Slashdot Mirror

I refer you to this article by Gregg Easterbrook: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2004/10education_easterbrook.aspx It's an interesting read. It doesn't refute your points, but I would suggest that the type of person who will become successful is likely to get educated as much as the other way around. I find my own lack of formal education to restrict what employment I can get, but not so much what business I can own. I can make plenty of money without a formal education (but not without education). My circumstances in my teen years were not conducive to my finishing school, but I was taught a love of learning from an early age (My parents read regularly and my grandmother was a marine biologist) so despite not having a formal education, I do admit that I had an educational advantage that many people don't. As a result, I'm the type of person who will succeed. Many people who drop out though are just not interested in education, formal or otherwise, so it's no surprise that would correlate to lower income.

That said, I do still plan to get a degree. I just don't need it for the money. Ambition, work ethic and desire to learn would be quite sufficient for many people. It is no surprise that those attributes will tend to produce people with a formal education though.

Canada is weathering the downturn much better because they have a better regulation of the financial sector, thus the wheelers and dealers there were not allowed to over-leverage to ridiculous proportions in a drunken fit of greed.

"The U.S. no longer has to worry about nuclear war? Probably. "

The USA is terrified right now that just one nuclear bomb will be used by someone in a US city. Because of that terror, the USA is willing to change its entire structure of civil liberties (like allow broad wiretapping without warrants). The terror of just one bomb. Why did we then build about 70,000 of them?
    http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx
    http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_atomic_audit.html

So, US military policy about nuclear war has been wrong for fifty years. The cost of losing even one city is too big to imagine, too big to bear. So, we need a different way forward. We need a different vision of national security than unilateral dominance; we need a national security policy that is based on global mutual security.

As Einstein said, with the release of the power of the atom, everything has changed but our thinking. We need a "global mindshift":
    http://www.global-mindshift.org/discover/viewMeme.asp?resourceID=239

Sure.

First example, regulations on banking. Canada has a highly centralized, highly regulated, thoroughly vetted system that was ridiculed for not jumping on the credit default swap band wagon. It's also the only solvent western bank in the world right now.

Both the US and Canada allow subprime mortgages. The difference is that in Canada banks are required to get insurance for those types of loans, and they are not allowed to resell the mortgages into secondary securities markets. In the US, where the secondary securities market is unregulated, speculation heated up the entire economic system, which as always, led to the bust after the boom.

The white collar criminals come into play as the people who closed the mortgages without documentation, in exchange for commissions. Then their bosses knowingly packaged and sold these poorly documented loans to other people, got their friends to stamp a AAA insurance rating on the package as long as a few loans were well qualified, also to make a commission. All of these shenanigans occurred precisely because there was no transparency required, since the transactions were unregulated. I have shown proof that government regulation works in the paragraph above this one, but you can read more about it here: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0423_canada_nivola.aspx

Now, as for corporate secrets, it's a shame that you even have to ask for evidence. Just off the top of my head:

Asbestos, cigarette, lead paint, and countless other companies knowingly sold their products after they knew of the serious health problems their products caused. Corporations reserve the right to lie about their products, defeating the purpose of the free market entirely. Regulations work - once the public pressure became too great, all of these items were regulated and outright banned in some cases. Car companies knowingly made unsafe vehicles and were forced by the public through government legislation to improve the quality of their safety devices, due to the work of people like Ralph Nader.

As a consumer, you may be dying or have children who are seriously ill, and these issues can be resolved with sensible regulations and enforcement of law.

From the Brookings Institution.

That Canadian banks are more closely, or carefully, regulated is fairly well-known. The specifics, however, deserve more attention.

The Canadian regulatory edifice is more centralized. There is no provincial equivalent to America's state-chartered banks. All of Canada's banks are federally chartered and overseen by federal agencies. One government-owned entity -- the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) -- plays a dominant role in shaping mortgage default-insurance policy. It and five other government bureaus in Ottawa -- the Department of Finance, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bank of Canada, the Financial Consumer Agency, and importantly, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institution -- set standards, coordinate the overall regulatory structure, and enforce it with sanctions. The Superintendent, for instance, has the power to remove miscreant bank directors and senior officers.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0423_canada_nivola.aspx

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 1999 basically overturned Glass Steagall. Take a look at any housing bubble chart you'd like. When did the spike start? About the same time the deregulation fantasy took effect, and corporations knowingly created bad mortgages and passed off the bad debt as good debt because no one had their eye on them. In summary, they knowingly created huge leveraged risks in order to pocket huge comissions and leave someone else holding the assets. If you can come up with a more plausible explanation, please go ahead.

