Slashdot Mirror

So voting is like betting on the horses? If I bet for the winner, I can get my ballot, and take is somewhere get paid on the odds? If I'm voting for who I don't want, I'm still throwing away my vote.

It's not living in a dream world to think that by voting for someone, you bear some responsibility for the things they do in office, good or bad. For my part, I will always vote for the person I think will do 80% good/20% bad, even if they have essentially zero chance of winning, rather than pick between the two who have even odds when I view them as 20% good vs. 10% good.

Since I view both McCain and Obama to be poor choices, and since nobody else will win, I've already lost, and voting for the least objectionable doesn't absolve me of responsibility if and when they fuck up. Seriously, I've done all those "pick your candidates" quizzes and I have more in common with both the Socialist AND the Libertarian candidate than either Obama and McCain. And those are two parties I view as almost polar opposites.

I'm an Arizonan, and it would be a cold day in hell before I would vote for McCain for animal control officer, much less president. I was intrigued by Obama, but I read his foreign policy statement in Foreign Affairs last year, and like Gertrude Stein said about Oakland: "There was no 'there' there."

So, accuse me of living in a dream world all you want, but I'm not accepting the responsibility for these jokers' actions, and I will not contribute even the tiniest shred of support for their "mandate."

The funny thing about the WMD issue in Iraq is that once somebody did figure it out, it turned out to be one of those things that was stranger than fiction.

After the end of the first stage of the Iraqi War, a group of American historians got their hands on Saddam's archives, and tried to work out what was happening on the Iraqi side of the war, and why no WMDs were found. The book they produced is available to the public as the Iraqi Perspectives Project: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/iraq/ipp.pdf

Essentially, Saddam had a bunch of WMDs in the first Gulf War and was preparing an active WMD program after that war ended, but the international scrutiny by the UN forced him to cancel it. However, he was afraid that if his neighbours ever believed that he had cancelled the WMD program, they would invade him. So, he didn't tell anybody he had cancelled the program, including his generals, and tried to give his neighbours the impression he still had an active program.

The smokescreen was so effective that Iraqi war plans drawn up by the Iraqi generals up to the end of the 2004 war were based on the deployment of WMDs that had been cancelled close to a decade earlier, and all of Saddam's legitimate efforts to obey the UN were interpreted as hiding evidence.

So, it is true that Saddam had no WMDs at the beginning of the Iraqi War. But thanks to his smokescreen, all of the intelligence analysis said that he did.

Well I've observed people for 13 years in internet usage and I see that people need more bandwidth (I said statistics, not opinion). And if you read the article, you'd realize the point is that the US is lagging seriously behind other industrialized nations in the adoption and availability of broadband to consumers. I seriously doubt consumers in Japan, South Korea, Finland, France, and Canada are all rushing out and paying for optical carrier and running fiber to their house. Their carriers are providing better infrastructure and higher capacity consumer lines, and at a cost that is sufficiently affordable that consumers are adopting them. And I'm sorry, but if you think SONET is a consumer grade infrastructure you've got your head wedged firmly up your ass.

Well then, we can start with the number of dial up users who don't want broadband yet. link Oh, and in several of those countries you listed, broadband has been subsidized by the government. So the actual cost is somewhat hidden compared to the US. link link link Oh, and I never said a SONET was consumer grade. I said that if you wanted high speed you could always buy it. Apparently you don't consider it worth it to do so.

Grandma is not representative of what "most people need". Grandma is a demographic of what working consumers wanted 50 years ago. The US had better start paying attention to what the demographic of current and emerging working consumers are wanting -bandwidth. Bandwidth for services that both do and don't currently exist. We have terabyte sized disks and we want to fill them with video and audio. We have HD televisions and we want dozens of stations in 1080p. We have XBoxes, Wiis, and playstations that communicate over the internet, and we want the content from those links to be high quality and fast. We have digital telephones, and video communications equipment and software. Every internet-aware product and service that is released will continue to use more and more bandwidth to provide a better experience. As was said in TFA, "Speed defines what is possible on the internet." I don't give a shit if you're happy with grandma being the standard of the internet consumer, the rest of the industrialized world is seeing the benefit in widely available, high capacity communications. There's no reason we should be left behind in a communications backwater.

