineered for zero particulate emissions, and is currently one of the 10 cleanest coal-fueled power plants in the nation.

I fractured my knee while I was there. They told me that it was a sprain, and I put ice on it twice a day. I went to work for five days on a broken knee until they finally sent me in for an MRI and discovered the fracture; and let me be clear about this-- I’m not some blowhard that stands around giving lectures all day-- I actually work for a living. That earned me the nickname of “Iron Will.” That seems to have followed me. I didn’t care for it so much at first, but now I’ve warmed up to it a bit.

I worked on the condenser units, the water treatment system, and on a part of the SDS system (AQCS) as part of the start-up crew.

I was encouraged by one of the older field engineers that I was working with to submit my resume to the company as field engineer (we had a somewhat lengthy discussion on the chemical properties of lime vs. chalk one day). He offered to give me a good reference. I determined for myself that I wanted to work at one more coal-burner before I did. Taking Old Bessie offline will mark my one.

I know a little bit about clean coal technology.

I know about what’s in place now, and I know something about what’s coming up.

The use of target-specific ionic liquids (TSILs) will become more common as the need to reduce carbon emissions becomes more urgent. The abstract from two papers on the subject follows here:

Performance of nitrile-containing anions in task-specific ionic liquids for improved CO2/N2 separation 

Mahurin, S. M. Lee, J. S. Baker, G. A. Luo, H. Dai, S. 2010-01-01

This work explores the performance of a series of ionic liquids that incorporate a nitrile-containing anion paired to 1-alkyl-3-methylimidazolium cations in tailoring the selectivity and permeance of supported ionic liquid membranes for CO2/N2 separations. The permeance and selectivity of three ionic liquids, each with an increasing number of nitrile groups in the anion (i.e., two, three, and four), were measured using a non-steady-state permeation method. By predictably varying the molar volume and viscosity of the ionic liquids, we show that the solubility, selectivity, and permeance can be optimized for CO2/N2 separation through controlled introduction of the nitrile functionality into the anion. Of the three nitrile-based ionic liquids studied, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetracyanobor...

Design and Evaluation of Ionic Liquids as Novel CO2 Absorbents

Maginn, Edward 2007-07-15 

This is the final report for project DE-FG26-04NT42122 'Design and Evaluation of Ionic Liquids as Novel CO{sub 2} Absorbents'. The objective of this 'breakthrough concepts' project was to investigate the feasibility of using ionic liquids for post-combustion CO{sub 2} capture and obtain a fundamental understanding of the solubility of CO{sub 2} and other components present in flue gas in ionic liquids. Our plan was to obtain information on how composition and structure of ionic liquid molecules affected solubility and other important physical properties via two major efforts: synthesis and experimental measurements and molecular simulation. We also planned to perform preliminary systems modeling study to assess the economic viability of a process based on ionic liquids. We accomplished all the milestones and tasks specified in the original proposal. Specifically, we carried out extensive quantum and classical atomistic-level simulations of a range of ionic liquids. These calculations provided detailed information on how the chemical composition of ionic liquids affects physical properties. We also learned important factors that govern CO{sub 2} solubility. Using this information, we synthesized or acquired 33 new ionic liquids. Many of these had never been made before. We carried out preliminary tests on all of these compounds, and more extensive tests on those that looked most promising for CO{sub 2} capture. We measured CO{sub 2} solubility in ten of these ionic liquids. Through our efforts, we developed an ionic liquid that has a CO{sub 2} solubility 2.6 times greater than the 'best' ionic liquid available to us at the start of the project. Moreover, we demonstrated that SO{sub 2} is also extremely soluble in ionic liquids, opening up the possibility of using ionic liquids to remove both SO{sub 2} and CO{sub 2} from flue gas. In collaboration with Trimeric Inc., a preliminary systems analysis was conducted and the results used to help identify physical properties that must be optimized to enable ionic liquids to be cost-competitive for CO{sub 2} capture. It was found that increasing the capacity of the ionic liquids for CO{sub 2} would be important, and that doing so could potentially make ionic liquids more effective than conventional amine solvents.

