Follow that through. The ideology/philosophy of unregulated raw capitalism has been tried before. In Europe awhile back. We call it the Dark Ages. A rich and powerful few and a powerless, terrified everybody else.

In fact, every time and every place this philosophy/ideology has prevailed the results are identical. Who, save for the few would endorse such a plan?

They have a most excellent sales staff, educated at the best Universities and have adopted certain “culture issues” to woo low-information voters (we have too many of them, Thanks Media) to vote in office those who do not believe in the office. We see the results today with exploding wealth at the top 2 percent and not so much everybody else.

In short, it is because of financial reasons that the Corporate-cons want free reign to rape-pillage and plunder, which they cannot do with a well-regulated economy.

I think that the “philosophical”/”ideological” does not necessarily mean monetary in motivation.

And, I will be glad to see your perpective … and, who knows, I might agree 100% and we will have some amicable agreements rather than disagreements.

The sole exception would be the Theo-con sitting in the Amen section corrupted by the Corporate-cons as a vote-getter to the levers of power.

I find such “explanations” sand in the eyes, almost apologizing and rationalizing such behavior. Sorry I missed that post when you put it up so I could take it point by point where the motivational root is money (or power to get money).

Perhaps I will do a post to furnish a “treatise” on this, using your post for a format. When I get it done, I will invite you over for some agreeable disagreements.

Nowhere did I write that there are not other elements to what is going on or even that this is principally Global Warming.

This is not a post, however, on the myriad of causes and failures of water / flood plain (mis)management in the United States, but a discussion of how one element (Global Warming) is notable in its absence from the discussion.

Reality is: humanity has changed the world. 200 years ago, roughly, the atmosphere was at 280 ppm of CO2, we are now above 385 and climbing. For a million-year record, it has not exceeded about 285 ever. The science related to CO2 (and other GHG) is that it will contribute to capturing radiation and heating of the planet. And, amid that, one of the impacts of changes will be more extreme weather events.

And, if you want to complain about my language on this issue, try reading the 100s of posts and 10,000s of words about the subject matter. I am tired of rehashing old ground. The question, if working in reality-based policy, is not whether humanity has changed the world (we have) and not whether there is global warming (there is) and not whether the impacts are serious (they are) but should be about what we should be doing to reduce the extent of catastrophic climate change and mitigate the impacts of Global Warming that is and will occur.

Lots of city folks don’t realize that you can’t eat field corn.

I haven’t seen any since that deluge

I never noticed a cycle of spider population before