"Working Consumers" are not the average internet user. After all, that doesn't include 12 year olds, for instance. The "rest of the industrialized world" as you put it is using taxes to pay for internet rollout and still subsidizing the monthly fees. Also, most of them have a denser population areas than in the US. Trying to say if they can do it and why can't we is comparing apples and oranges. You want faster speed? Go set up a company yourself to deploy it or buy it yourself. In the meantime, the US companies are operating without subsidies to do the same thing. Further, grandma does light websurfing, email and whatnot. That is what the average internet user does. What is possible is not what people do. You keep trying to claim that if people can do something they will. That is not reality. Reality is people will start to do something, bandwidth needs will increase, and companies will offer faster speeds. 1080P, and internet capably everything you list are not what the average person has, they are the bleeding edge. The average person does not have that. Also, the game systems do not need 20mbps. They use less than 1mbps. No game uses more than that.

He's speaking of the Foreign Affairs ESSAY not the WHOLE BOOK, which is what I was speaking of.

Others don't like it either:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said

I never thought the race-war bozos would make it onto /. It's the usual propoganda: Name check someone prominent (who didn't say anything in support of your argument), add some bogus theory with no support (but imply that it comes from the famous names), through in a little kernel of plausibility (hey, there's racism right? Maybe we are all genetically pre-disposed to hate each other), and stir.

Much like different programming languages are optimized for different tasks, but you can create just about anything in just about any language, human populations are different based on the optimizations that came about through their branch divergence.

See? Hmmm ... seems plausible. But think: Maybe I'm different based on the country I was born in, the way my parents fed me, raised me (the fact that I had loving parents), their wealth and social connections, the forces and choices that formed my personality. My education, the books I read, what I chose to study, my teachers and role models, how hard I worked at it, how well I networked, the career and jobs I chose, the person I married, the city I live in ... Where does this genetic optimization come in?

I recommend the same books as burnitdown, only you should read them and not just name-check them. I read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations when it was first published in Foreign Affairs. It says nothing at all about genetics or "optimization", only super-national cultural groups called 'civilizations', which are genetically diverse (see list here ). You can read more here.

I haven't read Cavalli-Sforza, but The Economist seems to think that his work challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all. Hmmm ... that seems opposite the ideas that burnitdown cited.

So Burnitdown is just talking out of his backside, start to finish. There is no outside support for it at all. I can't even imagine how it applies to Georgia, Russia, and North & South Ossetia. Does anyone know closely their populations correlate genetically? And why, on that basis, would South Ossetians want Russian more than Georgian citizenship? What the heck is 'Russian' genetically, anyway -- the country stretches from Europe to the Pacific; are they really genetically homogeneous?

Whenever I read something like this, I always try to remember: Think of the people who promolgate this theory of inevitable race-war hatred: From Milosovic to Bin Laden (who rails against Jewish people) to the Rwandan Hutu extremists to the KKK to, yes, Adolf Hitler. What have they accomplished? Then think of those who say that humans can integrate and live together regardless of supposed 'race', from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr., to Mahatma Gandhi and almost any current leader of prominence. Who has been more successful? Whose side would you rather be on?

Did you know that by the 3rd generation, most immigrants to the US marry across 'cultural' lines? Did you know that the rate of interracial marriage has increased ~700% in the US since 1970 [1]?

I'm not certain, but I don't think Obama is opposed to nuclear in principle. After all he has proposed funding a cooperative stockpile of nuclear material for energy purposes with the intent of discouraging nations of questionable intent from building programs to enrich their own. In a paper to the same journal, McCain's position on proliferation worries me, it seems his diplomatic skills leave something to be desired. It appears he is saying that nuclear is good for us, but we're the only ones who have the right to use it and if you are anyone but us, well you can suck it you coal-eating-muthers.
For the record, the hope and change is about the possibility of having a leader who is worthy of the title. One that can string more than four words together. One that might be capable of well-reasoned policy decisions. One that perhaps won't be so deep in the pockets the industries he is supposed to regulate that there is a faint glimmer of hope that our futures may not be completely trampled by the mad rush to cash in. We probably do need to pursue some nuclear power, yes, but lets also not forget that nuclear power is a business like any other, and there is now a mad rush to cash in on that as well. We must move slowly and deliberately on this issue, if we rush we will get burned. Literally in this case.

