text:
What happens when the robots (peacefully) take over?
Let's leave aside for the moment all the dystopian visions of doom from an automated future (The Machine Stops, The Terminator, The Matrix, etc.), not because they couldn't happen but because I have another question in mind.
When we look around us and see ATMs, Roombas, GPS operated farm combines, iPhone's Siri, etc., it's not so hard to imagine that if we were to jump forward a few more decades or a century, we could find ourselves in a time where the vast majority of drudge work (from janitorial services, to construction and agriculture, to cooking and waiting tables at a restaurant, to manufacturing everything including the manufacturing robots themselves) is done by "robots". Not C-3PO or R2D2, but computer-guided machinery of one sort or another. Perhaps there will be a few humans needed to guide things (almost like George Jetson, pushing buttons), plus of course artistic and creative vocations like political punditry or ballet; but the stuff that maintains people's basic Maslow hierarchy needs (shelter, food, etc.) will be taken care of without human labour, as will additional layers of luxury.
Further, this level of automation should mean that no one is wretchedly poor, that everyone will be able to live in at least reasonable comfort without having to "work for a living". Right? Again, maybe those who do "extra" could have additional reward for doing so, but if robots can do all the stuff I described, and assuming population is under reasonable control, no one should want for the basics.
So here's my question: what does the transition to this state of affairs look like? Before we get to the point where people say "duh, this is obviously stupid to make people work for paychecks and pay for everything", it strikes me that capitalist tech entrepeneurs will try to enrich themselves by taking over sectors of the economy that used to require human labour. After all, when washers and dryers and dishwashers were invented, they weren't just passed out to families with a benevolent wish that housewives liberate themselves from drudgery. They were (and are) sold at a profit, just like those automatic GPS-driven farm combines.
So when the janitorial robots become cheaper than hiring people, janitors and hotel housekeepers will be thrown out of work. Same thing for taxi drivers when automated cars are perfected. And so on and so forth. At what point then, and in what way, does it cross a rubicon from creating mass unemployment (which is bad) to obviating the need for employment at drudgery (which is good)? Will the robot-making companies find themselves increasingly with fewer and fewer customers because no one will have a job? Will governments just take over, Tea Partiers be damned? Or will it somehow happen organically without great turmoil? I can see the end result, but that transition is a muddle. Whaddaya think?
This is somewhat what is posited if we allow (as we already have) for underpaid immigrants to take the jobs that nobody here wants to have.
Perhaps we can project from that to a future that you imagine.
An underclass that is hated and yet preserved.
If you don't grant your postulated robots greater abilities than humans, why give them rights at all?
They are slaves.
Last edited by Gagundathar; 01-09-2012 at 05:56 AM.
Look back a couple of hundred years ago, and folks were saying exactly the same thing. As soon as technology progressed, we wouldn't have people toiling on farms and slaving away in factories. Utopia was right around the corner.
We have huge machines automating much of our farm work and robots fill many factories, and Utopia isn't anywhere in sight. It's not technology that's holding us back at this point.
There needs to be some sort of drastic social change for anything like the above to happen.
Moved from General Questions to Great Debates.
samclem, Moderator
Stringing Words Forum
Aspiring writers and authors supporting each other.
Goals and resolutions our particular specialty - also sharing commiseration and triumphs.
Join today!
The people who predicted there would be a drastic lessening of need for farm labour were right: today's agriculture requires only a tiny, tiny fraction of the labour it once did, which is why farm country has mostly emptied out over the past century. So that in itself did cause a big social change. But there was still plenty of work that needed doing in the cities, plus a certain amount of rural work driving (and loading) trucks, maintaining infrastructure, etc. It's easy to imagine those tasks and pretty much all other manual labour being taken over by robots within a century; at that point it will be possible to maintain human's needs in a pretty comfortable way without any human effort.
Now as I say I can totally see there still being rich people who come up with the latest equivalent of the iPhone, or the new hit song, etc. And there will be things that are still scarce for rich people to buy--land, for instance. But for the average schmoe, what jobs would be available to them, and why should they be expected to work?
I suppose it could simply be that there will be very few jobs available (and very high qualifications for them) but that those who have them will be paid extremely handsomely, will pay a lot in taxes, and there will be most everywhere a generous social safety net of the contemporary European variety.
Let's say I somehow program a computer with the task to maximize a societal utility function. Pure hypothetical here, so it's got plenty of computing resources to crunch out this baby, figure out what it needs to do to help max out everyone's collective happiness. Nobody forced to be happy, it's just helping us out with what we want to do. And it's plenty smart about it, smart enough to program little drone machines to do its work or do any current industrial work, smart enough to make robots that can repair robots, even smart enough to understand law and crime and enforce legal statutes, or maybe more general golden rule type stuff if statutes are no longer necessary, if we wanted it to do that sort of job, too. The whole AI package, all focused on allowing us the possibility of living happy, free lives.
But it's got no emotions. No sadness, no drudgery, none of that. It's a quicker thinker than any human for any given problem, but at core, what it's doing is continually working on a math problem, doing its best to maximize a utility function that was programmed into it.
Is it a slave?
Seems to me that machines capable of designing new machines, repairing them, testing the modifications, and then redesigning to create even more, are a recipe for a robo-commie paradise. Or human extinction. One or the other. Slavery does not even begin to apply. They're not going to be Star Trek 'Data's walking around, all wanting to be human. They won't be evolved creatures at all. Intelligent, but not remotely human. They'll be optimizing the functions they're originally given, the problems they're programmed to solve. If we plug in the wrong problem without realizing, then sucks to be us. If we plug in the right one, then life could be pretty swell.
Even when some workers do lose out -- which can absolutely happen, yes, if we're not on a super-long-term time frame -- the owners of the robots are not now, nor have they ever been, the only winners. The remaining workers benefit loads, as does the rest of society. We've had two hundred years of evidence about this since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It is helpful to learn a little bit about these events and economic processes that led to our modern technological world in order to comment sensibly about it.
There is a fundamental flaw in the "no work" utopia that I have seen expressed before, that there is something in Humn nature that will rail against "the other guy" not having to work for his bread.
Which is to say, someone who does not work, but is still provided with food, shelter, and other essentials to live will be hated. Much as we see segments of the American population looking down upon those that are surviving via AFDC or other means of governmental support.
I, for one, welcome our . . . Oh, never mind.
Or politicians.
There is a small oligarchy, 'Families' associated with manufacturing empires, military/political empires, and so forth. Somewhere around a few hundred thousand ultra rich people. They have human servants, a point of conspicuous consumption that they do not use robots/machines. Then there are people who have jobs, a few million or so more, they are the managers and pilots and such. They run the factories, work in stores and such. Then there is the 'Pool' - the great unemployed unwashed. They apparently are all on the dole - in one story the parents of one guy get 900 credits a month for him to stay in school. This pool also supply the criminal element.
I do believe that the world is headed for a similar situation, as computerizing, robotizing and mechanizing everything keeps reducing the jobs available, corporate farms take over from small holdings, factory mass production of everything. Handcrafted items will be made by a diminishing pool of craftsmen, and being sold to the ultra rich. At some point, if you do not have a job, you will end up in that pool of unemployed on the dole. And it will not matter if you have the brilliance of Einstein, and a PhD, you will be sitting i your flat, watching the TV and on the dole, unless you can winkle your way into one of the ultra rare jobs.
Wonderful future.
So it looks like a lot of people responding are like me in having an easier time imagining the end result, but not a lot of comments about the transition. What does the economy look like a decade or two before we get to this state where most everything is automated? High unemployment or underemployment seems a given (or reduced hours, or reduced importance for each employee to do their share to keep society functioning). But would that lead to turmoil in the medium term, or would the massive increases in GDP make it fairly easy to use taxation to provide a comfortable safety net? (I should add that my scenario assumes the problem of energy is also solved, by controlled fusion or somesuch mechanism; the whole thing becomes much more problematic if that's not the case.)
Idle hands are the devil's workshop. (Mrs. Grundy)
I pondered this a long while back. Especially in the face of finite natural resources, the default outcome (as we observe) is chaotic and unsatisfactory. In the absence of economic drivers, only powerful social controls can save us from ourselves. The army motto "Be all you can be!" is to the point. The naturally talented 10%in any line of endeavor might be able to discipline themselves, but the rest of us are going to need strong social programming. In addition, some captivating social goal(s) (Survival of the human race! . . .) would be needed to keep the herd moving.
If we are not to succumb to chaos and misery, I could envision an array of quasi-military organizations (like the CCC or monastic or Masonic orders) that could achieve appreciable results, provide for distribution of the goodies, and develop the potential of their members.
Perhaps the criterion for graduation would be the demonstrated capacity for artistic or academic self-discipline. Of course, there would be a lot of Professional Students. Maybe only a few would graduate.
Yep, pretty commie. Except more like a combination of Hitler Youth and a large university.
Last edited by robinson; 01-09-2012 at 08:10 PM.
[quote] Further, this level of automation should mean that no one is wretchedly poor, that everyone will be able to live in at least reasonable comfort without having to "work for a living". Right? Again, maybe those who do "extra" could have additional reward for doing so, but if robots can do all the stuff I described, and assuming population is under reasonable control, no one should want for the basics.[unquote] Your end-state is reminiscent of the cities in Logan's Run (1970s movie).
Last edited by robinson; 01-09-2012 at 08:24 PM.
Last edited by BrainGlutton; 01-09-2012 at 08:24 PM.
Another possibility is that someday there will be no meaningful difference between robots and humans.
According to the book, the massive increases in productivity and drastically lower labor costs allow much higher taxes on businesses, ultimately resulting in business taxes on business comparable to the original labor costs. These taxes are then distributed back to the people, allowing them to be consumers. Hopefully this would be a gradual occurrence, as specific jobs and sectors were affected.
Tough to predict how our society will actually react to disruptive technological changes over the next 50-80 years.
So the "ultra-rich" are the capitalist owners of robot factories, yes? And these robot factories churn out every product imaginable, yes? And the ultra-rich are rich because they provide these products? And everyone else become welfare bums? Except, who are the ultra-rich selling products to? Each other? There are no consumers in this scenario. Therefore, how does owning a robot factory make you rich?
A guy with his factory churing out every product imaginable isn't rich. Sure, he can make anything he wants. So what? What does he do with those piles of stuff? He can't sell them, can he? What would he sell them FOR? What would he exchange his worthless piles of junk for, that he wants?
When the marginal cost of producing a product is essentially zero, then you can't get rich manufacturing that product. It becomes free. It doesn't matter if the product is diamond necklaces or digital watches or luxury cars or plastic toys or soybeans. In fact, the example of agricultural products is entirely analgous.
Back in the feudal era, what was the basis of wealth? Land. And why? Because serfs worked the land to produce agricultural products that everyone needed to live. Wheat, grapes, olives, wool, and so on were the basis of every aristocrat's wealth. And the surplus food supported a small class of artisans and priests and so on. But the vast majority of workers were agricultural workers.
So suppose there is an agricultural revolution, and agricultural products can be grown at a fraction of the cost using a fraciton of the labor. What now? The feudal aristocrats become fantastically rich, and the former serfs now become beggars dependent on the scraps from the lord's table? Is that what happened? No, what happened is that the amount of wealth you could generate from agriculture plummeted relative to the amount of wealth you could generate by manufacturing. We produced much more food than ever before and the food was worth less and less. The Earth has 7 billion people today, and never in human history has each person been so well fed.
So consider the poor capitalist factory owner. When the marginal cost of production drops and drops and drops, do the products of his factory retain their value? Of course not. The flood of manufactured products means that manufactured products become cheaper and cheaper, and eventually so cheap that you can barely give them away.
And we're already beginning this process. Do the thousands of new factories in China make the factory owners fantastically rich? No. Oh, they make money, especially compared to the starving communist peasantry of a few decades ago. But ownership of a factory that makes goods for dirt cheap doesn't make you rich, any more than ownership of a farm that produces a flood of cheap corn and wheat makes you rich.
But won't the industrialists use the political process to keep the workers/former-workers-now-beggars enslaved? But to what end? The agricultural aristocrats tried to hang onto their privileges too, but when mass production knocked the floor out of the value of agriculture, how could they? Those who control valuable goods and services control society, not those who control formerly valuable goods and services. Yes, the people of the future will need manufactured goods, and there will be a flood of manufactured goods. But the people who control the factories that produce those goods won't be rich any more than modern farmers are rich.