 

That’s the sort of thing that I’m talking about.

You don’t have to do the chemistry yourself. There are other people more knowledgeable that are working on it. I get it with an MSDS sheet and a spec sheet.

I also know a bit about the system that TSILs require. I have a pretty good idea of how the chemicals will enter the system and how they will be monitored (by the pH level of the outflow, the same as with the SDS). I already know this system. A few of the specifics remain a range of options.

However, the belief that clean coal technology is even remotely viable prohibits me from being anything approaching a liberal. It’s simply not a part of their agenda. It makes me hated among progressives. While telling me that they love “Science” so much, they really don’t seem to have much of a grasp of it on a practical level.

Nevertheless, I believe in what I do. It coincides with my concept of good stewardship.

I am in the business of making the world a better place. That’s what I do.

And anyone that doesn’t like it can kiss my ass.

There are a few issues that I have had going on in Missouri for some time.  Some of the material is a bit personal in nature, but I am willing to forego some portion of my natural right to privacy in order to bring the attendant issues to the public eye that they might receive the level of awareness they certainly deserve.

In short, I have been the victim of malicious litigation, through the free legal services of a 501(c)(3) organization.  This organization has not been in compliance with the statutory requirements for 501(c)(3) organizations for the past four years.

Nevertheless, they receive a thumbs-up from the Missouri Attorney General, Chris Koster (D).

This manner of state-sponsored terrorism has been given carte blanche by the Attorney General to engage in any number of criminal activities-- evidence tampering and false declarations, abuse of process and malicious prosecution, violations of the ethics rules regarding the conduct of attorneys and violations of the best practices standards for representation by charitable organizations set by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, misappropriation of resources, assisting in fraud and violations of federal law, solicitation of perjured testimony, and other actions both criminal and unethical.

Now, the managing attorney for the 501(c)(3) just so happens to be a member of the Board of Education for the (non-accredited) St. Louis Public Schools.

And this organization just so happens to have been a joint venture between two other groups, one of them a Jewish women's group.  And I have begun to notice that various Jewish women's groups happen to be involved in some of the most invasive and pernicious of progressive causes, and usually under the guise of actually helping something, while the primary practical effect seems, for all the world, to be making matters worse.

I'm no conspiracy buff.  Not even slightly.

But there's something really weird going on when the AG starts advocating criminal activity.

Here follows the text of an e-mail exchange between myself and Koster's office:

Me:

As per our telephone conversation, I had this verified with a consultant (a professor of political science), and Chris Koster personally is indeed ultimately responsible for the policies, procedures, and activities of his office.

Were this a matter of a teacher facing an ethics complaint, then this would be a serious matter, and it would be taken seriously.

If Koster's office chooses to place the complaint on the backburner for the next 3 years or so, and twiddle their thumbs rather than engage in any form of substantive action, then that can well be taken as an indication of how seriously Koster, personally, takes criminal activity funded at the taxpayer's expense to be. 

On the other hand, if the Attorney General sees no issue at persons substantially altering their appearance for the sake of forwarding a claim of mistaken identity in a Missouri court, then perhaps this should be done in all cases. Just saying.

Koster's office: 

This matter has been referred to one of our attorneys for his review. The paperwork should make its way to him in a few days. I do not know whether or not he will contact you personally or not, he may he may not. When or if I hear anything from him I will let you know. Please be aware our office cannot be aware that any kind of action will be taken. You may wish to speak with a private attorney to see what recourse you may have. I know this isn’t what you want to hear, but just be aware our office will review it but we cannot make any promises.

Darned right it's not what I want to hear!

Didn't you read the transcript?

If you did, then why haven't you got a clue yet that I do have an attorney?