Oops, wrong link on Iranian demgraphics. Here's the one I indended, though I was hoping for one more like the one I mistakenly linked.

Did you bother to read what I wrote? Lazy people who are not contributing are in fact not going to get money back. Furthermore, right now, "welfare" (properly known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) is time-limited and contingent on effort to seek employment.

Regarding Obama's tax plan, you have to be gainfully employed if you wish to get any tax credit. I suggest page 2, where it says "the 'Making Work Pay' credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples"

Let me tell you about economies of scale. You can afford to buy a big screen TV, surround sound stereo, and multi-core computer, only because there is a vast American middle class with significant disposable income who create a market for millions of these devices. The huge cost of designing these things is amortized across the volume of product produced.

Now, recently, the GDP fell 0.3% due to a 3.1% fall in consumer spending, which makes up 70% of GDP. If the disposable income continues to decrease, the middle class will vanish, economies of scale will shrink, and everything will suddenly cost a lot more, because there will be fewer items to amortize high initial costs.

Then companies...like, say, GM or Chrysler, end up selling fewer products and have to cut jobs and production, which further reduces the size of the middle class, creating a vicious cycle.

You sure about that? As I understand it, many states have their own welfare systems, so any laws signed by Bill Clinton wouldn't affect them.

The bill (PRWORA) grants money to states to implement their own welfare systems, as long as they meet federal requirements. I've told you some of those requirements.

Additionally, there are many, many people on "disability", getting paid to do nothing. These aren't people with genuine disabilities, but people taking advantage of the system, claiming they have some "mental problem" or somesuch so they don't have to work.

Those people are examined by doctors to determine their disabilities. Are you accusing those doctors of fraud? That is a very serious allegation, which you really should prove with a link.

Anyway, if someone is working, then why would they still receive welfare? Because they don't make enough?

Yes. Because we don't want them or their children to starve. Because we want them to send their children to school, instead of having them work. It is a right-wing fantasy that everyone can find work that pays a living wage. In reality, only communism was able to provide 'full employment'. Assuming you prefer capitalism, there are two choices:
- Provide welfare
- Let 'bad' workers starve

Then maybe they should cut their expenses, stop buying new TVs, etc

I doubt that many poor people buy a new $1000 big-screen TV every year. The substantial expenses are housing, food, a car and other necessities. I'm not claiming that all poor people are great at financial planning, but that wouldn't set them apart from the average American. It makes sense to think that they are worse than average, because smart people can often work themselves up to a decent-paying job. That doesn't mean that they deserve to starve IMHO. You also have to keep in mind that being poor is expensive and it is very easy to get in a deep hole:

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0723california_fellowes.aspx
http://www.usdin.net/wordpress/2005/06/26/being-poor-is-expensive/

If their job can't pay for them to live in their current area, then maybe they should move to someplace cheaper. Perhaps onto a farm, where they could pick crops.

The jobs can't be found there either. Farmers don't want 50 year old women to pick their crops, they want 25 year old Mexicans, who can work twice as hard.

The reason people attempt to file perpetual copyright is that the things being copyrighted, in most cases, still have value. If others are uncomfortable with that, they are perfectly free to create something different/better. People should stop arguing for the removal of other's rights because it's inconvenient for them.

You're looking at this through the European perspective -- as if the creator's monopoly on their work is a natural right.

Look at it again, as if the natural order of things in for information to be usable without restriction, and copyright is an artificial monopoly created for the sole purpose of benefiting the greater good of the public as a whole.

To be sure, things which are copyrighted may have value to the eventual rightsholder 90 years later -- but if you calculate present value at the time of creation (if you've never taken an accounting class, this determines the amount which would need to be invested, at current interest rates, to yield the same eventual income as the extended monopoly period would grant; this sum effectively represents the amount of economic motivation granted to an author to create their work), the amount of value which the creator receives at the time of creation based on this extended grant of exclusive rights is absolutely minimal. On the other hand, the costs levied on the rest of the economy -- even excluding the unknowns of derivative works which aren't created, public-benefit performances which don't occur, and enhanced breadth of society's culture as a whole based on expanded exposure to knowledge -- are considerable indeed.