Go to any city in America, and if you stand in the right line, someone will hand you a free meal. People used to literally starve to death when they couldn't find jobs and didn't have land to work. Nobody starves nowadays, because the cost of food is so low that we just hand it out. Yes, we have so much food nowadays that the poor are fat and the rich are thin.
And so in the future, the guy whose giant house is stuffed with gadgets and gizmos and diamond necklaces and clothes and cars and fountains will be considered poor and crazy, just like the rich today don't have giant pantries bulging with packaged snack cakes. The meaning and value of these things will be different.
And as for the value of information, well, the marginal cost of making another digital copy of information is already zero. The cost of making the information in the first place isn't zero, but once we've already created it then copying it over and over costs nothing. And so basing a fortune on control of information seems pretty unlikely as well. You have to continually create new information to stay in the same place, because very soon the information is worth nothing, because the marginal cost of copying it is nothing.
Arjuna, that book looks fantastic--I have put it on my Amazon Wishlist at highest priority--thanks!
BrainGlutton, the idea of space colonisation "keeping the herd moving" is intriguing. Makes sense.
Lemur866, your whole post is very well observed. But isn't the difference this time that in those other revolutions, there was still stuff that human labour was needed to do to keep the new orientation of society working? The labour force moved from farms to factories to service positions; but if those are all automated, what then? I can see a big expansion in people working in the arts, research, etc.; but what of the common folk who aren't so intellectually oriented? What will they do? And do you see upheaval along the way, or just a steadily larger and larger percentage of the population living on welfare until at some point that seems obsolete and unnecessary?
I believe that great proponent of robotics Isaac Asimov thought a lot about these questions.
Many years ago I read an essay either by Asimov or by someone else who was discussing Asimov's ideas on this. (Sorry, no cite, this was many years ago.) Asimov's idea was that robots would take over most of mankind's productive work, creating a mass leisure society. He envisioned that there would only a minimal amount of work requiring human hands. This would be done by a very small work force, perhaps working only a small number of hours a week. Pretty much everybody else would live lives of total leisure.
That small workforce of very-part-time workers, plus all the robots, would produce all the goods (and services?) that everyone might need.
I don't recall anything said about how we would make the transition to such an economic model. But it might be plausible if it happened gradually, as the above description seems to imply. As robots become increasingly commonplace and productive, more and more people would work fewer and fewer hours (or not at all), but there would be enough goods produced to maintain everybody. As long as the robots and minimal work force kept the supply of goods adequate for everybody, prices would stay in line with what people could pay. A massively welfare-economy would evolve to provide for those who don't work at all. This is the part that I think would be difficult to achieve. I think creating a massively welfare-based economy would be very difficult -- or at least, it would require a major paradigm shift from the capitalist economy we have now.
The result will most likely be hyper-fascism. A small number of wealthy families will control this labor pool that have no rights and do whatever is necessarily to eliminate any threat to their new royalty system, IE eliminate the vast majority of the human population (99.9% or so).
So the hyper-rich slaughter billions of threatening unemployed people. And how are they hyper-rich better off after they murder everyone? OK, they have their automated factories that can produce whatever goods and services needed, so they don't need the useless proles. And now what? They aren't any better off. And now they aren't hyper-rich anymore, are they?
Because to be "rich" you need to have a better standard of living than the guy next door. When the aristocrats kill off the peasants, they aren't aristocrats anymore, even if they have the same luxuries as before. Now the peasants are dead, and everyone on earth is a hyper-rich owner of an automated factory. How is that different than just allowing the peasants to own automated factories?
Again, automated manufacturing means that the marginal cost of production drops to zero, which means that the value of owning an automated factory drops to zero. Take a look at how products are produced nowadays. Some guy or some firm comes up with an idea for a product. They set up a factory in China. The factory churns out millions of widgets. But how much wealth stays in China? The majority of the profit goes to the designers. And this is because the factory has no leverage. If the factory tries to claim a greater share of the profits, then the company will just find another factory in another part of the world to produce the widgets.
In other words, the factory itself adds almost no value to the product. Of course somehow somewhere the company needs a factory to produce the widgets. But since the manufacturing itself is dirt cheap and a small fraction of the cost of producing the widget, the location and owner of the factory doesn't matter. The factory owners become the equivalent of day laborers who get orders to produce such and such and get paid a pittance, because there are plenty of other hungry factories who need the work.
I don't see how a robotic laborforce equals robots taking over. If robots take over they will do so on their own accord, not by replacing manual human labor. We already have those to a certain degree.
Still raw materials and energy will be as scarce as they are now if not more. And the need for human interaction will rise with all these robots, so maybe there will be lots of jobs for ppl entertaining/catering others.
So in the end there will always be a reason to go make/earn a living, even if it is beyond the basic human needs and totally artificial. And then ofcourse there is the need for (personal) consumption. I don't see a scenario where no human will think : "I want it, and I want it for me myself and I alone." No robotic laborforce will ever be able to fulfill those wants and haves, and even if it did we'll just create some new ones.
Which, in my mind, is a different situation from having to work a job you mostly loathe because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and seeing other people getting free fucking lunches that you were just told there ainten't.
Think of it like this. A couple of hundred years ago, most people worked in agriculture. Since most wealth was generated by the production of crops or livestock, it was a direct function of who owned the most land.
A hundred or so years ago, the Industrial Revolution created a new form of wealth. The ability to make shit and lots of it. People got rich by making lots of stuff or inventing new ways for people to make stuff. It also had the effect of transferring the work force from working on farms to working in factories.
In the past 50 years, it's been about information. As technology and automation has made it easier to make stuff, the focus has shifted to figuring out what to make and how to make it more efficiently. Again, much of the work force has shifted from working in factories to working on the systems that run them.
It stands to reason that in the future, more and more decision making will be handled more cheaply and more efficiently by decision support systems. The company I work for makes software that analyzes data to tell salespeople who they should sell to. A lot of companies have systems that tell them when they should buy. How much longer until those systems are linked and you don't even need salespeople at all?
So when the drudgery of working on farms, factories and IT development centers becomes a thing of the past, what would be the next step? With the ability to produce so much so quickly, society would likely be highly socialized. After all, what does capitalist cutthrough efficiency matter when you can cheaply produce more than most people can ever use?
But what would pass for currency in a society where wealth was no longer based on land ownership, production capacity, or even intellectual property? The only thing left is the ability to amuse and entertain the masses of interchangable carbon blobs sitting in front of their 3D vid walls eating massive piles of cheap food.
You wouldn't teach kids to study math or science or even law or medicine. I would no more want my kids toiling in a data mine than my parents wanted me toiling in a coal mine. You would tell them to spend extra hours at the gym, tanning salon and laundrymat. Your "resume" would be the assorted clips posted on whatever future version of Youtube and Facebook exist.
The world of the future would look a lot like Idiocracy. The difference is that people wouldn't have bred themselves stupid. They would just be stupid because there would be no reason to not be.
Future generations would look at Snookie and The Situation the way we look at Henry Ford or Bill Gates.
These responses are fantastic--beyond what I could have hoped. You guys deserve great credit as provocative thinkers. Kudos. I just thought of another sci-fi type scenario, though more of a truly hypothetical one, which I shall post forthwith.
Except the driver of the combine isn't rich, is he, because anybody could do his job. The owner of an automated factory isn't going to be rich, because the first thing someone's going to build with their automated factory is another automated factory. Wait, second thing. The first thing will be a fully functional sexbot. The second will be another automated factory.
A magic factory that produces an endless cornucopia of goods and services would make you a wealthy man--today. A factory in the future that produces the exact same cornucopia, except there are millions of other automated factories would be worth nothing. What good is it? If can make you anything you want? Yeah, and so can any other factory. You can produce piles and piles of diamond necklaces? Yeah, and so can any other factory. Those diamond necklaces are worth nothing, because it costs nothing to produce them. The goods and services pouring out of your factory are worth nothing, and so your factory that can produce literally anything you can imagine is also worth nothing.
By that I mean, if you take a hammer and carefully smash your factory to bits, you won't be any worse off than you were before. Yeah, you won't have a river of manufactured goods pouring out any more. So what? You can get any manufactured good you can imagine for free, there are piles of them everywhere, or would be if robots didn't follow around behind people scooping up their discarded trash and dumping it back into hoppers to be used as raw materials.
In a world where every material good costs nothing to produce, material goods are worthless. People who have ownership of factories that make these material goods will be as rich and powerful as people today who have all the air they could ever want. It's the abundance of air that makes air worthless. Yes, you'll die in minutes without air. On a planet where air has to be laboriously manufactured by hand, the people who controlled the air supply would control the world. On a planet with a blanket of air a mile thick, it's ludicrous to speak of controlling the air.
Yes, there will be times and places where future people in a world of prosperity will have to work hard to make sure they have the material goods and services they need to live, just like there are times and places today where people have to work hard to make sure they have enough air. If you're in a submarine, or a burning house, or climbing Mt Everest, or visiting the Moon, you have to laboriously carry your air with you. That doesn't mean that the air barons rule the world.
Skill is its own form of currency. You maybe can cook a mean gumbo, but I sure can't. All I can make is a slightly antagonistic mush with fish in it.
Last edited by Kobal2; 01-10-2012 at 11:05 PM.
Yes, there will be things in scarce supply in the future world of the future, and the people who control or supply those things will be fabulously wealthy beyond the dreams of the Pharoahs, or the Gateses. But these fabulously wealthy masters of the future universe won't be wealthy because they own worthless factories, any more than the megawealthy of today own vast agricultural estates. The objects won't mean anything, the boxes that make objects won't mean anything, and so the megawealthy of the future won't concern themselves with worthless junk like material goods that any hobo can have.
This is why the spartan aesthetic of Star Trek makes perfect sense to me. Why would people who come from a society where any good you want can be materialized out of a magic box care about decorations or fine clothes or fancy silverware or fast cars? You want a diamond necklace just ask for one, and when you're done you throw it away. And the fact that you can have one anytime you want one means you won't ever want one.
It isn't hard to see that the wealthy are those that control scarce goods and services. If goods are pouring out of robot factories, then those goods have little value relative to other things. We see the effects even today. 300 years ago a man who had a dozen suits of clothes was incredibly wealthy. How many pairs of shoes and pants and shirts do you own? Nowadays you can't pawn your overcoat to buy food the way they do in old movies, because your old overcoat might sell for a few dollars at Goodwill but you'll never find a pawn shop willing to buy your warm coat made of space age polymers for more than a few cents.
Just because you produce something that everyone wants and needs doesn't make you rich. I can think of dozens of products that you use every single day and would die without, yet you pay a pittance for them. Again, supply and demand. It doesn't matter that you'd die without air, the air is all around you and you don't need to pay for it.
A future where the ultra-wealthy have a stranglehold on a few jealously guarded automated factories is about as plausible as a future where the ultra-wealthy declare that they own the air, and have installed choke-collars on everyone, and if you don't pay your air bill the collar strangles you to death. In this scenario the wealthy don't really own the air, they're just able to kill you if you don't obey their every whim.
And a world where there are automated factories that produce essentially free goods, yet the supply of goods is artificially limited by the powerful makes no sense, because what do the powerful get out of it? They don't get more goods for themselves, they get less. A world with a million capitalist oligarchs who own everything and 7 billion beggars who own and produce and consume nothing makes no sense. An industrialist only has wealth when people buy his products. An industrialist who has no customers isn't an industrialist, he's a guy with a pile of junk in his backyard. There are billions of people who want the stuff, but have nothing the industrialist could want in return. Therefore since they have nothing of value to him, not even their slave labor, there's no point in producing the goods. He shuts off his factory, closes the gates, and throws away the key, because his factory is now worthless. His "control" and "ownership" of this factory didn't allow him to trade his goods for anything of value to him, and so his goods have no value and the factory has no value.
