If it's true, that is frickin' awesome. My sister-in-law is a math teacher for a government high school. I'll have to try to con her into doing this...
@Karl- Thanks for the insight. I'm a bit familiar with the German SPD (Social Democratic Party) and its origins in Rosa Luxembourg & Karl Leibknecht (and what happened to them!). I do not know the specifics of the Social Democrat movement in Denmark.
In any event though, as you describe their aims (welfare society, nationalization of certain industries, &c.), they ARE socialists, albeit with a small "s". That is to say, they may not the Socialist (big "S") Party, but they are socialists nonetheless. The only difference is that they are "less left" than the Socialist Party. Most Americans (myself included) would consider them on the same continuum of socialism, only the Socialists further down the road to perdition than the Social Democrats. You can bet that whatever the Socialists are advocating now, the Social Democrats will be pushing in 20 or 30 years, though.
As a longtime R&D engineer with fair experience in government misdirection of research, I hold by my assertion that even long term research belongs in the hands of the private sector. Very rare exceptions can be made in time of war or utter national emergency (we aren't there yet), such as in the Manhattan Project of the early 1940s. That was not the most efficient way to make a bomb, but time was much more important than anything else, so the U.S. government spent gobs of money on it. The project succeeded because a) they had unlimited money and b) because of the nature of the War, they were able to attract the brightest minds in the field, many of whom would have never been involved during peacetime. It was a very rare need, though, and a time when normal market function was rather interupted by anomalous events. My spine always shivers when I hear people waxing poetic about the need for a "Manhattan Project" so solve X, Y, or Z. T'ain't gonna happen.
Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. If there is huge profit in it, even way out into the future, the private sector will attack and conquer the problem in the most efficient manner. Loser ideas don't get propped up for years sucking up talent & dollars (Euros, Yen, whatever).
@ retrokatze.... Not to be persistently contrarian, but check out the site for the *actual* Hofbräuhaus München (Munich Hofbräuhaus): http://www.hofbraeuhaus.de/en/index_en.html
Note: 1. The presence of the umlaut in the word all over the site. Me thinks they know how to spell it. 2. In the URL (which doesn't do diacritical characters), they transliterate their "ä" into an "ae" to make it "hofbraeuhaus" as I suggested.
Oans, zwoa, g'suffa! (Bavarian rather than standard German)
There are a fair number of people (even Westerners) who still believe in trepanning to cure a variety of ills... It's actually rather mild compared to all the "routine" lobotomies which were performed into the late 20th century.
@Rob- 1. There was no presidential election in 2005. Check your wayback machine, Peabody.
2. Manipulation of vote counting? You are just making yourself out to be a kook. The 2000 much-maligned Florida ballot (apparently not idiot-proof enough) was designed by a Democrat. There was no conspiracy to favor Republicans.
3. Florida recounted its votes a number of times and Bush came out the winner in each case. In no count did Gore win Florida.
4. Bush won outright on the first count, but because the margin was tight, there was (per state law) an automatic recount. Bush won that as well. Several of the counties wanted to AGAIN recount, but Florida law required that election results be certified within 7 days and a few said they couldn't finish in time. The Florida Supreme Court voted to allow recounting to continue, but did not establish standards on when to stop or how to uniformly count ambiguous ballots (these were punchcards and idiot voters could have trouble punching the holes completely).
4. By a vote of 7-2 (a pretty fair majority!) the US Supreme Court rejected the Florida Court's indefinite plan to continue recounting as unconsitutional. A subsequent decision said "game over, you've recounted enough times". Note again that on NONE of the counts did Gore wind up winning Florida. The Democratic plan was to keep counting the ballots manually until per chance (after enough handling and wear on the paper punches) Gore could win one of the counts. THEN they could sue to stop counting. Nice scheme, guys.
5. In the end, Gore had more popular votes, but fewer electoral votes. The US elects its presidents on the basis of electoral votes, though, so this is ultimately what matters. It's always been this way, was done for a reason, and is nothing new. The rules apply to all candidates of all parties and are fair, so stop whining.
6. Fast forward to 2004. Here, Bush carried BOTH the popular and electoral vote. Now what are you whining about? The results in Ohio you are crying about were not even disputed by Kerry! Four states wound up being tighter races than Ohio, in fact -- Wisconsin & New Hampshire (14 electoral votes total) went narrowly to Kerry and Iowa & New Mexico (12 electoral votes total) went narrowly to Bush. Bush won Ohio by over 2% of the vote -- it was close, but not a real nailbiter.
