Disqus - Latest Comments for squeaky

Re: Chris Hedges’ Occupy Wall Street Statement

squeaky — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:50:47 -0000

Think about:

1. Billionaire owners and millionaire players paying taxes in Minnesota for at least part of the year.

2. Taxes on the sales of any Vikings merchandise, which is not unsubstantial as you seem to suggest.

4. Profits for any shop owner who sells Vikings merchandise, which occurs in any town in the state regardless of proximity to Minneapolis, which is also not insubstantial as you seem to suggest (have you seen how much one of those jersey costs?).

5. National exposure, which large business owners appreciate both in terms of people knowing where the heck Minnesota is and thus where your business is located, as well as advertising.

6. Sales of food and, yes, beer, which is not insubstantial as you seem to suggest, for restaurant owners, particularly around the metro area (football season is a big source of income for them), and even in outliers (a lot of people tend to go to the bars to watch the games).

7. Anyone who works for Winter Park, the Metrodome, a restaurant near the metrodome, a hotel near the metrodome, a sporting goods store any place in the state, any venue that sells Vikings memorabila (I see Vikings stuff sold at grocery stores, for example), any bar any place in the state that has the game on...

8. A couple thousand jobs associated with building the stadium.

9. Any store or restaurant who sells anything to anyone who has an income in any way related to the Vikings.

10. Sales taxes from people who have jobs and income in any way related to the Vikings being able to purchase material goods.

11. Taxes from the stores and restaurants who sell anything to anyone who has an income in any way related to the Vikings.

It would have a major economic impact on the state for a major professional sports team to leave, and the short term "savings" in sales tax is nothing compared to what we would lose if they leave.

It's strange how you can say all this:

"They're paid what the market will bear. Moreover, the people you cite have taken enormous personal risks to achieve in their fields, and what they've accomplished has affected numerous people. They also have been or are responsible for managing major corporations that employ many people. Finally, they donate a lot of money that makes a difference in the lives of thousands."

and yet fail to see the economic benefit of a major sports team to a state like Minnesota.

Clearly you are nothing but a Packers fan.

Re: Chris Hedges’ Occupy Wall Street Statement

squeaky — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:11:43 -0000

If you are being serious in your comments, and not facetious, then I turn the question back to you.

Re: Chris Hedges’ Occupy Wall Street Statement

squeaky — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:10:48 -0000

I'm thinking OccupyCincinnati is being sarcastic, ironic, facetious, whatevs. I wouldn't take him too seriously.

Re: Chris Hedges’ Occupy Wall Street Statement

squeaky — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:07:26 -0000

There is some irony in your ironic statement as I watch the stadium battle play out in MN.

Conservatives seem to want to protect the 1% from taxes because of the benefits they provide through jobs, etc.

In MN, it is dominantly conservatives who are against helping the 1% (in this case, owner Zygi Wilf) to build a new stadium for the Vikings, in spite of the many benefits a professional football team brings to the state. Odd that democrats seem to better understand what republicans should in this case.

Things seem to be flip-flopped a bit, but hey, we are the state that brought you Jesse Ventura and Michelle Bachmann, so what do you 'spect?

Re: Ohio Elections and Issue Three

squeaky — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:50:40 -0000

What do you mean "what many of you call Obama care?" I'm not a conservative, and it is a conservative phrase designed to denigrate health care reform. Who is the "you" to whom you refer?

Health care reform, like it or not, was a victory. It has flaws, and those flaws need to be fixed, but it would be losing substantial ground if it were scrapped so we can spend another ten years "starting over".

Re: Ohio Elections and Issue Three

squeaky — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 11:53:52 -0000

Those who oppose health care reform only see the cost to their own personal taxes. But, as Bungarra pointed out, our health care system is incredibly costly, and unnecessarily so.

Just one example--the uninsured go to the emergency room for primary care, and often only when a condition that could have been treated relatively inexpensively in its early stages now requires far more medical attention. This is extremely expensive, and we all pay for it in the high cost of health care. We don't see it on our tax bill, though, so we apparently don't realize we are paying for it. But we are, and handsomely.

If we could all start from the point that we need to get health care spending under control, we would be able to get somewhere. But those who only see the issue as personal tax increases are blocking the road to a solution. Everyone needs to think bigger picture.

And to add--because of those road blocks, we got far more compromise than we wanted on the current health care reform, resulting in a far less effective reform.