And secondly, did you not understand that this was a complaint against a charitable organization, which actively solicits tax-free donations for the purpose of engaging in criminal activity?

And I'm wondering if the people of Missouri really meant to elect the stupidest person possible to be their Attorney General.

First in a series here.  More to come.

It should be entertaining.

Until you start thinking about the ex-Mo AG, Jay Nixon, who now sits in the Governor's chair.

I would like to put a stop to that too.

While I find myself in agreement in principle with the Tea Party on many things, I tend to have a different view of the way we should go about achieving those ends.

There are only a handful of politically-oriented sites I care to read anyway, and this just so happens to be one of them.

There's another one that has a lot of "serious" libertarians; primarily a libertarian site, I suppose you'd say.

And I found occasion to defend the Tea Party there.  And not for the first time.

Of course, I have my concerns with the effect of the Tea Party on Libertarianism as a whole.  Maybe we'll get into that in the comments.

But to equate the Tea Party with the Far Left is certainly incongruous.

Some people say that Tea Partiers can't listen so well.  I say those people don't know how to go about talking to people.

If you mistake pretentiousness for intelligence, then the Far Left seems a whole lot smarter.

Still, it seems like a stretch to me for someone to accuse me of being unconcerned about species depletion just because I like to cast a line in the water every now and then.

I can't remember the last time I caught my limit.  I have had to throw a few back.  Nowhere near depleting any species though.

No, I give the Tea Party a lot more credit than the Far Left.  I think they are a bit smarter, and the fact that they're able to process information that they haven't come across already proves it well enough to me.

Just to say that I'm happy to stand behind you where our interests are the same.

We're really not so far apart.  We just have a different way of going about doing things.

There are only a handful of political blogs that I care to frequent.  One of these is a site run by what I would call "movement libertarians."  There was a discussion of secular opposition to gay marriage.  Subsequently, the comment thread drew a lot of attention from supporters of gay marriage with the same old overblown hyper-emotional arguments.  This post is something of a lengthy comment to that thread.

First, I don't believe that gay marriage is a good idea, and that supporting it would be, from a policy perspective, a very poor choice.  And the reasoning behind this is strictly secular.  On the other hand, I also believe that it's inevitable, that it's part of a broader shift in our culture, and it's bound to happen anyway at one point or another.

I am really turned off by the assertion that same-sex marriage is some sort of civil rights struggle.  There was never a time when gays were obliged to sit at the back of a bus.  There were never special water fountains set up for gays so they would stay away from the 'straights only' water.  That sort of thing never happened.

Back in the days of the wagon trains, riding along in their wagon-- what was the status of gays at that time?  Well, you have these two fellows who ride in this one conestoga by themselves-- they don't have any other family with them.  They decorated their wagon a bit fancy, but it adds a bit of pizzazz to the whole wagon train-- and they haven't been attacked by Indians yet (maybe they haven't yet because they don't know what to think of that fancy wagon!).  And that one fellow can cook pretty good-- mighty tasty, whatever it was.

Everything's good.  As long as they circle up when it's time to circle up and head out when it's time to head out, everything is good.

But then, late one evening, sitting around the campfire, the one fellow decides he wants to hold the other fellow's hand just sitting right there.  How's that going to go over?

Now, claims that one's own marriage is or is not stronger / better off / sprinkled with chocolate chips due to allowing / disallowing same-sex marriage amount to anecdotal evidence, and should be discounted wholesale.  Individual results are rightfully expected to be many and diverse, and evidence of their diversity substantiates this.

The claims of the need for validation and against alienation are over-wrought inanities which amount to nothing more than narcissism, and should be easily discounted.  Just because no one gave you a lollipop doesn't mean that you just got a spanking-- but they want to cry about it just the same.

What is at issue is the right of the state to administer administrative law, such as the professional requirements for architects, nurses, real estate agents and used car salesmen, training minimums for paramedics, etc.  It's the same type of regulation.