But can't we imagine that a couple of body servants to the old industrialist breaking in to that worthless factory and turning it back on? After all, they're utterly destitute, since no work they can do can compete with automation. So they could use clothing to cover their naked bodies, and some sleeping bags since they're living on the streets, and maybe some shoes, and some food would be nice too. So this factory, valueless to the industrialist, has value to the neo-peasants. And what the heck, they keep the thing running full blast, because, get this, it costs them nothing to keep it running.
It works just like file-sharing. It costs you nothing if some random dude from Russia or Florida makes a copy of your copy of Justin Bieber's latest. After all, you didn't pay for it yourself, you copied it from some other random dude. The marginal cost to you of creating another copy is zero. This is the key concept. When the marginal cost of production is zero, you might as well leave the tap open for anyone, especially if never have and never had any hope of getting any return from that production in the first place.
There are people around the world who make a living writing. Yet here I am on the Straight Dope, writing for free, in fact I'm paying a tiny amount. And I'm not trying to restrict how many people read my inane ramblings, in fact, the more people who read what I write the happier I am. And this is because I know I could never ever hope to charge people for what I write. There are people who can, but I'm not one of them.
And so, when industrialists cast aside their worthless factories and give up their dreams of amassing wealth by producting worthless material goods, those factories will still be there, and could still produce worthless material goods that are vital to the survival of billions of people. It's just that no one will be able to make money buy supplying those vital goods to those billions.
Kobol wrote a good list of things people would still get paid for. Then of course there's entertainment, which I think was mentioned above. Being a land speculator might be a big one too, as people would be able to have any kind of house they like, but location, location, location will still be huge--either a scenic one, a central location, or something near cultural resources. I'd think being a concert promoter could be lucrative too.
Not that it's a bad thing. Ideally technology should allow people to do more fun stuff and less boring, tedious, dangerous grunt work.
Obviously, there would be less clutter in Star Trek since you only really needed to keep items around for aesthetic or sentimental value. Anything else can be replicated when you need them. Except for maybe replicator repair kits.
All the captains in ST did have decorations and whatnot in their private quarters.
While I don't absolutely disagree with classifying politics or religion as entertainment, I think many a stick-up-the-bum would. Politics is Serious Business, apparently
But yeah, I get what you mean, and I agree that it'd be a good thing if everyone could just write that one good book they have in them instead of filing data entries. Then just fuck around a lot. The issue I could see here would be the dreaded Roman decadence where, as the first world parties on like crazy because of the robot utopia, the starving masses from across the border sharpen their knives.
The robots can do a lot, but I don't think they can quite do away with inequality entirely - there's only so much land and resources to go around. I suppose we could always keep them away with armies of firespewing deathbots, but building firespewing deathbots is a Very Bad Idea. I've seen that movie.
Again, things that cost nothing to produce have no economic value and therefore people won't value them. Nobody will care if people get worthless junk.
I think massive unemployment and poverty will lead to massive riots. That will lead to increasingly violent and totalitarian means of control, until the government/replacement government concede to the demographics and create a welfare state.
Control of resources and means of production will be taken over by the government in order to create the welfare state. They will trade with other governments for resources that they don't have.
The welfare states will probably resemble corrupt totalitarian oligarchies.
Places with no resources to trade will probably resemble Somalia.
I daresay the first world would possibly guzzle less stuff away, because with the robots doing all of the work and barely any need for money, workforce or army, our natality rates would plummet. Still, as I said, there's still only so much raw materials, grazing land, ripe pastures and hallucinogenic sexbots to go around.
I don't think I have seen the phrase "hallucinogenic sexbots" before.
Wow the title of this thread is really misleadjng. What you're asking about is "how do you think the early transitional effects of a post-scarcity economy will be handled?" It's got nothing to do with robots. I really think you should ask to have it changed.
I personally think we will see mass starvation in the hundreds of millions, possibly exceeding a billion will occur, mostly in Asia, because that's where all the people are, and in Asia they have a LONG tradition of not giving a rat's ass about average folk. But it will be bad in the US as well, you only need to look at the recent financial hi-jinks to figure out that our one percenters would gleefully watch the rest of us starve to death. Serve us right, we non-job creators!
I have no idea how African countries will manage a transition to post-scarcity, but I'm pretty sure it will be awful. South America, some countries awful, some not. Antarctica might be OK.
The thing is, post-scarcity won't start with magic widgets that can make you rich. It will start with what we have now, big, expensive factories owned by large corporations managed by crony capitalists. They will become increasingly automated, as is the trend now, and eventually they'll get that little software problem that involved getting video cams and robotic manipulators run by a computer to work as well at repetitive tasks as hands and eyes run by a human brain. Repetitive tasks put the ball very much in the computer's court, I'd be surprised if they didn't figure it out in the next decade or two. (It IS a surprisingly difficult problem, but nothing on the scale of true A.I., more like a very advanced expert system.)
When that happens, manual labor of all kinds will become obsolete. Just. Like. That. And the number of people required to produce goods is gonna become very, very small. But it will still take large amounts of capital for the machinery that extracts the goods, processes them, and distributes them. It just won't take all that many people.
Of course with vast numbers of people economically displaced, the market for goods is going to get increasingly restricted, but it will take a very long for this to manifest on a global scale. After all, the American economy has been stagnant or worse since 2008 but the big corporations are rolling in cash by selling goods overseas -- you know, the places they've been exporting American jobs. This will keep things going for a while in terms of having a market for mass produced goods and the one percenters will show the same fine compassion for displaced workers they have shown all along, which is to say, none. They will try to shift all the responsibility for coping with the effects of their economic activity to government, and accept none of the blame, just as they have done in the current economic debacle, and they will be aided by the howling masses of conservative one percenter wannabes, just as they are now.
As a result, it's going to be very difficult to make the profound changes in our society that will be needed as we transition to post-scarcity, because the libertarians and conservatives are very weak on social cohesion. They will be fine with displaced workers going homeless and without health care, and possibly even food, especially if they are, well, kinda brown. But a lot of white people will be displaced too.
I suspect there will be mass riots and violence, certainly an increase in crime.
In Asia, Africa and South America, this will be much more pronounced, much more violent, much nastier. Europe, which has developed a pretty good social cohesion, might be able to avoid it entirely, or at least, have a very much milder transition.
After things settle out and everyone is either benefiting from post-scarcity economics or dead, things will be much nicer for human beings. But that will probably be little consolation for the dead and their loved ones ... though they may also be dead ...
The American Prospect's website did a little piece on this same subject, although I'm not sure they examined the issue with as much thought and attention as we did, frankly:
If we're talking about manufacturing more efficiently, there's an upper limit to where that's going to get us with the resources we have here on earth. Granted, I think the resources here are sufficient to maintain a stable population with minimal work in perpetuity, but since that situation won't come about overnight, looking at the road by which we get there is a big deal - the arguments by Lemur866 only make sense to me if it happened overnight, and if costs actually got down to near-zero, which I don't see happening without energy to matter conversion, if such a thing is even possible at any point in the future.
First, we see products get cheaper and cheaper, but at the same time less and less jobs are available. Manufacturing jobs mostly vanish entirely - at some point even slave labor would be less efficient than having the machine do it (in many industries that's already the case, in the rest it will be eventually). Service and entertainment jobs are all that remains, and many of those start going to the robots too. Eventually, the cost of having a robot flip a burger and serve it to the customers is less than the cost of hiring someone. At this time, we're still running on increased amounts of government welfare most likely, but there's increasing resentment to that from all the corporation owners and higher ups.
Still, there's a large number of jobs that still needs doing - business, science, and software engineering, and entertainment. Most of the robots still need people to write their initial programs for them and so on. These are the companies' real customers at this point, since they're the only ones still making more than welfare (which we'll remember, is being taken from the companies in the first place - they'd rather keep it than give it away and then be given it back in return). Eventually, people write programs that can automate the entire business sector (technically, this may have been an even earlier step, but it still happens at some point or another). Some time after that comes the real trick - someone comes up with a program that can program other programs. Robots no longer need people to write their programs for them, that process is automated. Software engineering goes away as a sector of employment, we're left only with the scientists and entertainers - these would eventually be replaced too, but societal unrest is likely to change things before that happens.
By this time, we've probably got 75%+ of the population unemployed, producing nothing, only consuming. Those who are still employed are resentful of them - they don't want these people taking what they have. Why? Human nature. Logic suggests that everyone could have 'enough' easily by this point, but most people seem to want way more than 'enough'. A multi-billionaire today has no need to increase their assets, yet they continue to do so. The same will apply at this point - those who are still making money will want to make more money, and they won't want to give away their money to people who are completely useless to them. Since government is primarily made up of the rich, the government will be on their side. The idea will be that anyone can be a scientist or an actor/writer/other form of entertainer. Those who don't do that are lazy, they don't deserve as much welfare as they're getting. Goods still have value, because we're not creating them from essentially limitless energy, star trek replicator style, and although their value is low enough that everyone could theoretically have most things they want, those who are still earning money that's being taxed and redistributed want to reduce what they're paying.*
Welfare and taxes are slowly reduced, or perhaps money is devalued through intentional inflation - inflation that goes up faster than the welfare numbers. Prices go up since there's more money in circulation, but the welfare remains the same numerically, so the masses of unemployed can afford less and less of the luxuries they want. Widespread unrest probably follows at this point. With increasing violence from the unemployed masses, stricter laws are put into place, and pretty much everyone still making money gets themselves a little army of private security bots to ensure their safety. Eventually, the unemployed will probably revolt. Unfortunately by this time, the security bots are far too advanced and commonplace for them to have a chance. Millions or even billions will probably die in unsuccessful revolutions - eventually the survivors would be either imprisoned or simply exiled to undesirable regions. Some of the earners would sympathize and perhaps even side with them, but it seems unlikely to be a large enough number to turn the tide in their favor.
The remaining earners would continue to exist as they do, their workload probably diminishing more slowly at this point. Eventually entertainers or scientists are replaced - hard to say which - when the robots are able to take over those fields. Programs will eventually be written to discern human tastes, and robots will be able to create entertainment based purely on the data they receive. It may not be as creative as some of what we have seen, but it will be satisfactory. Science too, will eventually be a robotic field, since it is primarily concerned with studying empirical data, something computers do well. New ideas will still have to be thought up by people, but they will be along the lines of 'hey robot, I want a thing that can do <insert neat thing the human just thought of>' and the machines will determine how to implement that request.
By the time entertainers and scientists are replaced, there will likely be minimal friction in simply allowing the robots to continue taking care of them. Besides which, everyone will have sufficient money to continue 'paying' for their upkeep for a significant amount of time, at this juncture. Land is the only thing that will still have value, and this will primarily go to those who owned and produced the robots throughout this entire transition. As population rises again, the land will be broken up into smaller and smaller chunks as it is divided among children, then grandchildren, and so on. And life will be good, at least until they run out of room and/or resources they can't figure out a way to replace or do without.
*Again, for the same reason that billionaires today continue to acquire more wealth even though there's no real need for it: someone who has 10 billion could stop earning money forever, and spend $273,972.60 a day for 100 years - with a more reasonable expenditure of $27,397.26 a day, the 10 billion would last a thousand years, or drop down one more decimal to $2,739.72 a day to make it last ten thousand years. Enough for them and all their foreseeable heirs - and inflation seems unlikely to take us to the point where that much daily expenditure will provide anything less than an 'extremely comfortable' lifestyle for centuries. Yet, people with billions keep trying to make more billions.
There's a short science fiction story available online which deals with this issue:
The first four chapters are really quite scary, and then from there it veers into bizarre utopianism, IMHO. But this idea that most people will be considered useless and herded into welfare compounds as security risks seems frighteningly plausible.
Those who still bet on making buggy whips do pretty poorly.
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Linear Mode