7. If liberals like you want anyone to blame for Democratic narrow losses in 2000 & 2004, blame Ralph Nader. The votes he pulled DIRECTLY from Gore in Florida in 2000 ensured Gore lost that state and the election. In 2004, Nader's impact was a little less clear cut, but Iowa & New Mexico (the 2 narrow Bush wins) would have been even tighter had not Nader sucked away votes from Kerry.
8. Stop whining about the past. If you don't like who is in office now, I can promise you somebody new in a year. Vote for the one you like this November and stop being a sore loser. Even Gore and Kerry are not the crybabies their supporters have turned out to be...
People are missing Matt's subtle jab at the wording in the posting which implies that L.L.Bean continued (past tense) to sell the boots until today, i.e. something has changed and they no longer sell the boots. The sentence should read something like "...and continue to sell the boots today."
@Alex- "it takes a tremendously long time for the private sector to develop alternative fuel. Typically, serious private research don’t go into high gear until the current economics make sense"
The private sector develops the right products (including energy sources) at the most efficient pace. Future economics ARE current economics -- you cannot separate them -- that is where the time value of money comes in. When governments get involved, you wind up with all kinds of stupid diversions (like corn ethanol), that have negative energy production, gobble up lots of resources (fiscal & environmental), and have no potential to supply even a small fraction of the nation's needs. All the ethanol mandates and subsidies only succeed in wasting a lot of tax dollars and driving up the prices of anything corn-based as well as other grains (becuase their supply has dropped when farmers switched to the more artificially profitable corn).
I've worked on large research projects financed by the US Dept of Energy. It is my experience that they don't care what is worked on as long as the budget is big, the powerpoint slides are many, and there are press-conference worthy models to show (so that Congress can be impressed and further increase tehir budget). They continue research on things LONG after they are shown to be losers merely to keep their own budgets up. If researchers spend money too slowly, the DOE gets on their case and warns them that the appropriation may be cut. My expereince has shown me that Gov't has no business being involved guiding the path of or financing research-- the "help" is ultimately a deterrant to finding the best solutions.
You also said, "Energy policy is the domain of the federal government in virtually all countries." DOAAH! The laws of economics are not open to a popularity vote. Efficient public policy is what it is and what one's neighbor does wrong matters not in the least. The U.S.'s long slow spiral downward in the years post-WWII to the present resulted from government meddling in every area of the economy and our lives (thank you FDR and LBJ for taking the big steps, others 'helped' with smaller incremental ones). Free of government interference, people & corporations in aggregate act rationally and the best choices are ultimately made. Unfettered, entrepreneurs in science and engineering will make the right decisions -- that is what happened here throughout the Industrial Revolution and the first half of the 20th century, both in Britain and the US. Britain went socialist before us and subsequently sank faster. We are just a few decades behind in our own descent. Following other countries on their misguided paths to socialism will not restore this country to leadership in innovation.
I'm with David. It's rare to see an epic, action, sci-fi, or fantasy type movie without some retard in the theatre with a row full of little kids. This happens even at the late (~10pm) showings. Regretably, trash has no conscience or shame, so you can't even tell them off. Pelting them with ice is the best course.
Sure I'm a nitpicker, but the word is "Hofbräuhaus", not "Hofbrauhaus". The "ä" and "a" are different letters. If you can't or don't know how to make an umlauted letter, use an "e" after the "a", as in Hofbraeuhaus.
@Mooncake- Yeah, you and Alec Baldwin, right? He was leaving the country if GWB was re-elected... We're still waiting.
I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but people are free ot support him BECAUSE he is a Baptist minister or to reject him BECAUSE he is a Baptist minister. You people have a very confused notion of "separation of Church and state". The Constitution only provides that there will be no official state church, as there is in many countries. Beyond this, candidates can be of any faith they choose and voters can consider this relevant-good, relevant-bad, or irrelevant, per their choosing. That is what religious freedom is all about -- it's the freedom to believe or disbelieve whatever you want and that carries with it the ability to support or not support candidates based on their own beliefs. You ill-informed "separation" people want to remove freedom by disallowing candidates on the basis of faith. That isn't liberty ...
