All measure of time involves movement and can be further characterized as finding more and more consistency of these movements.
The perfect conception of time is a fourth dimension, being one dimension added to the three dimensions we use to describe space, that is space without any movement until time's fourth dimension is added.
The imperfect conception of time is our human conception of measuring time and trying to find more and more consistent movements that describe better and better what we previously measured as consistent. This can lead to us having several different measurements for the above perfect conception of time. For example:
1. a physicist wants to measure with great accuracy for movements large and small and would prefer time measured in some small consistent vibration that can be added together to create a consistent amount of time;
2. a paleontologist wants to describe long numbers of years and prefers rotations around our sun that, again, can be added together to create a consistent amount of time where the actual rotation and angled revolving of our planet effect what he studies more than the number of seconds that transpired in those rotations of the planet.
3. an astro-physicist wants to understand what we might not know yet. How what is consistent here on earth might not remain consistent away from earth or may change beyond our star system and then again it could change again beyond our galaxy, and further as we exit what might be our globule or closeness to one, and on and on again and again as we might discover and name even larger agglomerations in the universe.
4. a philosopher realizes that all these measurements are ego-centric, that is they all evolve around who we are and what we want, what we want sometimes being a desire to understand physics, history and the universe in order to better our own position in our time and maybe, if we are lucky, to extend our lives for a little more time to enjoy the time we have.
And, that's enough time on this.
For some it means total government control that we need. To some that means it will fail -- so do I.
For some it means regulating some things that help businesses to thrive, such as requiring helmets and seat belt use. Those I can handle. As to what goes into cigarettes -- not so much.
For some it means having laws so people and business don't do bad things to each other such as making sure insurance companies pay up when the claim is made or that I pay up when I'm supposed to.
For some it means regulating some things that help people to thrive and have fun such as having Federal Insurance on banks and Social Security...
For some it means letting government handle things that are best left to government(e.g. water, electric, internet, health-care,..) and letting the market handle those things best left to the market(e.g. travel, shopping, cars, new-ideas,...). I like it here.
For some it means one man one vote, not one vote per million dollars owned.
For some it is to be avoided at all costs and we are all to be individuals until each of us is divided and eaten. I don't like this one either.
Romney heirs get this tax free shelter for what was earned by our tax dollars.
And, he does not want to pay.
We built, upgraded and maintained the roads.
.. giving his businesses free unfettered access to people and goods.
We kept a justice system at his beckon call..
.. Jails, judges, police to protect his money and his butt
We maintained a military giving him access to the world.
.. Note: We paid with our sons and daughters while he didn't.
We kept his food safe, water safe, air safe and clear.
We gave tax breaks to others supporting ..
.. schools that helped him and his family.
.. the medical industry that keeps him and family healthy.
We kept Social Security insurance on him in case he did fail.
And, now, because he re-invests. That increase in wealth, partially due to OUR INVESTMENT... He and heirs will not part with to pay his fair share.
Our right to connect responsibility with right.
No one wants two-year-olds to have a gun.
No one wants gun-felons to carry a gun.
Yet, somehow we cannot talk about this issue? Or, we relent to say "enough" with your rights?
I want to say that I am perhaps more liberal than you on how to manage guns. Liberal as in liberty, free, free to carry. (ASIDE: liberal, left, etc. is misused rhetoric I employ to talk about other misused rhetoric. Oh, the irony.)
What I care about more is whether or not I have made sure my fellow responsible American has received his needed health care, and mental health care, and psychological health care that my view of general welfare allows. We are a rich country. We want to enjoy our riches. The problem is that if we do not share our riches we do not get to enjoy our riches. Disparity of wealth is just as dangerous as disparity of power between carriers and non carriers assembling together.
Denying rights, as we did with alcohol causes people to hoard. It happened with alcohol, it happens with drugs, it happens with guns.
I think we'd agree, but our words are disagreeing.
Republicans immediately began changing the definition of a recession recalculating years back to 1929 with their new rules.
Clinton's last month was so good that they could not find a way to use the usual rules of consecutive months with negative calculations, so, they loaded up December and October with good stuff and managed to get November down to a small tiny negative, mostly by making rules to round certain things down rather than rounding the numbers or just using the raw numbers. Then, they convoluted the rule to include non-consecutive months and Republicans had from January 20th to January 31st to make January a downer, and all the months that followed under Republican control were also made downers.