text:
26 January 2010
Marlene Marino
I love discovering new photographers and flipping through their catalogs of images. This morning when I stumbled across Marlene Marino's images I knew I'd found a new favorite. Then suddenly the images started to look familiar. It only took me a second to place them. She's the photographer that shot the spring UO catalog that we've all been fawning over. The rest of her work is just as lovely (although some is probably NSFW, just an FYI).
21 comments:
- Anonymous said...
She's such a great photographer! Really has a wonderful eye for illuminating the softness of women and fashion and those super romantic mountain and sea locations. Thanks for linking to her.
Also thank you for posting about Swedish hasbeens way way way back when and alerting me to the fabulousness of their clogs. I finally acquired two pairs--the jodhpurs and super high clog sandals although I'm feeling nervous and wanting to return the clogs.
love, Jenny
- January 26, 2010
- Rosie said...
I can only wish I was that talented with a camera.
- January 26, 2010
- Marika said...
Oh, I'd been needing something to pull me out of my late winter doldrums. These photos feel so fresh and airy and remind me of spring. Thanks!
- January 26, 2010
- Hannah said...
Ahhh these are beautiful. I love coming across new photographers too, so thanks!
- January 26, 2010
- Gracie said...
These photos are beautiful. x
- January 26, 2010
- Samantha said...
Beautiful photography :)
- January 26, 2010
- Christina said...
Thank you for sharing your discovery. I love these!
- January 26, 2010
- noirohio vintage said...
oooh! thanks for sharing! these shots are amazing. i love the hues!
- January 26, 2010
- Violet Folklore said...
Oh that last shot is gorgeous. Yes, if you love these you will love Tumblr :-)
- January 26, 2010
- Julia said...
I adore these images. I'm such a sucker for locations and light like she uses. Awesome post.
- January 26, 2010
- Charlotte Drene said...
What enchanting photos! I like the one at the window and the last one especially.
- January 26, 2010
- Vanilla. said...
gorgeous photos! i love the play of lights! :)
- January 26, 2010
- The Jazzy Belle said...
thanks for sharing these photos! I think we're all in love w/ that catalog :) I use them to decopage things and am excited about this one. I wish I were that talented w/ color and nature.
- January 26, 2010
- Lindsay said...
so beautiful~
- January 26, 2010
- Emma said...
I have to say my favourites are the girl walking into the water, the solar-flared one and the girls sitting in front of a cracked painted wall. They're absolutely gorgeous, I'm saving them right now!
- January 26, 2010
- Lulu said...
these are lovely!
- January 27, 2010
- cashmere jumpers said...
The photography here is great!!
- January 27, 2010
- Lacey Starr said...
like a beautiful movie.....
- January 27, 2010
- rachel red lips said...
i love uo catalogues! tim barber is another favorite!
- January 27, 2010
- Tinkertripper said...
Charming pics!
- January 29, 2010
- stencil helen said...
Thank you, these are lovely, I like them all but especially the one of the man walking through the moving water. All very inspiring.
- January 30, 2010