See this amicus brief to the Supreme Court challenge of the DMCA, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law (Landes and Posner), Forever Minus A Day? Some Theory And Empirics of Optimal Copyright (Rufus Pollock), and (for lighter reading) this analysis in the Financial Times.

I agree that shorter terms with an option to renew are desirable, but also hold that the length of renewal should be limited either explicitly or via economic incentives (ie. attaching significant cost for renewal after a reasonable period).

They have it as a poster states but I'm partial to this myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/davyc.aspx

M-388 Davy Crockett nuclear weapon. It used the smallest nuclear warhead ever developed by the United States.

Pointing out that government agencies had communication problems != political diatribe

http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2003/1208terrorism_thompson.aspx

As for the GP's post, I think it's fitting, all things considered.

Many Iraqis are afraid to see us leave because they suspect that the entire country will explode into open warfare once we are gone.

That's not entirely true. The last poll done that I've seen that actually asked Iraqis this very question (available from the Brookings Institute) was carried out in March 2007, and showed that a majority (53%) believed the security situation would improve if US troops left. 26% said it would get worse, the rest said they didn't know.

In fact, polls in Iraq have consistently shown this attitude for quite some time.

Yes, I was wrong about that incident -- it was, indeed, recovered, bringing the total down to 10 or 11.
I also was wrong about anything after 1980 being classified -- it appears that if something is deemed to be in interest of "national security", it can be kept classified no matter how old the incident is, so there may be other incidents from back when that simply never leaked to the press.

The list was not from a single source -- sources can be found by googling for 'Empty Quiver'.
(You might want to exclude 'JAG' and 'seven days' from the search.)
For a single source leading you to other sources, try this link at the Brooking institute, which also arrives at a figure of 11 lost nukes.

Regards,
--
*Art

I'm not saying it made any sense, I'm saying the weapons existed and were in the field.

A sampling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nike
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/talo s.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-2_Guideline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-5_Gammon

Keep in mind that nuclear-tipped SAMs would be detonated at a much higher altitude than a missile intended to strike surface targets. Nuclear-tipped air-to-air missiles were also fielded. Note the test mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie which detonated at only 15,000 feet. They had volunteers on the ground underneath it. What their long-term health was I can only guess.

Little or no local competition and a general deficiency of means or knowledge on the part of consumers to shop elsewhere give markets in many poor neighborhoods sufficient monopoly power to set prices higher than in more affluent neighborhoods.

To which I nod and back away slowly. Here are some lies and misinformaion:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/gale/20030 929.htm

(Heres a benchmark about what 'rich' means: US GDP is $12 trillion; distribute that across 200 million working people and you get $60,000 a person; distribute it across 100 million working people and you get $120,000 a person; Somewhere in between is where people start 'keeping other people down')

The murder rate in Baghdad last year was 95/100k. I'd say it's at least 10x easier to kill someone today than it was 800 years ago. It's not nearly as easy to ax someone as it is to shoot them or blow them up. Who knows if it's right, but 10/100k is not unreasonable.

Try again.

"State of Fear" is a work of fiction, yes, and should be treated as such. It's been debunked pretty thoroughly, with even Crichton's supporters admitting he botched some key facts.

Michael Crichton's State of Confusion, by Gavin Schmidt, Earth Institute climate scientist and RealClimate.org contributor

Michael Crichton and Global Warming, by David B. Sandalow

If you want to read the actual study you can find it here (PDF warning). Included are such gems as "American students are much more confident about their math abilities than Singaporean students" and "But even the least confident student in Singapore outscores the most confident American student!"
Food for thought.

*Shrug*. My country has been targetted by Islamic terrorists for about two decades. They are backed by a Chinese/US/Saudi Arabia supported, armed and funded nuclear power. The Islamic terrorists already have nukes. Believe me, it really can't get worse from where I sit.

http://www.kashmir-information.com/Terrorism/
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/ornet/2002 -June/004544.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Kashmir
http://www.kashmirherald.com/january2002/kashmirte rrorismupdate.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10958641/
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/beher a_20020525.htm
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlin es/volume16/Article1.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index. html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/terror/m ain648733.shtml
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1577.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_ of_mass_destruction
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000575.html
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040104-102921-916 6r.htm

And you think I worry about teeny little things like giving nukes to Lebanon forcing Israel to openly declare its nuclear status? I suspect you need to learn a little bit more about the rest of the world.