My opposition is founded on the function of society as an organic construct.  Because of this, there is no one 'right and wrong,' but many different 'rights and wrongs;' whether a particular thing is right or wrong depends as much on its place as anything else.  And so, our inquiry is naturally limited in scope.

It is apparent to me, and I want the reader to realize at this point, that, although the Left would like to claim the mantle of strength in diversity and the champion of civil rights, it is truly the conservative view which values the diversity of society, and in more meaningful terms.

Each one of these arguments that they raise to support the idea of same-sex marriage-- equality of rights, emotional suffering / alienation, anecdotal outcomes-- adheres to one core set of values that does not allow for any other.  At its base is the Europeanization of American culture as an ideal, and for all their railing against colonialism, this is simply another form of colonialism.  Although they would like you to believe that they really care about immigrants and want them to maintain separation by language, they want even more for every one of these Asians or Latinos or Africans to relinquish their heritage, traditions, culture, and morality, and trade them in for the sanitized, approved, white-faced Western European ideals-- which at some point has degenerated from Enlightenment to Rationalization.  For them, there is no room for any other standard, any other model, or belief.  Once again, we are confronted by ideologues who adhere blindly, unfailingly, and unquestioningly to their ideal of the supremacy of late Western European rationalism.  If you look at their arguments, you can check each one for positive materialism, and each one follows the standard.

I came to a realization the other day watching my kitten play with a grasshopper that she caught.  She brought it into the living room and was sitting there playing with it.  It occurred to me that this is one of the fundamental differences in the way that dogs & cats organize into societies.  Cats are solitary hunters.  They hunt alone, make the kill, and bring it back.  Dogs hunt in a pack.  They go out together to make the kill, and so there's no issue of bringing it back.  Humans use both methods, though they tend to follow that cat method more closely.  There is no one 'right' and one 'wrong,' but many different 'rights and wrongs.'

At the same time, their form of society is structured to accommodate this.  Dogs have a very structured, strict hierarchal view.  They're always looking to eat you.  They always know who the top dog is, and they're always waiting for the power dynamics in the pack to shift to where they are the strongest one.  Cats do not have this hierarchical structure, but assert themselves at various times.  Again, humans follow both models, but tend to be more cat-like than dog-like in this regard.

This illustrates the competitive and the cooperative relationship, and the interplay between them.  Cats are competitive (solitary hunting) toward a cooperative end (bringing back the catch), while dogs are cooperative (pack hunting) toward a competitive end (the pecking order of the pack).  Again, humans follow both models, and it depends on how big of group of them you want to look at as to which model will be more prevalent.

From a conservative view, cats are more representative of a family, an estate, a household, in that the members exhibit various roles or functions toward a common end.  Similarly, dogs are more representative of the manner in which business is conducted and the various entities engage in activities outside of their immediate family.

As I noted earlier, my opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the idea of society being organic in nature.  That is, society is not strictly rational in its makeup or its activities.  Yet these structures were formed to accommodate specific needs, and those needs remain valid.  We know that those needs continue to be valid, because other aspects of society have altered or disappeared.  An organic society is a vibrant, lively, ever-shifting place.  Apart from the rationalized ideals of Western Europe and the dry, bland homogeneity that it engenders and hallows, an organic society is full of diversity and meaning.

This is running a bit long.  I'm going to close this as Part One.

Liberals are much different than conservatives as people.

Liberals see the autonomous individual as the basic unit of society.  They are completely unable to see any form of moral authority other than arbitrary whim.  Simply because someone chose to do a thing is amply self-evident that the thing is perfectly acceptable.  It doesn't matter if it's painting masterpieces or molesting children in question-- Liberals find it to be perfectly acceptable.