subset: commoncrawl


text:
One of the upsides to the world going to shit is that it tends to bring out the best in Bruce Springsteen, an artist who – notwithstanding the magnificent The Ghost of Tom Joad - was practically mothballed in the Nineties, only returning to active service post-9/11.
Surprisingly, maybe, Wrecking Ball is the first of the six albums he's put out since 2002 to be overtly, unambiguously politicised: despite its undeniable resonance, The Rising wasn't substantially a record about 9/11, and though the protest folk covers of the super We Shall Overcome were clearly tilted at the Bush administration, the project was indubitably about Springsteen's love of the music first and foremost (it seems unlikely 'Froggie Went A-Courtin' rattled too many neocon cages).
Wrecking Ball is pretty unambiguous, though. Opener 'We Take Care of Our Own' takes bitter aim at the tragedy of New Orleans: "from the shotgun shack to the Super Dome/ there ain't no help, the cavalry stayed home/there ain't no one hearing the bugle blowing/ we take care of our own" rumbles the Boss over a upbeat surge of pop rock that seems liable to be as roundly misconstrued as being patriotic as 'Born in the USA'(what to make of the riff's weird resemblance to that of the Lightning Seeds' 'The Life of Riley' I do not know, but I sort of feel it needs to be mentioned).
Seven years to write a response to New Orleans is a little tardy, admittedly, but the lyric perhaps exists more as a reference point, the most potent symbol of America's latter day turning away from its poor. Elsewhere Wrecking Ball is very much a post credit crunch record: "It's still fat and easy up on banker's hill/ up on banker's hill the party's going strong/ down here below we're shackled and drawn" he hollers on 'Shackled and Drawn'; "If I had me a gun, I'd find the bastards and shoot 'em on sight" rasps his disenfranchised protagonist on 'Jack of all Trades', just in case we didn't get the message.
As per usual, multi-millionaire Bruce Springsteen's empathy for the workin' man may irk those who regard New Jersey's favourite son as ill qualified to talk about this stuff. But as ever he writes about these things with enough sensitivity, intelligence and shameless rabble rousery to pull it off, plus for once the folks he's peeved with are probably in fact richer than he is.
If we're taking it on lyrics alone, this is Brooce on good form; not quite his best but angry, eloquent, necessary stuff to keep in mind the next time some bore starts boring on about how nobody writes political records anymore. There's also a lot of softer, warmer songs about keepin' hope alive etc, which he largely gets away with because he's, you know, Bruce Springsteen.
Musically, it's not quite so watertight: since he 'returned' with The Rising, Springsteen has leant towards hard, polished arrangements of tasteful strings and ringing guitars. Though a little less compressed, Wrecking Ball defaults to a similar sound – 'We Take Care of Our Own' is a case in point – but seems oddly torn between fairly successful folk leanings and more questionable soul ones. 'Death to My Hometown', a thunderously OTT Celtic stomp about the ruination foreclosures have wrought on the US, is superb, up there with anything in his catalogue and a reminder that nobody but nobody does weapon's grade bombast like The Boss (there's shotgun sound effect in it at one point, and it's amazing). And the stomping workin' fella's blues of 'Shackled and Drawn' manages to fuse a gospel choir and glittering Emerald Isle strings to good effect. But the smattering of cod-uplifting Alan Lomax field recordings of black spirituals are a less successful addition to the late 'Rocky Ground' and 'Land of Hope and Dreams'. They unbalance the record's tone; as does Michelle Moore's not unpleasant but slightly bemusing rap on 'Rocky Ground' and the interpolation of Curtis Mayfield's 'People Get Ready' on 'Land of Hope…'; and half inching the riff of Johnny Cash's 'Ring of Fire' for the closing 'We Are Alive' is a pretty surreal way to wrap things up. I suppose maybe Springsteen is trying to evoke the breadth and richness of the American working class life and culture, but it's not entirely convincing.
Ultimately, despite the odd moment of off piste brilliance (ie 'Death to My Hometown'), Wrecking Ball is at its best when Bruce sounds the most like Bruce: 'This Depression' is a pulsing, synth-touched lovesong of gentle grandeur with a politicised subtext and ripplingly gorgeous guitar solo from Tom Morello; the title track's gruffly defiant tale of a New Jersey born out of the swamp and ready to go down fighting in the face of the foreclosure merchants would probably make your chest swell even if it weren't for an unutterably gorgeous Clarence Clemons solo that's a finer tribute to the big man than any mawkish requiem (there are some butchly touching sleeve notes, mind: 'Clarence doesn't leave the E Street Band when he dies. He leaves when we die').
If the tunefulness and vigour of 2007's Magic had met Wrecking Ball's sense of purpose, you'd probably have yourself Springsteen's best album of his later years. As it is, I can't help but feel Wrecking Ball fritters something of itself away via its unsteady musical palette. It is still pretty righteous though, and far rather Springsteen blasted out an imperfect record every other year than some rarefied masterpiece every decade or whatever. The times they are a-hard and it's good to have this old guy around, warts and all.
7Andrzej Lukowski's Score


text:
My Pregnancy Week 32Brought to you by
Your baby continues to grow and develop inside of you. Measuring roughly 16.5 inches long, she now weighs about 4 1/2 pounds! And from this week, until two weeks before birth, she will gain about a half-pound each week. She is sleeping approximately 90 to 95 percent of the day.
Most of his wrinkles are disappearing, especially on his face, as more fat is deposited under his skin. His hair is becoming thicker with each passing week, and you may even be able to see it on an ultrasound! He will also begin to settle in the head-down position, as his birth is fast approaching.
If you are having multiples, your babies are slowing down in the weight gaining department. They are becoming very cramped for space now.


text:
Mp3 Experiment Nine
Mp3 Experiment Nine
More often than not the best photos I get on a shoot are not the ones I went looking for, but the result of something better landing in my lap.
One day this past July I took the ferry to Governor's Island, hoping to get some good shots of the ferries that carry visitors to the city's new favorite playground. After arriving on Governor's Island from Brooklyn I promptly boarded another ferry to Manhattan, intending to come back to the island but wanting an opportunity for more ferry images. While then waiting in line for the boat back to Governor's Island I suddenly found myself in the middle of an excited, cheering, and headset-wearing mob. Apparently I'd stumbled upon some sort of happening.
I followed the crowd on to the ferry, then off again at Governor's Island and into the island's interior fields. Suddenly everyone began moving in unison, apparently responding to instructions on their headsets. When participants pulled out white sheets, put them over their heads, and started walking around like a huge throng of ghosts, I began shooting as fast as possible. Fortunately I'd reloaded my camera after disembarking from the ferry, so I was able to make a half dozen exposures before the sheets came off and people moved on to the next instructions. I elected to go my own way at that point, but was hopeful I'd gotten some good photos.
I subsequently learned that the event I'd stumbled upon, billed as "Mp3 Experiment Nine", was organized by Improv Everywhere, a New York City-based prank collective that, in their own words, "causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places". For this event participants (around 4,000) were instructed to bring an MP3 player (with instructions downloaded) as well as a loaded water gun, a shower cap, a white bed sheet, a hard flat object, a small soft object, and a small musical instrument. At 3:00 PM everyone pressed play on their devises and, for the next half hour, followed a series of instructions from "Steve, The Omnipotent Voice from Above" that culminated in a massive water gun fight. You can watch the Improv Everywhere video of the event here.
Here are a couple of the photos I took:
Recently, while digging around on Flickr for photos of the event, it occurred to me that I might find a shot of myself in the crowd. Sure enough, in a collection of images by Arin Sang-urai, I found one showing me hunched over my tripod.
© Arin Sang-urai Photography, 2012
2 Comments
Alethea Fitzpatrick on Dec 01, 2012
This is great – beautiful captures from being in the right place at the right time!Andy Marino on Nov 30, 2012
Very cool! Your images, although "stills" continuously convey motion & time… moving thorough space.
Maybe better defined as "moments" in time.
Great work!