"Why should should my sister study 14 hours per day for 20 years, denying herself sleep, sex, and eyesight in the process if she will end up being no better off than a janitor, except that the janitor has been having the time of her life for the last 20 years, has a developed relationship with 7 kids (all on welfare), can sleep well at night in a house she had not earned, and does not need glasses to read the 'funnies'."

I'd like to meet the janitor who has had the "time of their life" for 20 years. And your sister should learn to budget her time better if she wants to live a long healthy life. No company is going to want to pay her anything if she can't see. And while the janitor is most likely not having the "time of their life", they may still be having a happier life than your workaholic sister. If janitors were not doing their jobs, many people would have more miserable lives.

People need to check out this link:
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060622_middl eclass.htm

It is not that liberals want a socialist state (though some may), but most think that it is morally corrupt for a society to have millionare CEOs sitting on the boards of each other's corporations voting each other fat pay raises that are way out of line with what their average employees are earning. These CEOs are also more concerned about the bottom line, and their bonuses, than the well being of our country.

I can only reach the conclusion that rfid passports are being pushed as a way for the government to ultimately track people in general.

What makes you think government gives a damn about tracking people in general? Why would it? What's in it for them? Maybe you've been reading too many X-Men comics, wherein bad guys want to rule the world and monitor every soul in it just to...uh, well, rule the world. Some kind of hard-wired genetic urge, I guess.

Actual politicians and real civil servants care about Joe Citizen in only two ways: first and foremost, they want to know that he's paying his taxes, so government salaries can continue to be paid. Not very coincidentally, you'll notice that the government already keeps very careful track of your income through your Social Security account and numerous requirements on employers. That way they can collect your taxes right from your employer before you even see the money, and they can nail you easily if you wiggle out of a few dollars here and there through artful accounting. The IRS enjoys intrusive powers of inspection into your wallet that the State or Justice Departments, or NSA, can only dream of.

Secondly, of course, politicians and civil servants care that you vote the right way -- to re-elect the incumbent, and to expand government programs that require the employment of civil servants. Does this involve trying to track your movements? Hardly. Of what use would that be? The useful trick would be something like making it harder for grassroots organizations of citizens to financially support challengers to the incumbent, by...oh, let's say, limiting the amount of money each individual could contribute to the cause of electing somebody, setting up onerous requirements that political contributions be reported to the Federal Government, limiting the amount of money a challenger can spend advertising his challenge, or even requiring that independent groups trying to help out a challenger can't coordinate strategy with the candidate....all of which should sound kinda familiar.

As always, they can usually count on the "watchdogs" of citizen privacy and independence barking fiercely at distracting shadows (NSA data-mining, RFID chips in passports) while the true threats of citizen disenfranchisement (McCain-Feingold, requiring SSNs and tax withholding to work at all) slide silently into place.

Apparently some one can't handle the truth.

A trivial search kicks up these...

The results show that most people remain confident in charitable organizations despite scandals or other investigative reporting done about the way...
http://www.brookings.edu/views/interviews/light/20 031215.htm ...
Much less impressive in scale than the United Way or American
Cancer Society scandals, but comparatively far more devastating is
the pending case of theft that occurred at the Illinois Federation of
Families.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:bPwtzC5queIJ: lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/77-2/Vanderwarren%2 520Final.pdf+charitable+organizations+scandals&hl= en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9 ...

Bob Edwards: This a hangover from the scandals that occurred in several high-profile charities?

Paul Light: Absolutely. It's a consequence of scandals across the board, controversy surrounding the Red Cross disbursement of the September 11th relief funds, the Catholic priesthood scandal. I mean, practically every scandal out there stuck to the charitable sector, and Americans have become more dubious about making investments, if you will, in charitable organizations, investments in either time or income.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/interviews/light/20 031215.htm

Charities work well on SMALL scale locally. On a large scale, they become corrupt organizations that throw elite parties, spend lots of money on salaries, and provide entre' into the upper social circles for the people who run them.

Just this weekend, they had a special involving actual survivors of the holacaust. One of them was a lady who has seen a grand total of $3600 while growing increasingly angry watching *billions* be collected, spent on nice museums, fancy parties, travel, etc. by lots of people who never spent a day in a concentration camp.

Apparently some one can't handle the truth.

A trivial search kicks up these...

The results show that most people remain confident in charitable organizations despite scandals or other investigative reporting done about the way...
http://www.brookings.edu/views/interviews/light/20 031215.htm ...
Much less impressive in scale than the United Way or American
Cancer Society scandals, but comparatively far more devastating is
the pending case of theft that occurred at the Illinois Federation of
Families.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:bPwtzC5queIJ: lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/77-2/Vanderwarren%2 520Final.pdf+charitable+organizations+scandals&hl= en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9 ...