Conservatives, on the other hand, view the family as the most basic unit of society.  They value roles of interdependent structures above the supremacy of individualism.  Unlike Liberals, conservatives are more socially oriented, and have a variety of institutions that uphold the social structure-- the church, schools, government (it really isn't the problem, as we shall see), civic groups, the YMCA, the Boy Scouts, Rotarians, etc.  Liberals see the supremacy of individualism as threatened by these types of groups, and the one and only structure that they are able to place any degree of credence in is the government (that's the problem there).

Now, for purposes of this discussion, the term 'individualism' is used somewhat differently than in common usage.  Ordinarily, individualism is seen as an affirmation, an expression of the person.  Granted, anyone that's ever lived in a farming community has known very conservative people that are very tolerant of personal idiosyncrasy.  Every farmer I've ever known has been chock full of personal idiosyncrasy.

But that's not what we're talking about here.  This Liberal type of individualism is, at its base, a denial.  It is the operation of the individual without regard for the context of the actions.  It is a single cell removed from the body and examined under a microscope.  It is an incapacity to grasp time and place (ie spacio-temporal determination) as a predetermined fact.  They don't know who they are; they don't know what they are; they don't know where they are; and  they don't know when they are.  The supremacy of their individualism overrides all of these considerations.  They know only choice-- arbitrary whim-- as the highest of all ideals.

(Compare to the One Commandment of Satanism:

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

---from The Satanic Bible by Anton La Vey)

Also, the term 'family' is used somewhat differently here.  It doesn't refer to a specific family, nor to any group of families, etc.  It refers to the idea of a family.  Again, there are all manner of allowances made for specific instances among conservatives-- but there still exists an internal ideal.  And on a practical level, it is the roles and not the formulation of the membership that is more important to conservatives.

The irony here is that the value is inverted when held in the supreme position.

Simply because arbitrary whim is the highest of all ideals, the personhood of the specific individual in question is undermined.  There's a million more just like you, each of them with their own arbitrary whims.  One is indistinguishable from another.  Each and every thing is permeated with an essential sameness-- and this is done in deification of the individual.  The fact of the matter is that this is accomplished in a blank and air-headed manner, and without any degree of respect.  They really don't know how to respect.

It would be easy to say that conservatives are given to hierarchical structures.  Despite the truth of this, it fails to recognize the elements in interaction.

There are fundamental moral deficiencies which define Liberalism.  They rely too heavily on the function of society as defined by John Stuart Mill (the 'social contract') as harm/care and fairness/reciprocity dynamics.  They are unable to fathom the Durkheimian ethos of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity; in fact, they have effectively negated the operation of such morals from the impudent individualism of their position.

And I mean this on a personal level, though the same dynamics may well be at work at a macro level.

Liberals have a diminished sense of loyalty.  Loyalty would violate the "One is the same as another is the same as another" view.  Loyalty would require the capacity to distinguish one from another.  Similarly, they love 'people,' but revile 'persons,' because they are unable to respect.  That's why you see such contradictions as the Left trying to save the masses (through the method of popular rule) by completely disregarding them (the 'elitism' of rational conformity).

"We on the Left are trying our best to save all you dumb, dirty, niggers.  That's why you should just shut up and do whatever we tell you.  After all, you can't expect a dumb, dirty nigger to be able to think all that well.  You might come to a decision that doesn't meet our approval." 

I'm not going to go on about the lack of the purity/sanctity dynamic on the Left.  It's too easy of a target.  The one point I want to make here is that it isn't so much that they are unwilling to demonstrate or acknowledge such a thing, it's that they are completely unable to perceive or to conceive of such a thing.

Liberals portend to speak for all of society by failing to acknowledge society as an organic construct and elevating the individual to an untenable position beyond the spacio-temporal determination, "dark, formless, and void."

Conservatives engage society more fully, with loyalty, respect, and sanctity, enacting the roles of the various units of societal structures.

There was a discussion going on at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen concerning Daniel McCarthy's article on Red Toryism.  This was written as a critique of an earlier article by Phillip Blond.