text:
Academic Grievance Procedure
Standards and Regulations Home
In order to provide a forum for the fair resolution of academic disputes involving individual student complaints of the appropriateness of course grades and accusations of academic dishonesty, the following procedure has been developed and will be applied to all cases involving Loyola undergraduate students.
Students should be aware that in cases in which a grade is disputed, the grade will be changed by the dean only if the grading:
- is found to be in significant violation of clearly established written college policies or
- is a result of improper procedures or
- is found to be capricious. Capricious grading is the assignment of a grade to a student which is based partially or entirely on criteria other than the student's performance in the course; based on standards different from those standards of grading applied to other students registered in the same course; or based on a substantial departure from the announced grading standards for the course.
Pre Hearing Procedure
- In all cases, a sincere attempt should be made by the student to resolve the problem by discussion with his/her professor.
- If that attempt fails the student should make a written request for a hearing to the chairperson of the department within one month after the beginning of the following semester (excluding summer sessions). The request for a hearing must specify the nature of the dispute and the attempts to resolve the matter.
- When a student is accused of plagiarism or dishonest examination behavior, the chairperson of the department may constitute a hearing board to review the evidence of academic dishonesty in those cases where the student denies that dishonesty occurred as well as to consider the imposition of additional sanctions beyond failure in the course.
Hearing Board
- Each department shall have either a standing hearing board or have the means to constitute a hearing board for each dispute. Such boards will be chosen by the chairperson of the department and will consist of between three and five faculty members other than the faculty member involved or chairperson of the department. In smaller departments, board members may be members of different departments, and the board members may be chosen by the dean of the appropriate school.
- The chairperson of each hearing board shall be selected by the person who appoints the hearing board. The chairperson of the hearing board receives all requests for hearings from the department, sets the calendar, notifies all board members and involved parties of the dates and times of hearings and informs students by written notice of the recommendations of the board.
Hearing Procedure
- After receiving a request for a hearing, the chairperson of the hearing board shall establish a date and time for the hearing and notify the student and faculty involved and the other members of the board in writing. The student will receive written notice of any charges of academic dishonesty to be considered.
- The hearing will be held within two weeks of the receipt of the request for a hearing if practicable.
- The hearing will be private and all persons present at the hearing will consider all information presented to be confidential. If, however, the student disseminates information disclosed during the hearing, the student's interest in the confidentiality of the hearing will be deemed waived.
- Both the student and the faculty member involved may request assistance in presenting his/her case at the hearing by any member of the university community other than an attorney. The individual must inform the chairperson of the hearing board of the names of his/her representatives and any witnesses before the hearing date.
- Individuals appearing before the hearing board have the responsibility of presenting truthful information, and the board in reaching its decision will evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
- Presentation of evidence will only be made during the hearing. The board may address questions to any party or witness. Any party may present witnesses or other evidence. The conduct of the hearing is informal, and the board is not bound by rules of evidence or court procedures. Matters of procedure will be decided by the chairperson of the hearing board.
- All decisions of the board will be determined by a majority vote of the members present. The student and faculty member involved will be informed in writing by the chairperson of the hearing board of the board's decision within two weeks of the hearing.
The student may appeal the decision of the hearing board in writing to the dean of the appropriate school within thirty days of notice of the hearing board's decision. In cases of academic dishonesty where the student is enrolled in a school different from the one in which the course is taught, the deans of the two schools will review the appeal together. The dean or dean's designee may approve, modify, or reverse the decision of the board and will notify the student of his/her decision within two weeks of receiving the appeal if practicable. In those cases where the appeal was heard by the dean's designee, the student may have a final appeal to the dean if a request in writing is made within 30 days of the designee's decision. The decision of the dean is final in all cases except expulsion. The sanction of expulsion for academic dishonesty may be imposed only by the Provost upon recommendation of the dean.


text:
Search Tips
Enter your search keywords including Company Name or Keywords. You can also use the check boxes to apply various filters to narrow your search.Displaying 1 - 1 of 1
Type: School
Region: California
Category: Outdoor Education Center
State / Province: CA
Foothill Horizons Outdoor School is a multi-night, residential outdoor school facility owned and operated by the Stanislaus County Office of Education. Our beautiful, 143-acre property is nestled in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains just outside of Sonora at an elevation of 2500 feet.


text:
Template:Orbital anatomy
From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
How to manage this template's initial visibility
To manage this template's visibility when it first appears, add the parameter:
|state=collapsedto show the template in its collapsed state, i.e. hidden apart from its titlebar – e.g.
{{Orbital anatomy |state=collapsed}}
|state=expandedto show the template in its expanded state, i.e. fully visible – e.g.
{{Orbital anatomy |state=expanded}}
|state=autocollapseto show the template in its collapsed state but only if there is another template of the same type on the page – e.g.
{{Orbital anatomy |state=autocollapse}}
Unless set otherwise (see the
|state= parameter in the template's code), the template's default state is
Template documentation
This template is a navigation box relating to anatomy that provides links to related topics.
When editing the links in this template:
- Include a single link to the article
- Do not add: synonyms or information about the structure itself (eg nerve or muscle supply). These should be found within an article.
Help can be found at: Template talk:Medicine navs or by posting at the talk page for WikiProject Anatomy
A full list can be found here: {{List of anatomy templates}}
|Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (create | mirror) and testcases (create) pages.
Subpages of this template.


text:
Get A Quote
Customer Service
Request ID Card for Auto Policy
Send Declaration and Coverages Information to Lien Holder
Add Vehicle to Existing Auto Policy
Remove Vehicle from Existing Auto Policy
Add Driver to Existing Auto Policy
Remove Driver from Existing Auto Policy
Report an Auto Loss/Claim
Review my Auto Policy
Business & Commercial
Request ID Card for Commercial Auto Policy
Add Vehicle to Existing Commercial Auto Policy
Remove Vehicle from Existing Commercial Auto Policy
Add Driver to Existing Commercial Auto Policy
Remove Driver from Existing Commercial Auto Policy
Request General Liability Certificate of Insurance
Review my Commercial Policy
Report a Commercial Loss/Claim
Request Declaration and Coverages for Existing Homeowners Insurance Coverage
Request Evidence of Insurance
Report a Homeowners Loss
Review my Homeowners Policy
Meet a Trusted Professional
Contact Us
Make a Payment
Important Files
About Us
About Eagle Point Insurance Group, Inc.
Location Map
Employee Directory
Customer Testimonials
Privacy Policy
Contact Us
You're a person, not a policy.
We're creating Peace of Mind for the People we Care About.
Other Home
Other Customer Service Options
Self policy service any time of the day, directly from our website. To request a policy change on your account, click any of the following policy service options below.
Contact Us
Meet a Trusted Professional
Our Customer Feedback
"Great people to help you with insurance needs...."
-Toni Kunz
Read More
8665 Eagle Point Blvd.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
651-209-9330 (phone)
651-209-9332 (fax)
Statements on this web site as to policies and coverages provide general information only. This information is not an offer to sell insurance. Insurance coverage cannot be bound or changed via submission of any online form/application provided on this site or otherwise, e-mail, voice mail or facsimile. No binder, insurance policy, change, addition, and/or deletion to insurance coverage goes into effect unless and until confirmed directly by a licensed agent. Any proposal of insurance we may present to you will be based upon the information you provide to us via this online form/application and/or in other communications with us. Please contact our office at 651-209-9330 to discuss specific coverage details and your insurance needs. All coverages are subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions of the actual policy issued. Not all policies or coverages are available in every state. Information provided on this site does not constitute professional advice; if you have legal, tax or financial planning questions, you should contact an appropriate professional. Any hypertext links to other sites are provided as a convenience only; we have no control over those sites and do not endorse or guarantee any information provided by those sites.
© Copyright. All rights reserved. Powered by
Insurance Website Builder


text:
Alistair Rennie, Director of Sales & Marketing
Use of the Broadbean tool has greatly increased our online advertising efficiency. Following recent growth and significant acquisition, the demands of our Group business have become increasingly diverse. Broadbean have demonstrated real flexibility and have supported this by accommodating our changing requirements as an organisation.


text:
Hard Working Florida Player
Fund: Inflexion Partners
Posted by NoSlack913 on 2007-12-01
A group dedicated to bringing VC investment and entrepreneurial growth to Florida. Dan Rua and Jim Boyle are involved partners. Dan likes to get "into the mix" and help out when he can. Look to Dan for ideas and help picking an aggressive business model.
If you are a Florida based company and want to have a great A round leader, look these guys up.PRIVATE: Members Only (181 Characters)