Bob Edwards: This a hangover from the scandals that occurred in several high-profile charities?

Paul Light: Absolutely. It's a consequence of scandals across the board, controversy surrounding the Red Cross disbursement of the September 11th relief funds, the Catholic priesthood scandal. I mean, practically every scandal out there stuck to the charitable sector, and Americans have become more dubious about making investments, if you will, in charitable organizations, investments in either time or income.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/interviews/light/20 031215.htm

Charities work well on SMALL scale locally. On a large scale, they become corrupt organizations that throw elite parties, spend lots of money on salaries, and provide entre' into the upper social circles for the people who run them.

Just this weekend, they had a special involving actual survivors of the holacaust. One of them was a lady who has seen a grand total of $3600 while growing increasingly angry watching *billions* be collected, spent on nice museums, fancy parties, travel, etc. by lots of people who never spent a day in a concentration camp.

Meanwhile, just ignore the Congress. Nobody on the Senate Committee has much interest in really rocking the boat here. Further, they all know that there's no point spending political capital on fixing something that the Court can do by fiat. So you are guaranteed that nothing will happen until the Supreme Court rules on Metabolite, and decides whether to take on KSR v Teleflex and how to rule therein. That could be another year, during which Congress will at best hold more hearings and put out more press releases.

That sounds all well and good until you realize that this is an insurgency, not a straight forward war. There's a truism about guerilla wars. "The guerrilla wins by not losing and the government loses by not winning." Using the Pentagon's own public estimates, the insurgency has grown in the past three years, from 5,000 to 20,000 [http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf page 18.]. Even if you assume that the initial estimates of 5,000 were off, it's clear that the insurgency is definately not abating, and that's all an insurgency needs to do to win.

You defeat and insurgency two ways. You dry up its support in the populace, and you subvert it from within. Body counts don't mean a thing. It's like the story from about the two generals after the Vietnam war. The American general said to the Vietnamese general, "You know we never lost a battle." To which the Vietnamese general said, "True. But it is also completely irrelevant."

The data states otherwise if your willing to look through all the data here.

That's because the primary purpose of this program, like so many others, is to transfer vast amounts of money from the federal treasury to certain politically cooperative industries. Like Star Wars before it, I doubt that there is anyone in the Bush administration that cares one iota whether it has any real military value or even whether it ever "works" or not. The real (political) value is in the spending itself.

Our current Secretary of Defense, who so many around here love to hate (myself included), would disagree with your assessment. He's cut programs that he deems unnecessary in the past. He didn't make a lot of friends inside or outside the Pentagon by doing it. I'm no Rumsfeld defender after the colossal fuck up that is Iraq, but I will give him some credit where credit is due.

The real culprit, IMHO, is Congress. Where the heck is the oversight? You expect the Pentagon to push forward every weapons program they can dream up. That's what we pay them to do. Congress controls the purse string and has oversight which means ultimately they've got the power to put a stop to these programs if they choose to use it.

Wonderful group you share your opinion with regarding Crichton

It is sad how many people actually believe that Crichton writes with a foundation of solid scientific evidence. It is obscene the manner in which distorted facts get bootstrapped into the datastream by faux public policy organizations.

It is pitiful that the State of Oklahoma offered compelling anecdotal evidence indicating the fallaciousness of intelligent design when they elected Jimmy Inhofe to the Senate.

Inhofe is to a very large degree responsible for Crichton's elevation into the upper level of global warming debate. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, he held a hearing on September 28, 2005 titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making", and gave Crichton top-billing as the first speaker.

The last speaker of the hearing was David B. Sandalow, The Brookings Institute's Environmental Scholar, who had previously published a harsh critique of Crichton's environmental views in January, 2006. The Brookings Institute's synopsis of it reads:

"How do people learn about global warming?

That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a wellfunded network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular "natural" disasters. But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.

First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions reached by the National Academy of Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--for example, he does not believe that global temperature increases in recent decades are most likely the result of human activities. In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained below.

Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately unpersuasive as well."

