An observation:

It is natural to readily accept conclusions that we like from a rather 
limited set of data.  And in promoting our conclusions there is a 
tendency to preferentially pass along the more supportive data.

However rather than demonize those of opposing viewpoints or who may 
simply be less knowledgeable, recommend that contributors to this forum 
instead get/provide additional data that is not pre-selected, showing an 
ability to see both sides of an issue.  This should help avoid the 
counter-argument spiral.

Karl Sauter


Harvey Miller wrote:
> Chuck Dolci-- 
> 
> I was not precise enough.
> 
> The reference to medical bills was in context of the Iraq War.  As a user
> of V.A. medical services, I can tell you that the system is strained.  The
> damage done to minds and bodies will take billions to address.  Estimates
> have been made if you care to google.
> 
> Infrastructure refers to estimates for sewers, bridges, city utilities,
> electric grid, etc.  I've seen expert estimates of need for 1 trillion $--
> can be googled.  I'm not talking about my or your subjective experiences
> with this or that highway.
> 
> But that trillion $ that the Iraq War will end up costing could have paid
> down the National Debt as well.
> 
> The reference to political power shifts had nothing to do with producers
> or users of energy.  In a capitalist democracy such as the U.S., some are
> more equal than others.  Election campaigns require $$$$$$$.  So naturally
> elites are going to have more influence.  I'm not saying that is bad.  All
> I'm talking about is determination of policy. Why has Bush favored the
> energy companies, why did he invade Iraq?  I think it's obvious.  A shift
> to technology company political pre-eminence will lead to technology
> investments and a climate for encouraging innovation-- including renewable
> energy.
> 
> Harvey Miller