text:
Frequently Asked Questions
Please see our baggage acceptance policy.
Since we do not facilitate on-line check-in, at this time, it is not possible to print your boarding passes on-line. Boarding passes will be issued on check-in.
Can I pay for my reservation with cash or cheques?
LIAT accepts cash for payment at all LIAT ticket counter or City office locations. Personal checks are accepted when payment is made seven (7) days in advance of travel date. Online bookings must be paid for with a credit card.
Can I book a reservation with children on liatairline.com?
Yes: you can book a reservation for your child/children online.
Can I bring my child's car seat on board?
Approved infant seats are accepted in the cabin when an additional seat is purchased at a child's fare for the infant.
Which credit cards are accepted by LIAT as payment of my travel?
We accept MasterCard and Visa. Debit cards containing the MasterCard and Visa logos are also accepted for payment on liat.com.
Why is the offered fare no longer available?
LIAT flights are capacity controlled, which means as each flight sells, your fare may no longer be available. All fares are quoted as "currently" and are only guaranteed at the time of purchase. LIAT offers a range of fares. All fares are subject to change until purchase.
What documentation is required when I travel?
Traveling on the LIAT network is considered International travel. All customers are required to present proof of identity such as a valid government-issued photo ID and proof of citizenship such as a passport at the LIAT check-in counter. Passengers must keep proper documentation on their person during travel. It is the passenger's responsibility to ensure that they have the correct documents needed for travel to any destination. Passenger's must also carry a copy of their itinerary as proof of their onward or return journey.
What type of pets do you allow?
LIAT transports domestic pets only, such as dogs, cats and small domestic birds. Pets are transported in the cargo compartment only and require import/export licenses and veterinary clearances.
How much does it cost to travel with my pet?
Live animals in approved kennels are carried at the below charges:
What size carrier do I need for my pet?
Your pet's container/kennel must not exceed 26" length x 24" width x 36" height.
If I am traveling with a pet, can I book my reservation online?
The number of pets allowed in the cargo compartment is subject to space availability, therefore, you must contact LIAT directly at email@example.com. or the LIAT call centre at 888-844-5428 to book your reservation when traveling with a pet.
How do I obtain a refund?
LIAT fares are non- refundable; however under certain conditions unused transportation may be converted to credit.
How many passengers can be booked on a reservation?
You may book up to nine (9) passengers on a reservation.
If I want to book more than nine (9) passengers, what do I do?
If you would like to book travel for ten (10) or more passengers traveling together as a group, please contact a LIAT sales outlet, the LIAT Call centre at 888-844-5428 or you may contact your travel agent.
How far in advance can I book a reservation online?
Our flight schedules are loaded 330 days out; therefore, you are able to book reservations online up to almost a year in advance.
Can I book a reservation online for same day travel?
Up to three hours before any flight is scheduled to depart, you can book on liatairline.com or via the LIAT Call center at 888-844-5428.
How do I correct a misspelled name on my reservation?
Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com or call the LIAT call centre at 888-844-5428 to correct the spelling of your name on your reservation.
When can I change my reservations online?
You may change your reservations online up to three (3) hours prior to each flight's scheduled departure.
Can I change the return portion of my itinerary if I have already flown my outbound?
Yes, you may change the return portion of your itinerary online up to three (3) hours prior to the flight's scheduled departure.
How much is it if I change my reservations?
You will be charged US$45.00 per segment per passenger plus any difference in fare when changing your reservation online and US$50.00 per segment per passenger plus any difference in fare when calling the LIAT call centre.
One of the passengers on my reservation cannot travel with me. How can I remove a passenger from my reservation?
Please contact email@example.com or call the LIAT call centre at 888-844-5428 and an agent will be happy to assist you.
When can I cancel my reservation?
You may cancel your reservation online up to three hours prior to the scheduled departure of your flight.
Can I cancel the return portion of my itinerary online if I have already flown the outbound?
Yes, you may cancel any portion of your journey on line at least three hours prior to the departure of your flight.
What happens when I cancel a reservation online?
When a reservations is cancelled at least three hours prior to the scheduled time of departure, you are able to apply for a credit of the unused transportation. through email@example.com or through our Call center at 888-844-5428. Credit can be redeemed for future travel that is booked and completed one (1) year from the date the original reservation was booked.
What happens if I do not cancel my reservation online at liatairline.com or by calling the LIAT call centre?
If you do not cancel at least three hours prior to the scheduled departure time of your flight, do not show up for your flight, or do not board the aircraft for any reason, your reservation will be automatically cancelled and you will forfeit the value of your reservations. You are therefore advised to always change or cancel any reservation that you do not intend to use.
Can a customer request any special service requests through liatairline.com?
All special requests must be arranged by contacting LIAT at email@example.com or by calling the LIAT call center at 888-844-5428.
Is it safe for me to send my credit card and personal information through liatairline.com?
LIAT takes every practical precaution to protect your confidential information. When you book your reservation on liatairline.com, we require you to use a Web browser that has security technology also known as encryption technology, to ensure that your credit card and personal information are safely transmitted via the Internet.
Can I book a reservation online for my child that is traveling alone?
The requirement for additional documentation for the carriage of an unaccompanied minor does not make it possible for a reservation to be made on line. For more details on the requirements for Unaccompanied Minor Travel, please see the travel tips section of our website.
1. What is LIAT Travel Protection?
LIAT Travel Protection is an insurance program that LIAT offers through American Home Assurance Company, Antigua branch, a member company of American International Underwriters Holding Co.
This program is especially designed with LIAT clients' needs in mind and is exclusively available via liat.com for Caribbean-originating flights. Please note that the program was launched in October, 2008 and is not available for flight bookings prior to the launch date.
2. How do I purchase LIAT Travel Protection?
You can only purchase LIAT Travel Protection while you are booking your flight/s on liat.com or any other direct distribution channel from LIAT.
Any LIAT guests departing from Caribbean can purchase LIAT Travel Protection while booking their flight/s on liat.com or any other direct distribution channel from LIAT.
You can still purchase LIAT Travel Protection even if you are not originating in the Caribbean and/or do not live in the Caribbean as long as you are flying in the region.
Yes, the Guest must be at least 9 days old and at most 75 years of age to qualify for LIAT Travel Protection.
If you purchase LIAT Travel Protection, your infant is covered for free! A name is required as long as it is acknowledged that an infant is on board with the Insured Adult (we consider infant up to 2 years old of age).
Yes! You can. You pay USD 9.40 for the first 15 days and an extra USD 1 for any other additional day up to a maximum of 180 consecutive days.
For example if you are travelling 37 days you will pay USD 9.40 for the first 15 days and an additional USD 22 for the remaining 22 days. Don't worry about quoting, liat.com will quote automatically for you.
7. Am I still covered by LIAT Travel Protection if I catch a connecting flight to a different destination?
Under LIAT Travel Protection, air travel coverage is limited to LIAT flights. For the Return Plan, the coverage upon arrival and departure only applies within the original country of destination on an LIAT flight.
If you need additional insurance to cover the rest of your trip, please contact your insurance agent or Travel Guard by Chartis at +1(787)767-5715.
You don't need to indicate a nominee for your LIAT policy! Flight or Personal Accident benefits paid due to a fatal accident will be made to the estate of the insured while others benefits are paid directly to the Insured.
9. What do I do if I encounter an accident abroad?
Please call Travel Guard by Chartis 24-hr International Assistance Services number: Dial "0" and ask the operator to connect you with +1 408-252-1688. The call is free and reverse charged.
Before taking any action it is important that you call this phone number, covered expenses are expenses for services provided and/or arranged by Travel Guard by Chartis for the transportation, medical services, and medical supplies necessarily incurred as a result of an accident, as detailed in your policy.
10. Can I cancel my LIAT Travel protection?
The insured will be allowed to cancel the policy up to two (2) Days or forty eight (48) hours after purchasing the policy, if the covered trip has not begun.
11. Is LIAT Travel Protection premium refundable?
LIAT Travel Protection is refundable during the cancellation period. If the insured decides to cancel the policy after two (2) days or forty eight (48) hours no premium will be reimbursed.
LIAT Travel Protection can be changed once issued even if you are postponing or extending your trip. Any additional premium will be collected, if necessary.
LIAT Travel Protection - Return Plan is automatically extended up to maximum of 3 days if your Return Flight is rescheduled by LIAT to a later date.
14. Do I have to carry a copy of my Insurance Confirmation with me when travelling?
No, you don't need to carry a copy of your Insurance Confirmation. All you need is your Certificate Number and the 24-hour Travel Guard by Chartis Services Number (+1(408)252-1688).
LIAT Travel Protection was successfully processed if it is reflected on the Confirmation Page and in your LIAT Itinerary.
To get a copy, simply e-mail us your Certificate Number (if available), Full Name, Flight Booking Number, Travel Dates, Date of Purchase and E-mail Address by clicking here.
The Full Terms and Conditions of your LIAT Travel Protection is available in our Policy Wordings Section.
17. What kind of benefits do I get with LIAT Travel Protection?
For more detailed information about the benefits available under LIAT Travel Protection, please visit our Description of Coverage section.
18. When does my LIAT Travel Protection coverage begin?
For One Way Plan, coverage commences when you check-in at any immigration counter for your LIAT departure flight.
For Return Plan, coverage commences when you check-in at the immigration counter and ends when you return on your LIAT flight.
The Trip Cancellation Benefit takes effect on the certificate Issue Date.
19. How will my outpatient accidental medical expenses be paid under LIAT Travel Protection?
You will be reimbursed for accidental medical expenses incurred as a result of a covered accident as detailed in the terms and conditions.
20. Can I continue my medical treatment for injury sustained overseas after I return home?
Yes! As long as the initial treatment is received during the trip and all expenses are incurred within 30 days after the return. The maximum sum payable is equivalent to 10% of the Accidental Medical Reimbursement limit.
21. If I require treatment for an illness during my trip, can I claim for medical/hospital and other related expenses?
Yes, LIAT Travel Protection covers sickness-related medical expenses, however they must be sudden and not a pre-existing condition.
22. Does LIAT Travel Protection cover sports and other similar activities?
As long as the activities are not performed under competition or professional sports or to earn income, they are covered without limitation or restriction. For more details, please refer to the full terms and conditions of coverage.
23. Can I cancel my LIAT itinerary for any reason and get all my money back through my Trip Cancellation Benefit?
The Trip Cancellation Benefit is only applicable for insurable reasons indicated in the full terms and conditions.
Covered reasons include the loss of LIAT ticket, unforeseen emergencies such as illness, injury or death involving you and/or an immediate family member.
24. Can I still buy LIAT Travel Protection if I have a pre-existing condition?
Yes! However, LIAT Travel Protection has exclusions on pre-existing conditions as detailed in the full terms and conditions.
"Pre-existing Condition" refers to any Symptom which existed prior to the Effective Date leading to a claim under this Insurance Confirmation that you knew about before you purchased LIAT Travel Protection.
25. Does my Baggage & Personal Effects Benefit cover theft?
Yes, LIAT Travel Protection covers theft (and damage due to attempted theft) as long as it occurs during your scheduled flight with LIAT.
26. How do I file a claim?
In the event of an insurance claim you can download a copy of our Notice of Claim Form which is available in ENGLISH. After completing please submit with all supporting documents to the contact indicated in the form.
27. How long is the claim processing time?
Claims will be processed within 14 days after you've submitted all required documentation.
28. What is the time limit for filing a claim?
All claims must be submitted to American Home Assurance Company, Travel Guard by Chartis within 30 days after the date of the incident. And in the event of accidental death, immediate notice thereof must be given to the Company.
29. What do I do if I disagree with the claims decision made?
LIAT Travel Protection will advise you in writing of your right to appeal the claim decision and the procedures for filing an appeal with American Home Assurance Company, Antigua branch.
1. What is a Fuel Surcharge?
It is a charge that is applied on all flights that reflects the fluctuating price of worldwide oil and jet fuel. It applies to tickets for all passengers including children and infants and is intended to help cover excessive fuel expenses. LIAT will have three fixed Fuel Surcharges which will be applied in accordance with trip mileage. It will be adjusted on a bimonthly basis according to market prices.
2. Why is LIAT re-introducing the Fuel Surcharge at this time?
Fuel is LIAT's second largest cost factor and any large fluctuations in this area can negatively impact the financial status of the Company. The average price of aviation fuel has risen dramatically during 2010 and 2011. LIAT's fuel expenses for 2010 were $10 million more than 2009. Should present high fuel prices continue, LIAT's fuel bill can be expected to increase by another $16 million for 2011. The Fuel Surcharge will allow the airline to target revenues for meeting its escalating fuel costs.
3. How much is the Fuel Surcharge and how is it calculated?
The Fuel Surcharge operates under a three tier system. There are three possible fees, one of which is applied per passenger for every one-way trip and will be based on the trip mileage.
4. When will the Fuel Surcharge go into effect?
The Fuel Surcharge will be effective from August 15, 2011. It will be applied to any ticket purchased on or after that date.
5. Will I be required to pay the Fuel Surcharge if I purchase my ticket prior to August 15, 2011 even if my travel date is after the effective date?
6. For what period of time should passengers expect to pay the Fuel Surcharge?
The Fuel Surcharge will be in effect until the price of fuel stabilizes.
7. How will LIAT collect the Fuel Surcharge?
The Fuel Surcharge will form part of your ticket purchase price and be collected in the same manner as all other applicable taxes and fees.
8. Will the Fuel Surcharge be displayed on its own or combined with the base fare?
It will be displayed separately. Keeping it separate has two advantages. First and foremost the surcharge is visible to the customer and secondly this allows for easy adjustment to the surcharge every two months.
9. Will I be charged per one way trip?
Yes, depending on the distance travelled, the Fuel Surcharge will range from a minimum of US$12.50 to a maximum of US$20.00 per one way trip. You will not pay more than US$20.00 per trip or US$40 for a roundtrip.
10. When will a determination be made to re-assess the Fuel Surcharge?
The Fuel Surcharge will be re-assessed every two months and will be adjusted according to changes in the jet fuel prices on the world market. At that time, it will be determined whether to adjust the surcharge upwards, downwards or remove it entirely.
11. Where does the money from the Fuel Surcharge go?
The money will be used to alleviate the costs associated with the rising fuel bill.
12. Do other airlines have a Fuel Surcharge?
Yes, most major airlines including British Airways, Air Canada, Lufthansa, and Virgin Atlantic apply a Fuel Surcharge to passenger ticket cost.
13. Will I be credited the Fuel Surcharge if I cancel my travel plans?
Yes, once a credit is created in accordance to the Company's normal procedures, for a passenger booking that was not utilised, the fuel surcharge will also be credited.
1. What is Online Check In?
This is a facility through which passengers with only carry on hand baggage with a confirmed booking on a LIAT flight can check in through the LIAT website before arriving at the airport.
2. Who can use Online Check In?
Passengers who have a ticketed reservation and who have no checked baggage may enjoy the Online Check In facility. Only passengers with carry-on baggage, where the reservation has no balance owed, will be allowed to check in online at this time. Non-revenue passengers travelling on a confirmed status are able to use this service. Passengers booked on stand-by are not able to utilise online check in regardless of whether the reservation is paid in full or not.
3. What is required to check in online?
Passengers must have a PC/laptop or electronic device that has web connectivity and is connected to a printer to utilise this facility.
4. What is the earliest and latest time I can check in online?
Passengers can enjoy online check in and select the seat from 24 hours up to 2 hours prior to the departure time through the LIAT Online Check In pages.
5. Which flights/departures are available for Online Check In?
Currently Online Check In is not available for travel from Anguilla, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Guyana, St Croix, St Thomas, St. Vincent and Tortola. Online Check In is available for all other territories in the LIAT network. Territories are subject to change. Check liat.com for any changes or updated information.
6. How do I check in online?
Online check in pages are accessed via the internet from http://www.liat.com. Simply click on the "Online Check In" link at the top of the homepage; enter the booking details in one of the available search options; click on the Find Booking button to retrieve the reservation and follow the instructions.
7. Can an entire family or group booked in a single PNR be checked in together?
A maximum of nine passengers can be simultaneously checked in online.
8. Can infants also be checked in?
Infants booked in the PNR can be checked in along with their associated adult passenger in the booking. An individual infant boarding pass will be printed at the end of the check in process.
9. What time should I be at the airport and what should I do on my arrival?
Passengers who check in online are advised to arrive at the airport at least one hour prior to their scheduled departure time and proceed through immigration, security and any other government port required formalities. Passengers must ensure that they are present in the boarding area no less than 30 minutes before the scheduled flight departure. Some countries require that a completed copy of an immigration E/D card is deposited at the immigration desk. In some territories, this requirement may also apply to locals leaving the country. If you are not sure if this requirement is enforced in your country, please contact your local LIAT office. LIAT cannot guarantee boarding for late arrivals and passengers who appear at the boarding gate late due to failure to adhere to the above government procedures may be denied boarding.
10. What if I have baggage to check?
Online Check In is only available for passengers with hand baggage at this time. To avoid any inconvenience, passengers with baggage to be checked in should not check in online and arrange to be present at the airport counter at least two hours before their scheduled flight departure time. The limits for hand baggage are one piece weighing no more than 15 lbs/7 kgs. Passengers arriving with more baggage than permitted may be charged at the gate for these items. Any passenger carrying baggage that is considered checked baggage will be asked to return to the LIAT check in counter, where they will have to queue and wait to check in the bags.
11. Can passengers requiring special assistance such as wheel chairs, unaccompanied minors etc. check in online?
Passengers with special requests like wheel chairs, unaccompanied minors etc are required to check in at the airport counter where they will be personally assisted. Only passengers with confirmed bookings without any special service requirements may check in online.
12. How do I cancel Online Check In if I decide not to travel?
Cancellations can be facilitated either at the check in counter at the airport by a LIAT representative or by contacting the LIAT Call Centre at 1 888 844 5428.
13. When travelling to or transiting the U.S. mainland or one of its overseas territories, am I required to enter a final destination address?
As mandated by the U.S. authorities, each passenger is required to enter the physical address where they will be staying within the mainland United States or its overseas territories. If your final destination is not the U.S and you are in transit to another country, you should submit the address for that location instead.