Full Op/Ed - David B. Sandalow, 'Michael Crichton and Global Warming", The Brookings Institution, January 28, 2005

Inhofe himself is compelling evidence of American Conservatism's continuing decline. The Sourcewatch Article about Inhofe states that:

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy -[*]

The Annapolis Center actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and COO, Richard Seibert was a former

Wonderful group you share your opinion with regarding Crichton

It is sad how many people actually believe that Crichton writes with a foundation of solid scientific evidence. It is obscene the manner in which distorted facts get bootstrapped into the datastream by faux public policy organizations.

It is pitiful that the State of Oklahoma offered compelling anecdotal evidence indicating the fallaciousness of intelligent design when they elected Jimmy Inhofe to the Senate.

Inhofe is to a very large degree responsible for Crichton's elevation into the upper level of global warming debate. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, he held a hearing on September 28, 2005 titled "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making", and gave Crichton top-billing as the first speaker.

The last speaker of the hearing was David B. Sandalow, The Brookings Institute's Environmental Scholar, who had previously published a harsh critique of Crichton's environmental views in January, 2006. The Brookings Institute's synopsis of it reads:

"How do people learn about global warming?

That--more than the merits of any scientific argument--is the most interesting question posed by Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

The plot of Crichton's 14th novel is notable mainly for its nuttiness--an MIT professor fights a wellfunded network of eco-terrorists trying to kill thousands by creating spectacular "natural" disasters. But Crichton uses his book as a vehicle for making two substantive arguments. In light of Crichton's high profile and ability to command media attention, these arguments deserve scrutiny.

First, Crichton argues, the scientific evidence for global warming is weak. Crichton rejects many of the conclusions reached by the National Academy of Sciences and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--for example, he does not believe that global temperature increases in recent decades are most likely the result of human activities. In challenging the scientific consensus, Crichton rehashes points familiar to those who follow such issues. These points are unpersuasive, as explained below.

Second, Crichton argues that concern about global warming is best understood as a fad. In particular, he argues that many people concerned about global warming follow a herd mentality, failing critically to examine the data. Crichton is especially harsh in his portrayal of other members of the Hollywood elite, though his critique extends more broadly to the news media, intelligentsia and general public. This argument is more interesting and provocative, though ultimately unpersuasive as well."

Full Op/Ed - David B. Sandalow, 'Michael Crichton and Global Warming", The Brookings Institution, January 28, 2005

Inhofe himself is compelling evidence of American Conservatism's continuing decline. The Sourcewatch Article about Inhofe states that:

On April 28, 2004, Inhofe was honored by the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy -[*]

The Annapolis Center actively argues against the idea that global warming is the result of burning fossil fuels. They also advocate increased logging for better forest health and question rising mercury levels among other things. The Annapolis Center is funded primarily by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Center's founder and COO, Richard Seibert was a former

This one and this are vaguely interesting. This is sort of appeal-to-authority-ish, but they're real authorities, and here's what they had to say about the novel:

"Notable mainly for its nuttiness," an analysis from the Brookings Institution said.

"Does not reflect scientific fact," the Union of Concerned Scientists said.

no, that's not why they have 35 hour work weeks.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/workweek .htm
http://www.euro-correspondent.com/index.php?option =com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4225139.stm

i didn't say french cars were crappy. i didn't say anything about the overall quality of the health care.

The report you sited only carries weight if the supposed misconceptions presented are really misconceptions. Many would say that these are not misconceptions, misinformation, or misunderstandings, but instead fact. Unfortunately, as with many liberal polls, the content of the poll is biased and based on false pretenses and is worded in a way that is only meant to deceive.

Also, let's keep in mind that this poll is based on three supposed misconceptions. I'm sure all would agree that all political sides have true misconceptions, but the poll does nothing to address which political party has the most. Instead, they have done their best to craft a poll that would smear those that watch Fox or that might be politically right-leaning. That's why Alternet and Inter Press Service aren't known for being "Fair and Balanced" like the Fox News Channel is.

True or False?

-US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group

True. The poll's circumstantial assertion that it wasn't US troops that found the Iraq-Al Qaeda link goes to show how insidiously deceptive this poll really is. Regardless if US troops found evidence of this (and I'm pretty sure they did), the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been proven in a court of law.

Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/mai n552868.shtml

-Troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq

True. A small amount of illegal chemical WMD weapons was found in post-war Iraq. It is believed that any other WMD that Iraq may have had were either destroyed or moved out of the country once war was obviously imminent.

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_ Report_Key_Findings.pdf

-World public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq

Likely false.

While world public opinion may have been against the US's pre-war position on the Iraq invasion, the US public opinion was in favor. Again, the poll attempts to deceive by slightly changing true facts to fool those taking the poll into believing another question was asked.