So, they declared that the recession started under Clinton in November, despite October and December showing wildly good GDP growth.
Except, Republicans never included the details of it starting in November, just that it started under Clinton and that Bush inherited it. The M$M just played along and never challenged it, and never will they.
The stock market usually takes a hit around March before a November election. It took another hit and dropped a good bit as the election controversy began.
Aside, it's not funny how that caused people to pull money out of stocks and put money into their houses instead.
Notice how carefully they avoid giving any real comparison figures in the article.
They give US figures, then use only words to relate if higher or lower.
Then they pull a fast one separating our total health care cost into what we pay in premiums versus what is supplemented by our taxes.
The attempt is to make our spending look like some middle of the road government muddle. It's not. We spend way too much and get way too little.
They also use acronyms without spelling them out: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to make you think that you might not be good enough to understand so you won't tweet this article. And, why quote that group anyway -- because if they said Europe, you'd understand it and retain the information in a usable speakable way.
And, the M$M knows that if we knew we spent TWICE what other countries spend, ALL OF THEM, and we don't rate at the top of every chart... they'd remember the number TWO, as in twice the cost.
Reagan borrowed our way out of that and we've been paying dearly since. It's kind of analogous the current situation with Obama *slowing* the loss of jobs only to be told that it's still fewer jobs so we should put the guys who accelerated our losses back into the driver seat.
Or, was it that he did not get the hostages out of Iran, that happened the minute Reagan was sworn into office and then the money used to keep our hostages there was found in Iran-Contra...
Or, was it that he did not take credit for Russia falling apart due to our more intelligent armaments, multiple warhead rockets, developed during Carter's time -- a president who understood diplomacy and a physicist that understood the rocket science of his era when it was needed.
Or, did you oppose the treaties he helped that stand to this day.
Just curious, what is the reason he disappointed you.
The difference comes from whom they benefit and and whom they involve.
A greedy subset of the rich unionize / communalize creating and using think-tanks and their crossover corporate boards of directors in ways to effect information control and control of so-called elected officials and which elected officials manage to become officials.
They accept the resulting rich-socialized tax rates and power positions.
What they don't want is for unionization / socialization / communization to apply to all people, instead of just their socio-economic peers.
The bigger problem is that we are the same. We don't want it to apply to all people either, we just want it to apply to fellow Americans.
1. Interest rates for borrowing are low and going lower. It's not nice having a huge national debt, but it's not our biggest problem.
We have bunches of people not working, we're better off working them while raising that debt rather than austerity and watching more people not finding work.
2. The big problem is outstanding derivatives neatly tucked in retirement accounts waiting to be cashed. By then, there will be no cash. Partly because of too many not working.
Already, cities and companies cannot pay their retirees.
The Republicans made hay out of derivatives over and over.
First, it brought up a floundering Bush economy in 2004 by borrowing against our future. (Welcome to the future.)
Second, it made their buddies in banks a lot of bucks, including our direct tax dollars.
Third, it comes due later, in the future, in a future Obama administration. Oh, yeah, we're here now. The retirement accounts across the country are going or going to go under. ***Remember what fun the fund managers had going to Hawaii to learn how to invest retirement accounts?***
Fourth, with people not working, government on the hook for retirements, Social Security will be argued as not viable. Too bad, so sad. (With a hands up Yippee from Republicans.)
Our U.S. 15-trillion dollar economy runs on about 2-3 trillion in cash. So, how much derivative cash is out there? I hear 600-1200 trillion dollars.
That's a lot of debt.
The national debt is a tiny 16 trillion in comparison.
They were mad at Bush because Bush was so bad he could not hide his bad effects, then they were mad at how the recall was handled.
Well, there was costly damage to the Capitol. (Media overblew it, ill-informing the voters.)
Well, we don't take handouts. (You would if your kid were dying. Others would prefer not to need it.)
Add in some push-polling, purchased street PR artists, more ads than the opposition, ... not to mention machine counted votes.
Republicans found out how much money is required to buy an election.