Re: Jim Wallis and Richard Land: Join the Great Conversation

squeaky — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 16:30:18 -0000

"And the very existence of bisexuality proves that there sometimes IS choice involved. '

It is indeed true that there is choice involved...for bisexuals. They would be the only people to truly have choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

It also is possible to use the bisexuality case to say that heterosexuals have a choice to be heterosexual. I never made such a choice--did you? I suppose it is possible for me to choose to engage in a same-sex encounter, just as straight people in prison do, but I cannot choose to be gay.

Re: “Hole-y” Bible Gets a Digital Makeover

squeaky — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:15:31 -0000

You should try it! I nuke the yams until they are soft and mush it in with the avacodo (raw) and then mix in the other stuff. Oh, I also add lime juice. I forgot to add mango but will next time...Probably a little brown rice would add some texture, too. mmmmm...Time for lunch....

Re: November 6: More Than Just the Climate Movement?

squeaky — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 01:54:30 -0000

Nice response, SL.

Something to consider:

"Green energy is totally impractical because not enough can be be produced at a reasonable cost. "

It's only because it is 1) young in development (think, as I pointed out to Mr. Mulholland, where we would be if we had started 30 years ago?).

And 2), and this is critical, the true cost of fossil fuels (spills, health effects, and wars) are not factored into the price at the pump. Oil is heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly. Take away the subsidies, renewables become competitive, innovation flourishes, and we actually find viable solutions to our energy needs that have less environmental impact and allow for a cleaner world for us, our children, and the impoverished (who suffer the most from the environmental indiscretions of fossil fuels--you will never see a coal-fired power plant in a wealthy neighborhood, for example, and don't even get me started on Mountaintop Mining, which destroys an impoverished people's lives and livelihoods for the sake of cheap coal...I wouldn't be surprised if you never even heard about this disaster in Tennessee. Few people have:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

A billion gallons of toxic waste catastrophically released into the Tennessee river and very little coverage of such a disaster. Such is the influence of Big Coal.

And don't get me started about what is happening off the coast of Nigeria where there are no environmental standards for oil drilling. Impoverished people losing their livelihood as fishermen and seeing no benefits from the $$ Nigeria makes from oil.

It's not really so much true that cheap energy is helpful to the poor.)

Re: #OccupyThePumpkinPatch: Good Grief!

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:22:44 -0000

Just out of curiosity, you aren't related to Peter Whelan, who hailed from Coupeville, are you?

Re: November 6: More Than Just the Climate Movement?

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:12:34 -0000

Well, I would certainly agree the fines should be stiff enough to deter polluters from polluting. But, unfortunately, there are many in this country who would argue the EPA should lighten up their controls on industry.

I would hope (I don't know) that the good people of MN are the recipients of those fines. The money should be going to cleaning up the occasional pollution plume oozing its way down the Mississippi. If the fines don't go to pay for that, then likely it is the MN tax payers who are paying for the Koch's mess.

I can't imagine fixing leaking tanks is less cost effective than literally billions of dollars in fines. That isn't even good business sense.

Re: November 6: More Than Just the Climate Movement?

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:34:35 -0000

In defense of the environmentalists--I told this story on an earlier thread, but a refinery owned by the Koch's just south of Minneapolis is regularly fined for leaky tanks. They have been fined billions, but they don't bother to fix them.

It is small wonder, when oil companies can afford to pay fines, ignore environmental laws, and flagrantly pollute water that people need for survival, that environmentalists might be just a tad wary of building new refineries, or building a pipeline over one of the nation's most important aquifers.

If oil companies can give better assurance, heck, even pressure polluters like the Koch's to clean up their act, and show that they too are concerned about the environment and making sure spills don't happen, then maybe people wouldn't need to be so concerned. But with the history of oil and the environment, I'm not sure why anyone would feel confident enough in trusting them to do the right thing. Maybe it is guilt by association and Exxon, the Kochs, and BP have just given all oil companies a bad name, but all the more reason for them to make sure they clean up their act. They need to realize they have a long way to go to win trust. It is for good reason, and we best keep the pressure on lest we have another disaster on our hands.

It isn't necessary for us to destroy the environment for a fleeting supply of energy, and there are ways we can work together to ensure our energy needs are met while preserving our environment and creating new, cleaner energy supplies for future generations.

Re: November 6: More Than Just the Climate Movement?

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:07:48 -0000

Justintime doesn't have the power to remove his own comment without a trace (I know. He seems far more powerful than that, but he is but a mere mortal like you and me).

If you have ever tried it yourself, you know you have to write a short blurb like "comment removed by author".

Someone might have flagged it, but I don't remember him saying anything heinously flag-worthy.

In any case, he likely is still happily basking in the warmth of his kitchen.

Re: November 6: More Than Just the Climate Movement?