They should have thrown the self-righteous hippie bitch in jail.
What she was doing was vandalism, plain and simple. She was free to plant whatever she wanted on her own property, but instead, she needed to vandalize someone else's property. The dealership had to pay someone to repair their landscaping (twice). What right did this woman have to touch their property?
Thanks for the insight. I'm a bit familiar with the German SPD (Social Democratic Party) and its origins in Rosa Luxembourg & Karl Leibknecht (and what happened to them!). I do not know the specifics of the Social Democrat movement in Denmark.
In any event though, as you describe their aims (welfare society, nationalization of certain industries, &c.), they ARE socialists, albeit with a small "s". That is to say, they may not the Socialist (big "S") Party, but they are socialists nonetheless. The only difference is that they are "less left" than the Socialist Party. Most Americans (myself included) would consider them on the same continuum of socialism, only the Socialists further down the road to perdition than the Social Democrats. You can bet that whatever the Socialists are advocating now, the Social Democrats will be pushing in 20 or 30 years, though.
As a longtime R&D engineer with fair experience in government misdirection of research, I hold by my assertion that even long term research belongs in the hands of the private sector. Very rare exceptions can be made in time of war or utter national emergency (we aren't there yet), such as in the Manhattan Project of the early 1940s. That was not the most efficient way to make a bomb, but time was much more important than anything else, so the U.S. government spent gobs of money on it. The project succeeded because a) they had unlimited money and b) because of the nature of the War, they were able to attract the brightest minds in the field, many of whom would have never been involved during peacetime. It was a very rare need, though, and a time when normal market function was rather interupted by anomalous events. My spine always shivers when I hear people waxing poetic about the need for a "Manhattan Project" so solve X, Y, or Z. T'ain't gonna happen.
Back to reality-land, most of the key developments in technology (often with years of research behind them) have always come from the private sector: electric lighting, AC power generation & transmission, the internal combustion engine, the transistor, &c. If there is huge profit in it, even way out into the future, the private sector will attack and conquer the problem in the most efficient manner. Loser ideas don't get propped up for years sucking up talent & dollars (Euros, Yen, whatever).
Not to be persistently contrarian, but check out the site for the *actual* Hofbräuhaus München (Munich Hofbräuhaus):
http://www.hofbraeuhaus.de/en/index_en.html
Note:
1. The presence of the umlaut in the word all over the site. Me thinks they know how to spell it.
2. In the URL (which doesn't do diacritical characters), they transliterate their "ä" into an "ae" to make it "hofbraeuhaus" as I suggested.
Oans, zwoa, g'suffa!
(Bavarian rather than standard German)
1. There was no presidential election in 2005. Check your wayback machine, Peabody.
2. Manipulation of vote counting? You are just making yourself out to be a kook. The 2000 much-maligned Florida ballot (apparently not idiot-proof enough) was designed by a Democrat. There was no conspiracy to favor Republicans.
3. Florida recounted its votes a number of times and Bush came out the winner in each case. In no count did Gore win Florida.
4. Bush won outright on the first count, but because the margin was tight, there was (per state law) an automatic recount. Bush won that as well. Several of the counties wanted to AGAIN recount, but Florida law required that election results be certified within 7 days and a few said they couldn't finish in time. The Florida Supreme Court voted to allow recounting to continue, but did not establish standards on when to stop or how to uniformly count ambiguous ballots (these were punchcards and idiot voters could have trouble punching the holes completely).
4. By a vote of 7-2 (a pretty fair majority!) the US Supreme Court rejected the Florida Court's indefinite plan to continue recounting as unconsitutional. A subsequent decision said "game over, you've recounted enough times". Note again that on NONE of the counts did Gore wind up winning Florida. The Democratic plan was to keep counting the ballots manually until per chance (after enough handling and wear on the paper punches) Gore could win one of the counts. THEN they could sue to stop counting. Nice scheme, guys.
5. In the end, Gore had more popular votes, but fewer electoral votes. The US elects its presidents on the basis of electoral votes, though, so this is ultimately what matters. It's always been this way, was done for a reason, and is nothing new. The rules apply to all candidates of all parties and are fair, so stop whining.