I like McCarthy's article-- a lot.  But the last few paragraphs seem kind of weak to me.  There's a disconnect of sorts.

A commenter there summed it up well:

Red Toryism... needs to have some kind of shared, conceptual, morally authoritative sphere to operate within. In a pluralistic society, “Society” by definition probably can’t do it. And the marketplace certainly can’t. What’s left? Government, of course, and yet with a government committed to liberal neutrality and proceduralism, it would seem that’s out of the question as well.

This summed up my reservations rather well.

But I take issue with the notion that we are without such a shared conceptual moral authority.  In fact, that's what makes us who we are.  It's one of the most prominent parts of our culture.

These institutions are our own, uniquely American, and were instituted as such for a specific reason.  I invite you to examine this for yourselves to see what answers you come up with:

On what basis do we observe a uniquely American pluralistic society?

On what basis is our uniquely American marketplace governed?

On what basis do we observe this uniquely American liberal neutrality and proceduralism?

There lies the principles and the moral authority. 

To expand on my comments from elsewhere:

I was wondering about the application to law myself.

If the law is a thing which is an end in itself, then the only manner in which the law might ever be improved in any way is in its greater observance and wider application.

If the law has an aim which is its true goal, then it might be improved in any manner in which that true goal may be more fully attained.

That is, is the law perfectly aimless, yes or no?

In my experience, while everyone would say, 'No,' when questioned in regard to the law as an abstract, the proper answer in specific cases, for all the world, appears to be 'Yes.'

To return to our present discussion:

Is our pluralistic society a thing which has an aim which is its true goal, or is it an end in itself?  If it is to be improved in any way, then in what manner?

Is our marketplace a thing which has an aim which is its true goal, or is it an end in itself?  If it is to be improved in any way, then in what manner?

Are our liberal neutrality and proceduralism things which have an aim which are their true goals, or are they ends in themselves?  If they are to be improved in any way, then in what manner?

Go ahead.  Answer the questions.  I'll wait right here.

(tapping of foot)

Back already?  There now.

We now have two sets of answers: the 'on what basis this uniquely American' set of answers, and the 'end in itself, improvement, yes or no' set.

Now, compare the two, and see if they move in a straight line.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

(&btw, I can condense my answers into two words.)

 UPDATE:

I just want to say that this is no trick question, and I'm not looking to be combative or persuade anyone to my own line of thought.  This is just an opportunity to reflect on your own principles and ideals-- what is it that makes America tick, ideally?

So, go ahead and have your say.

I'm old enough to remember the days before auto liability insurance was mandatory.  One of the biggest arguments for its passing was that it would bring down the cost of insurance for everyone.

Well, it didn't.

It made the cost go up.  Before, if you were high-risk, the insurance companies would reject you for coverage, or the expense would be so great that you couldn't afford it.  But then, by law, they had to cover everyone-- and everyone had to pay a piece for covering those high-risk motorists.

We're seeing this now with health care coverage.

Personally, I'm going to be taxed on my insurance, something like $2800 a year.  In effect, my insurance just went up by $230 a month, so that I could pay for insurance for someone that won't pay for it themselves.  I have a great insurance plan, granted; but it's part of my compensation package-- I earn it.

Let me step you through the cost-benefit analysis a little bit here.

From the AP:

Nearly 4 million Americans - the vast majority of them middle class - will have to pay a penalty if they don't get insurance when President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional estimates released Thursday.The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report. 

Now to the funny part:

Democrats argue that the requirement and the penalties are a necessary part of a massive overhaul designed to expand coverage to millions who now lack it. They point out that getting more Americans, especially young and healthy people, in the insurance pool will reduce costs for others and could lower premiums."The new law will make health insurance affordable for everyone and CBO's analysis confirms that the vast majority of uninsured Americans will find health care affordable and choose to participate," said White House spokesman Nick Papas. 

---snip---

By 2016, those who must get insurance but don't will be fined $695 or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.