THE SECOND UN RESOLUTION: A BATTLE FOR PUBLIC OPINION
https://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20030226.pdf

Conclusion:

You liberals are truly pathetic low life scumbag losers of the world that can't be satisfied with the facts as they are, but instead have to try to shape the facts to fit your perverted and deeply flawed mentality.

Wouldn't the appropriate law for judging IP logging be that which regulates pen register orders? http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/articles /fellows/2001_swire.htm

We left Japan after rebuilding. We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done.

I guess left is a relative concept.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030 313.htm

Many current U.S. bases were acquired in subsequent wars--the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan. U.S. military bases in Okinawa, formally part of Japan, are a legacy of the U.S. occupation of Japan during the Second World War. http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm

Compare the red spots on the map to the countries listed in the quote.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/20 03/0710imperialmap.htm

No. Why do I say that? Because even countries like China, as bad as its rights record is, is seen as more popular and less of a threat to world peace than America. (especially check out that second poll - it really drives home what the world thinks of uss)

We all like to think of ourselves as the good guys. Most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.

[Disclaimer: I'm the author of the editorial.]

In fact, if one goes on the internet (the very internet you are using RIGHT NOW) and Googles for "gun law total number" one finds this reference: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gun book4.pdf which says, as a practical matter there may be less then 300 statewide gun laws.

The reason that there are so few laws is that the NRA has promoted state wide laws that preempt laws at a more local level. This is, of course, to keep local communities from controlling access to guns. Because the NRA belives that the freedom to own a gun is more important then the freedom to not be shot at.

And before all the gun nuts start trying to find out where I live so they can drive over and shoot up my house, I live in LA and I commute on the freeway for 45 minutes twice each day. We have had a rash of freeway shootings over the last few weeks, on the very routes that I have to drive. This issue is not theoretical for me. Three or four people have died, and only one case has any progress. So when someone quotes a lie about the reality of gun laws, I get a bit angry. I have this funny idea that I sould be able to go though life and not have to worry about being shot at becasue I pull in front of someone of the freeway and they think I cut them off.

Here's Brookings saying that the first year cost of Worldcom and Enron was $35 billion dollars. And that doesn't include the billions that Enron screwed out of California and other states:

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb106.h tm

Forbes reports that Enron owed $67 billion dollars (Worldcom owed TWICE as much), and the creditors were going to get less than 20 cents on the dollar. Turns out that they only had $12 billion to pay them.

http://www.forbes.com/business/2003/07/11/cx_da_07 11topnews.html

Also, you seem to forget that many people lost their entire retirements. All of it. Lots of funds also had money invested in Enron. Wikipedia has a big list of them.

And you also forget that Andersen also went down because of Enron.

Some of the losses were because results were fraudulently overstated, making the stocks look better than they were. Investors lost their money when Worldcom overstated results by 11 billion dollars. These amounts don't show up in bankruptcy, because investors are not the same as creditors.

http://www.forbes.com/management/2005/03/15/cx_da_ 0315ebbersguilty.html

I don't think there's really any serious doubt in anyone's mind that the recent corporate scandals cost more than the world trade center attacks. With the articles above I've shown that Enron and Worldcom alone were over $100 billion dollars lost. People and companies screwed out of their money. When you say "shifting money around" you make it seem like it was just put in the wrong bucket. Not even close.

BTW, the $35 billion I referred to was not about the scandals, it was the damage to the World trade center and economic loss from the terrorist attacks.

I assume you mean "cite" rather than "site". But I shall indulge you with cites of some sites.

For really conservative numbers on overseas civilians, check out this site, which suggests almost 4 million. Note that they are only counting Americans who have actually registered with the embassy, which I never do and I can't say that I've ever met anyone else who did either. I'd estimate the real number is about 5 times higher. But I'll go with what's printed there.

This article estimates the number of current overseas deployed military personnel at 200,000.

Even if you take issue with the individual numbers (and you're welcome to) you can see that the number of citizens is not even close.

As to whether they actually choose to vote absentee, that surely has something to do with how easy or hard it is to go through the process and get information...

This "Silly left view" is the general world concensus on the reason for war. So it's not soo little or lefty as you might think it is.