6. Fast forward to 2004. Here, Bush carried BOTH the popular and electoral vote. Now what are you whining about? The results in Ohio you are crying about were not even disputed by Kerry! Four states wound up being tighter races than Ohio, in fact -- Wisconsin & New Hampshire (14 electoral votes total) went narrowly to Kerry and Iowa & New Mexico (12 electoral votes total) went narrowly to Bush. Bush won Ohio by over 2% of the vote -- it was close, but not a real nailbiter.
7. If liberals like you want anyone to blame for Democratic narrow losses in 2000 & 2004, blame Ralph Nader. The votes he pulled DIRECTLY from Gore in Florida in 2000 ensured Gore lost that state and the election. In 2004, Nader's impact was a little less clear cut, but Iowa & New Mexico (the 2 narrow Bush wins) would have been even tighter had not Nader sucked away votes from Kerry.
8. Stop whining about the past. If you don't like who is in office now, I can promise you somebody new in a year. Vote for the one you like this November and stop being a sore loser. Even Gore and Kerry are not the crybabies their supporters have turned out to be...
"it takes a tremendously long time for the private sector to develop alternative fuel. Typically, serious private research don’t go into high gear until the current economics make sense"
The private sector develops the right products (including energy sources) at the most efficient pace. Future economics ARE current economics -- you cannot separate them -- that is where the time value of money comes in. When governments get involved, you wind up with all kinds of stupid diversions (like corn ethanol), that have negative energy production, gobble up lots of resources (fiscal & environmental), and have no potential to supply even a small fraction of the nation's needs. All the ethanol mandates and subsidies only succeed in wasting a lot of tax dollars and driving up the prices of anything corn-based as well as other grains (becuase their supply has dropped when farmers switched to the more artificially profitable corn).
I've worked on large research projects financed by the US Dept of Energy. It is my experience that they don't care what is worked on as long as the budget is big, the powerpoint slides are many, and there are press-conference worthy models to show (so that Congress can be impressed and further increase tehir budget). They continue research on things LONG after they are shown to be losers merely to keep their own budgets up. If researchers spend money too slowly, the DOE gets on their case and warns them that the appropriation may be cut. My expereince has shown me that Gov't has no business being involved guiding the path of or financing research-- the "help" is ultimately a deterrant to finding the best solutions.
You also said, "Energy policy is the domain of the federal government in virtually all countries." DOAAH! The laws of economics are not open to a popularity vote. Efficient public policy is what it is and what one's neighbor does wrong matters not in the least. The U.S.'s long slow spiral downward in the years post-WWII to the present resulted from government meddling in every area of the economy and our lives (thank you FDR and LBJ for taking the big steps, others 'helped' with smaller incremental ones). Free of government interference, people & corporations in aggregate act rationally and the best choices are ultimately made. Unfettered, entrepreneurs in science and engineering will make the right decisions -- that is what happened here throughout the Industrial Revolution and the first half of the 20th century, both in Britain and the US. Britain went socialist before us and subsequently sank faster. We are just a few decades behind in our own descent. Following other countries on their misguided paths to socialism will not restore this country to leadership in innovation.
Straight talk from Sid.
You "aloud my husband 2 name him", huh? Which one of you works with the kids on grammar & spelling? Those "sight words" can be tricky. :-)
You insert the Po-210 source as a suppository and crap in the drink of a disfavored Russian spy.
Yeah, you and Alec Baldwin, right? He was leaving the country if GWB was re-elected... We're still waiting.
I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but people are free ot support him BECAUSE he is a Baptist minister or to reject him BECAUSE he is a Baptist minister. You people have a very confused notion of "separation of Church and state". The Constitution only provides that there will be no official state church, as there is in many countries. Beyond this, candidates can be of any faith they choose and voters can consider this relevant-good, relevant-bad, or irrelevant, per their choosing. That is what religious freedom is all about -- it's the freedom to believe or disbelieve whatever you want and that carries with it the ability to support or not support candidates based on their own beliefs. You ill-informed "separation" people want to remove freedom by disallowing candidates on the basis of faith. That isn't liberty ...
What she was doing was vandalism, plain and simple. She was free to plant whatever she wanted on her own property, but instead, she needed to vandalize someone else's property. The dealership had to pay someone to repair their landscaping (twice). What right did this woman have to touch their property?