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:53:43 -0000

erm...what?!

Re: November 6: More Than Just the Climate Movement?

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:10:45 -0000

You changed your comment.

The comment I responded to made more sense when I thought you were talking about renewables. Think how far we would be in that technology if we had started 30 years ago like many thought we should.

Fossil fuel resources are going to get more and more expensive as we run out of cheap oil. So we have a choice which toilet we want to flush the money down.

Re: “Hole-y” Bible Gets a Digital Makeover

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:56:01 -0000

I tend to cook with a lot of olive oil and garlic. Last night I made yam wraps with yam, avacodo, garlic, ginger, salsa, arugula, romaine lettuce, and cheddar cheese. It was very tasty. And even healthy I think.

Re: “Hole-y” Bible Gets a Digital Makeover

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:49:45 -0000

Pheh, ptui, phah--straw-covered words are really dry!

Re: “Hole-y” Bible Gets a Digital Makeover

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:35:18 -0000

Not playing this game with you anymore. Have a great weekend.

Re: “Hole-y” Bible Gets a Digital Makeover

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:23:59 -0000

Read my posts. I said it in other places. If you don't have time to read them, that's fine.

Re: “Hole-y” Bible Gets a Digital Makeover

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:57:40 -0000

I answered the question. Please re-read my responses.

Re: November 6: More Than Just the Climate Movement?

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:47:00 -0000

Are you talking about alternative and renewable energies?

Re: Jim Wallis and Richard Land: Join the Great Conversation

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:23:35 -0000

No, I can't prove it, nor can someone prove it wasn't the case.

However, I think I have a pretty large mountain of indirect evidence in the form of human nature. Other than societal changes because we are more educated and technologically advanced, at the core, we are no different today than humans have ever been. We are governed by the same motivations and compulsions.

Perhaps the question boils down to whether homosexuality is a choice. For as long as I remember, I knew I was attracted to members of the opposite sex. Many homosexuals will tell you they have known they were attracted to the same sex for as long as they remember. There was no conscious choice in my sexual orientation. It just is. That is also what homosexuals will tell you. I don't think small children who don't even know there is a choice to make and don't even really understand sexuality are capable of making conscious decisions about their sexuality.

Re: Jim Wallis and Richard Land: Join the Great Conversation

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:15:15 -0000

I know that. But that doesn't mean there were no homosexuals in arranged marriages. Just as there are homosexuals in heterosexual marriages today.

There have been gay people since humanity began. Just because a gay person isn't practicing or is in a heterosexual relationship doesn't make that person straight.

We are talking about two different things, and I don't know why we keep talking past each other. I suspect perhaps it is because you think that homosexuality is a choice. I don't think it is a choice, so maybe that is why we can't make each other understand what we are saying.

Re: A Robin Hood for Wall Street

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:46:18 -0000

Jobs are an anti-poverty program. Education is an anti-poverty program. As you would point out to me, welfare is not an anti-poverty program.

But you are right--it is vital we make sure the money actually goes to fixing the aging infrastructure and improving education for our children, rather than some bridge to nowhere pet project. No pork allowed!

Re: A Robin Hood for Wall Street

squeaky — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:23:23 -0000

"to invest in our infrastructure"

You mean our aging infrastructure that desperately needs upgrading? Have you been in rush hour traffic in Seattle or LA or Minneapolis or heck even Madison WI? Did you hear about the 35W bridge collapse that killed 12 and injured several others in Minneapolis just a couple years ago? Is the better alternative really to let our infrastructure rot around us?

Let's explore how addressing our infrastructure needs might help the poor. Perhaps some people might get jobs. I thought conservatives cared about putting people to work. I thought they keep saying that the poor should just get jobs and be productive and they wouldn't be poor anymore. Well, here's a chance at getting jobs to those who need them.

If we upgrade infrastructure, perhaps some people might have better transportation access so they can have more job opportunities. Again, even more opportunity at putting people to work so they can actually get off welfare, which I thought conservatives cared so much about.

"and the education of our children, among other priorities."

Wow...dissing education. The one thing that most effectively pulls people out of poverty. Jobs are pretty hard to come by without a high school education, much less a college education. How effectively do you think kids in impoverished neighborhoods that can't even afford to buy books for their students are prepared for higher education? What kind of jobs do uneducated people typically land?

You have to spend money to make money. Education results in more innovation and more invention and more people equipped to deal with the challenges this nation faces. Upgrades to this nation's infrastructure improves the movement of commerce. Yet it seems the only thing conservatives want to invest in is a fleet of backhoes so this nation can more efficiently dig her own grave.