text:
Here's an unusually casual Rihanna in Italy this week. Although her red hair is pretty hard to ignore, I think it's her cute ostrich Prada bag that's the standout. Ostrich is a super durable material that has an inherently chic pattern worked in naturally, and some of my favorite bags right now–in all colors and sizes–are made from it. Whether you're looking for a similar Prada bag (try this Runway Bauletto Cervo Patch Naturale Satchel on for size) or something in ostrich (see below), it's good to know that a signature tote can really make the outfit.
Here's my ostrich faves of the moment:
HERMÈS Saffron Ostrich 35cm Birkin Bag with Gold Hardware. The gold standard of ostrich bags in a warm, neutral color.
OSCAR DE LA RENTA Grey Ostrich Clutch. It's totally minimal and very chic.
BODHI Genuine Ostrich 13″ Laptop Sleeve. It's a total splurge, but the acid orange makes carrying your computer around super fun.


text:
White House: No proof Syrian rebels used chemicals
WASHINGTON — White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday there's "no evidence" that Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons.
The Obama administration weighed in as rebels and Syrian President Bashar Assad's government traded accusations Tuesday that the other side has deployed chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war that has left 70,000 dead.
Meanwhile, two top GOP lawmakers, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham, urged Obama on Tuesday to take military action against Assad's regime if the actions are substantiated.
The administration is "looking carefully" at allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, Carney said.
But Carney noted that there isn't any evidence that Syrian opposition fighters have used chemical weapons. He also warned Assad not to use the reports as "pretext" to launch a chemical attack and reiterated President Obama's suggestion that use of chemical weapons would spur action by the U.S.
Syria has a huge arsenal of chemical weapons and the Obama administration has been watching for any signs that Assad might deploy them.Obama said as recently as December that the "use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."
Syria's state-run news agency reported Tuesday that rebels used chemical weapons in an attack in northern Aleppo province that killed 25 people. The Russian Foreign Ministry, which has backed Assad, also backed the assertion and called the rebel use of chemical weapons an "extremely dangerous" development, according to the Associated Press.
The Obama administration has poured tens of millions of dollars in non-military aid to Syrian rebel groups, but has resisted arming the groups.
But if it is proven that Assad's regime has deployed chemicals, McCain and Graham said Obama must reconsider that stance.
"If today's reports are substantiated, the president's red line has been crossed, and we would urge him to take immediate action to impose the consequences he has promised," McCain and Graham said in a joint statement. "That should include the provision of arms to vetted Syrian opposition groups, targeted strikes against Assad's aircraft and SCUD missile batteries on the ground, and the establishment of safe zones inside Syria to protect civilians and opposition groups."
Denis McDonough, White House chief of staff, told CNN on Tuesday evening that if it is substantiated it "is a game-changer and we'll act accordingly."


text:
If you have a touch of holiday spirit left in you, I can't recommend enough that you use it viewing this trailer for the Walking Dead Christmas Special that simply must happen. Come on, AMC, you know you want to ± don't pretend like you don't like making a zillion dollars every time a new TWD episode airs. And viewers, you can't pretend like this would be even close to the worst TWD episode that's been aired. I'll give you guys 9 to 10 the angel T-Dog comes down from heaven to spread a message of peace and love at the end... only to immediately get eaten by a zombie again before he gets three words out.
[Via Geeks Are Sexy]