---snip---

About 3 million of those required to pay fines in 2016 will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, according to the CBO projections. The other 900,000 people who must pay the fine will have higher incomes.

(emphasis mine)

One more time:

It's necessary to fine people, notably those that don't really need it so much, for not buying insurance, so that we can say that it costs less, because we just took their money without providing them a service.

That is to say, it's all about getting something for nothing.

Some people are going to get something while giving nothing, and others are going to give something while receiving nothing.  It's that Robin Hood effect.  Young people and healthy people simply do not pay enough for insurance.  The solution?  Rob them.

If you make less than $28,000 a year, you will have to pay only $695 for not having insurance; ie you receive nothing except a bill.  If you make more than that, there's no limit.

Also from the AP:

More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

---snip---

"During 2010-2019, however, these [cost-cutting] effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful."

Now, why was I thinking that anyway?  Something about driving around in my car....

This is something of a mystery to me:

Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The fact of the matter is we already have tax credits for that.  You have to itemize (Schedule A) to take the credit; but the only reason people don't itemize is if they come out better for not doing it.  But now, we need some other kind of tax credit.

The biggest health care expense most young people will face is having a baby.  That can get expensive.

There used to be a way for people to do that without having to worry about the expense of it.  It's called "Join the military."

Same with making a college education available to everyone.  We already have a program for that.  It's called "Join the military."

This health care fiasco is just another rob-the-young redistributionist scheme to give people who contribute nothing more than they're worth.  If anything, I see it as a reason for young people to become more involved in the political process.  You're going to be paying quite a bit for all the entitlements that the boomers voted in for themselves (Clinton balanced the budget largely by doubling the social security deduction from your paycheck-- look forward to more of that).

It's really your call as to how many losers and bozos you want digging in your pockets.  But until you realize that you're getting robbed, not much to the good is going to happen. 

The sequel to I.O.U.S.A., a full-length feature produced by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions will premier on CNN on Saturday, April 10, 1:00-3:00 p.m. EST, and will air again on Sunday, April 11, 3:00-5:00 p.m. EST.  The following is from the press release for the film:

"Our country is facing rapidly growing deficits and debt. How can we change our course...and what happens if we don't?

"The award-winning documentary I.O.U.S.A. opened up America's eyes to the consequences of our nation's debt and the need for our government to show more fiscal responsibility. Now that more Americans and elected officials are aware of our fiscal challenges, the producers of I.O.U.S.A. created I.O.U.S.A.: Solutions, a follow-up special that is premiering on CNN this weekend. This special will focus on solutions to the fiscal crisis and it will feature new footage from the producers of I.O.U.S.A. and a panel discussion with experts from a variety of viewpoints, spanning across generations."

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation was founded by Mr. Peterson, who chaired the Peterson Commission for President Nixon, and was Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs before becoming Nixon's Secretary of Commerce.  He was a co-founder of the Blackstone Group, and was Chairman & CEO of Bell & Howell 1963 - 1971, and Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers from 1973 - 1984.  He was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations until 2007.

David Walker was personally recruited by Mr. Peterson as President and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.  Mr. Walker was Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008.  Walker partnered with the Brookings Institution, the Concord Coalition, and the Heritage Foundation while at the GAO to present the "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour" as a series of town-hall meetings and other events.

Below is the chopped-down 30-minute version of I.O.U.S.A.

My favorite Peter G. Peterson quote (to date):

"There's no such thing as a tax cut without a cut in spending.  That's a tax deferral plan."

EDIT:

Here's a previous post from another contributor with the short version of I.O.U.S.A. 

I've been doing some thinking about a few things.

It seems hard to engage some people in a reasonable dialogue, and I believe that has a lot to do with a faulty understanding of a few basics, or maybe just misinformation.

But this will serve as a reference to correct a few of those errors.

