Except that is not what left and right mean. Left and Right are real words. They have definitions.

I suppose a batshit feminist is going to come around next and say Bush and Obama are both extreme right because they're male?

Political polarization is at an all-time high (roughly equal to just before the civil war). The parties have never been so far apart, yet you want to say there is no difference because they still agree on a few things. Doesn't that seem a bit off to you?

Los Angeles. Only city I am aware of, but it essentially started with real estate development. There are plenty of books about why it shouldn't exist... and I tend to agree with them. IIRC, it had a terrible natural harbor, insufficient water supply, no real natural resources, and wasn't on a major trade route.

Of course LA now has the film industry (and associated tourism), tons of manufacturing, imported water, and is a major trade hub. But those industries all came after the infrastructure was built or the political conditions pushed them to LA.

You're not allowed to mention UCLA, Irvine, and Riverside without giving UCSD some credit. They have some top ten programs, and have been doing lots of incredible research lately.

I'd say depending on the student's level and area of study, UCSD and UCLA are roughly on par. I'd rather do engineering, biotech, or IR/PS at SD. Poli Sci is a toss-up depending on research focus. LA has a ton of great programs, too... and even the worst UCs are better than most universities.

They already have tax credits to subsidize your brood. I'm assuming you're getting $5,000/year for child tax credits, a large mortgage interest credit, and numerous other tax advantages. On top of having highly subsidized education available to your children.

I'm not opposed to having children, but the "I need lower taxes because I have kids (or a house)!" argument really irks me. Especially since I can't even deduct the cost of contraception...

You're thinking of Gold Class Theaters. They're incredible, and offer a real premium experience with huge recliners, meal and drink service, and a cool lounge. However, that costs a lot to provide and fits significantly fewer people per screen. Oakhurst doesn't have the numbers or money to support a theater like that.

While their local supermarket (Raleys) is pretty awesome, I can't imagine them being able to keep a theater like this going... let alone what you suggest.

Me? Oh hell no. But large corporations? They are certainly well represented! Where I only have one Representative (currently of the batshit teaparty variety), many corporations have dozens. And unlike me, they can actually get a face-to-face meeting whenever they want.

Corporations and the wealthy pay such low tax rates precisely because they are well represented. In reply to some other arguments in this thread, this isn't "see! the government is so stupid it writes shitty laws." Instead, it's, "the government is so corrupt that these loopholes are intentional".

Sadly, it's not even that good. It's more like someone publishing an article in Car & Driver that says: "I just got a motorized vehicle. It has a steering wheel and some pedal things. It moves in a jerky motion. It needs some sort of transmission system, but all I see is a stick with a bunch of letters and 'R' on it."

I agree with you on the goal, but I think fiber-to-the-home is the best way to make it happen. POTS is ridiculously expensive to deploy, maintain, and provide to rural customers. Cable is expensive to maintain and deploy, has limited coverage, and price gouges everywhere it can. Broadband over POTS, wireless, or cable is a pain in the overpriced ass.

Fiber has "high" installation costs but can also provide much more. Fiber can provide affordable broadband to nearly everyone while also modernizing the phone system and providing a new platform for content providers to actually compete. Why spend $60B extending DSL/cable/wireless a little bit instead of $120B to do fiber right?

In other words, Google is highly oversubscribed? They're an incredible company with some ingenious infrastructure, but there's no way they can push those levels of data. Or that the rest of the net could handle it.

However, I would absolutely love to be a P2P user in the KC area right now ;)... I really missing having uncapped fiber at home, and I only had 100 mbps when I had it.

A few years ago, they said they wouldn't service my parents' address because it's not worth the price of laying more cable. They still haven't. So they were correct: they won't provide affordable service to large chunks of the community.

... or less than the price of one year's cable and phone service.

From what I've read elsewhere, profits are much lower on Android due to piracy. iOS has fairly low piracy rates, but Android is ridiculous. There might be more issues that impact Android developers (market fragmentation, different demographics, development costs, etc.) as well.

If I was an iOS developer considering a port to Android, I'd reconsider my prices as well.

I really don't know why this got modded insightful. You're right that manufacturing capacity is a factor in military strength, but it's far from being the only (or overriding) metric. First, I'll address the logical failures in your post, then I'll respond to the rest:

Just like thermite's nothing but a flash in the pan. But if you have enough thermite you can still melt the fucking pan. Weapons do *not* need to be replaced at the pace they are consumed. They need to be available in sufficient quantities for the duration of the conflict. Come January 2005, the USAF was running low on several types of munitions. Did that help Saddam? No.

Who are you implying lacks sufficient quantities of bullets or jet fuel? Certainly not the US... few countries can match the United States' ability to supply itself with petroleum and related products. In a truly massive conflict, strategic reserves might be depleted and the US might be forced to drastically ration... but remember that the US has the ability to take down one of the world's most feared militaries without mobilizing significant additional assets.

China is great at producing consumer goods, but their military production is still second rate. They have poor quality control, numerous production issues, and, to put it mildly, their designs lack ingenuity. If they can overcome all other challenges, they might become a global military power someday. At the moment, however, they're struggling to keep up. And not just in technology.

Their expanding manufacturing and logistics are impressive, but they don't currently have significant global force projection. They lack the logistics to deploy a 200k+ man military, forward deploy large numbers of bombers, fighters, transports, refuelers, etc. Their navy is largely brown water and would be unable to deliver their army. They don't have a global network of bases that can be used to project force, and are unlikely to be permitted one. They are catching up in satellites and anti-space, but they have a ways to go.

Economics: Militaries stop being competitive when their countries can no longer sustain sufficient funding. While the US will undoubtedly be forced to reduce military spending, intelligent cuts (and revenue increases) could allow it to maintain global force projection and dominance for decades with a balanced budget. China is facing much more severe economic challenges and faces a real possibility of collapse should it fail. China has not begun to pay the much higher costs associated with a global military. They have modernized some, but they don't appear able or willing to pay what they would need to to compete globally. They are, however, a regional concern... with many other strong regional powers already acting to counter them.

In short: China makes nice phones, but they can't wage a war on a different continent. The US still has enormous capacity and can easily fight multiple wars on multiple continents. Barring a US civil war, this is likely to continue for at least another two decades.

IM not-so-H O, the whole money in politics thing is a symptom of a larger problem. Politicians and lobbyists will always be looking for new ways to get money involved because money helps candidates win. If you want to fix the problem, you have to remove that incentive.

Broadcasters should be required to give candidates a certain (low) percentage of air time. Public financing of campaign ads is absurd. We grant broadcasters licenses to use our airwaves then pay them billions to run ads about our elections? No thanks. We could simply restrict political ads beyond set allocations. Issue ads for initiatives may be different, but I think we can fix most of the problem right here. Yard signs and bumper stickers are cheap, and volunteers aren't terribly expensive... so fixing the broadcasting should make public/party campaign financing affordable.

Many other electoral reforms need to occur, including a switch from single member plurality districts, restructuring the voter registration system(s), expanding voting options, making it easier (if not compulsory) to vote, etc.. but you get the idea. And ftr, other countries have adopted all of these systems with remarkable success. It's not a cure-all, but it would likely be an improvement for the US. Just some legal and political hurdles to overcome :).