The points I brought up are all fairly well documented points of fact. That oil is a key element in the middle east and a key part of Iraq's strategic importance goes without saying. That we invaded Iraq _because of_ oil is a difficult argument to make when the evidence we do have about the decision making process doesn't seem to show that as a source of primary motivation - there were plenty of conversations about "getting Saddam", papers written by neocon thinkers about democratizing the middle east, and so on. Since I'm assuming I'm arguing to a hostile audience, I'd prefer to stick to arguments that I can point to evidence on. If you can point me to evidence that shows that this was Bush's primary motivation, I'll gladly refer to that evidence in my future arguments.

As for your sources of statistics, I think they are wrong - the Persian Gulf as a whole supplies about 30% of the world's oil (and the amount of that coming from Iraq has varied greatly over the last few years, but a large portion of that is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. so Iraq can't be more than 5-10% - according to the DOD, it was around 3% shortly before we invaded). The most wildly optimistic estimates from a few years ago said about 11% of world oil reserves were believed to be in Iraq (as expressed by left wing sources - see here for example). And according to a conservative think tank a year ago, the number based on best current estimates is similar - between 10 and 12%, including estimated unexplored and untapped oil fields in Iraq. The people who threw around numbers like 25-30% of world oil reserves were apparently off their rocker, and no credible sources I have found claim that Iraq was pumping out 1/3 of the crude oil supply.

Undoubtedly problems with the oil supply in Iraq, though it's a much smaller total amount than you suggest, are in part responsible for oil prices. I never said otherwise. But the point still stands - invading Iraq was a terrible failure as a way to lower oil prices, and it increased the general feeling of instability in other Arab OPEC countries and of fear on oil markets. As for the invading Iraq _for_ the oil argument, we don't _have_ the oil, and we'll be incredibly lucky if the US government sees enough oil money to make up for the incredible cost of this war and ongoing troop presence. Halliburton and friends may see plenty of money, but at this point most of that money is coming from the US government and taxpayers. The Halliburton et. al. angle is certainly interesting to me, since the associations between the Bush administration and these businesses are very well documented, but I don't think it's a very effective argument with American conservatives, who see it as anti-business to attack Halliburton. And again, it's not provably causative.

Admirable act?, How is it any American's right to decide that your neo-conservative democracy(totalitarian?,Police state?) is the right way for the world? what made you god? Are you some supreme race? You know there was some other people in history who thought exactly the same way and their actions are remembered as anything but "Admirable".

I never used the words "admirable act", so this is a straw man argument. Work on your reading comprehension skills and come back later. As for the idea that democracy is superior to totalitarianism, you will pretty much not find a single American outside of the Chomskyites in academia who doesn't agree with this in some way. Thus making such arguments is entirely counterproductive, and brands you as part of the looney left (as you have probably just unknowingly done for yourself). I'm trying to win votes for Kerry from moderat

I am now finished with work.

I agree. But some of President Bush's programs seem more classically liberal in nature than following the ideal of "personal responsibility".

Hmm. Equality of opportunity. I found an interesting article that argues not for Equality of Opportunity, but for Freedom of Opportunity. By using the phrase Equality of Opportunity your are assuming that someone (the government, I presume?) will be defining what is "equal".

Even so, I can't just trust a random web site from someone who may be more libertarian than conservative. So, with some reservations, I'll give you the equality of opportunity line as a "conservative value".

And exactly how does that differ from what a "liberal" believes?

OK. But again, is that "conservative value"? That's just basic economics. It is accepted that small business provides most of the jobs in this country. How can that be a "conservative value"?

While there have been economic arguments in favor of tax cuts, I still do not understand how those tax cuts work in balance with huge budget deficits. Under budget deficits, someone has to pay, eventually. And, making our children pay is not a "conservative value".

I would disagree that is a conservative value. Why? here and here. Also, AFAIK, the first President to try to spend his way out of an economic downturn was FDR. Not exactly a conservative icon.

The federal government takes in more on fuel taxes than it spends on highway construction (some of it goes to public transportation and such). However, this is outweighed by state and local governments which spend much more on roads than they get back in such taxes. On top of that, most states do not have a sales tax (revenue of which goes into the general fund) on gasoline as they do on pretty much every other good except food.

I disagree that it is subjective whether roads should be paid for by gas or property taxes. It is much more fair (although still far from perfectly fair) to tax gas instead of property. If property is taxed, then road use become a "free good" and is consumed at a level higher than that which is most efficient. Notice how suburbia is almost non-existent in Europe, where gas is taxed at a rate high enough to pay for road construction and maintenance (as well as many external costs).