In the early days of our republic, there were two main conflicting lines of thought as to what form the government should take.  One side was represented by Alexander Hamilton, who believed in a central government that would be strong enough to do the things that we wanted it to do.  These were called the Federalists.

The other side was represented by Thomas Jefferson, who believed in a very weak central government.  He believed that it was best if government was not strong enough to do everything that we would want it to do.  There had been a few excesses of government in his recent memory.

The Constitution was put together by James Madison, and is often referred to as a "Madisonian compromise."  Madison was more of a diplomat than an ideologue, and he tried to find a workable middle ground.

The prevailing notion of rights, even to this day, is that of "natural rights;" which basically means that all rights are granted by God and are inherent in man by virtue of his existence.  The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of government from encroaching on those rights; but it doesn't grant any rights of itself, because it is beyond the capacity of such a document to do so.

So, gridlock was the preferable state of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  The idea that government shouldn't do much at all held true through pretty much all of the 19th century, as embodied in the statement, "The government which governs least, governs best."

Of course, the party of Jefferson became something very different under Andrew Jackson, and the Democratic-Republicans became the Democratic Party, the first modern political party in the United States.

Now, as far as the gold standard is concerned, and those who would view anything else with something of suspicion, the issue is really one of the primary use of currency; either for domestic trade (silver), or international trade (gold).  But somehow, we keep forgetting about those silver dollars.  The issue became quite prominent with the Corn Laws in England, and then hit America about 50 years later.

The United States has quite a bit of silver deposits, but not a whole lot of gold in the ground (the Yukon notwithstanding).

The US dollar was the reserve currency of the world (and still is), and its price was set in gold by the Bretton Woods accord.  This periodically modified the pricing of various currencies similar the the monthly fixes you see in the Eurozone.  The US backed out of the Bretton Woods accord in 1971; again, because of issues in international trade associated with war.

There are still a few major currencies which are known as "commodity currencies."  The value of the Canadian dollar is pretty much determined by the price of oil.  The value of the Australian dollar is linked to gold.  And for some reason, the Japanese yen tends to follow the S&P 500.

But the gold standard amounts to just one more type of a commodity currency, and all of the fluctuations that go with it.

Which brings me to the free market as the arbitrator of policy.

The market is determined by expectations, not facts.  There is a basic premise of analysis that says that we can predict the future to some degree by looking closely at what has happened before.  But our view is never quite whole, and thus never quite accurate.

Which is to say that the market is not reasonable in nature.  It postures as reasonable, but it's really not.  Last week, there were rumors going around about an hour before a meeting of the Fed that influenced the market in some really unpredictable ways.  The rumors turned out to be false, and the market reacted to that as well.  But facts had very little to do with it.  It's all about expectations.

Giving your faith blindly to a thing as unreasoning as the market is incredibly foolish.  And I tell you this as a trader whose portfolio has gone up by 22% in the first quarter.  So get over it.  A football game without any referees is asking for trouble; and if you ask often enough, you're going to get it.

Now, as far as the tea party goes, they are the exact same as the Iraq War protesters; which is to say that they are a bunch of hippies with nothing better to do that create a disturbance, when they could serve their country better by getting a job and taking a bath every once in a while.  For some reason, these people (the tea party, war protesters, and other hippies) have nothing better to do than to lollygag all day, and they want to lollygag really loud.

Big deal.

Take a bath, you hippy.

Frankly, I support the efforts to legalize marijuana more than I see lollygagging as any useful activity; at least until they can come up with a way widen the tax base by charging a fee to lollygaggers.  All of those hippies are just a bunch of misfits that haven't quite figured out how to work within the system.  I still see soldiers in Iraq.  I still see my tax money going to waste.  And I'm still seeing a bunch of people with nothing better to do than to lollygag all day when they need to go out and get a job and take a bath every once in a while.

That's all for now.

You're welcome to leave your thoughts; but if you feel the need to tell me just how dandy the tea party is, go take a bath and then come back and tell me, you hippy.