This is exactly why we should not simply sip it out of the earth and burn it. We will need these resources for centuries to come, so to toss it in our cars for the sake of cheap gas is about as intelligent as finding a vein of gold and saying "Wow, this stuff is really heavy, I think I'll use it to make paperweights." Personally, I think it's time that we as Americans begin to face the fact that we have been living on artificial wealth, that is to say we have not been paying the real cost of living for the lifestyle we have. Whether it's by keeping tube socks cheap by outsourcing our slave labor or keeping gas cheap by manipulation or militarization, we have been getting far more than our money's worth. I suggest we start learning to deal with the real price of the American standard of living now, because with another fifty years of growth in China, India, and South America it's going to be harder and harder to find desperate third-world countries eager to please a fading superpower. Adapt now and decompress slowly, or live in denial until the bubble bursts.

Are you perhaps talking about this bill? If being anti-nuclear means wanting to know when they are letting their plants become dangerous for the sake of making a buck and not damaging their reputation, well then I guess I am anti-nuclear, too.

I'm not certain, but I don't think Obama is opposed to nuclear in principle. After all he has proposed funding a cooperative stockpile of nuclear material for energy purposes with the intent of discouraging nations of questionable intent from building programs to enrich their own. In a paper to the same journal, McCain's position on proliferation worries me, it seems his diplomatic skills leave something to be desired. It appears he is saying that nuclear is good for us, but we're the only ones who have the right to use it and if you are anyone but us, well you can suck it you coal-eating-muthers.
For the record, the hope and change is about the possibility of having a leader who is worthy of the title. One that can string more than four words together. One that might be capable of well-reasoned policy decisions. One that perhaps won't be so deep in the pockets the industries he is supposed to regulate that there is a faint glimmer of hope that our futures may not be completely trampled by the mad rush to cash in. We probably do need to pursue some nuclear power, yes, but lets also not forget that nuclear power is a business like any other, and there is now a mad rush to cash in on that as well. We must move slowly and deliberately on this issue, if we rush we will get burned. Literally in this case.

This is exactly why we should not simply sip it out of the earth and burn it. We will need these resources for centuries to come, so to toss it in our cars for the sake of cheap gas is about as intelligent as finding a vein of gold and saying "Wow, this stuff is really heavy, I think I'll use it to make paperweights." Personally, I think it's time that we as Americans begin to face the fact that we have been living on artificial wealth, that is to say we have not been paying the real cost of living for the lifestyle we have. Whether it's by keeping tube socks cheap by outsourcing our slave labor or keeping gas cheap by manipulation or militarization, we have been getting far more than our money's worth. I suggest we start learning to deal with the real price of the American standard of living now, because with another fifty years of growth in China, India, and South America it's going to be harder and harder to find desperate third-world countries eager to please a fading superpower. Adapt now and decompress slowly, or live in denial until the bubble bursts.

Are you perhaps talking about this bill? If being anti-nuclear means wanting to know when they are letting their plants become dangerous for the sake of making a buck and not damaging their reputation, well then I guess I am anti-nuclear, too.

If you don't see the difference between his platform and mccain, you need some serious readjustment of perspective.

National Intelligence Estimate: Iran does not have a functioning nuclear weapons program.

Bush: Iran is developing nuclear weapons, we must bomb them!

McCain: What he said.

Obama: Iran is developing nuclear weapons, so let's try some sanctions first and if that fails, bomb them!

People of Iran: WTF? Is there any candidate that doesn't want kill us and justify it with another lie?

The differences between Obama and McCain are more about style than substance. They both support using the US's military unilaterally as they see fit. Obama has said this many times. If you believe that Obama isn't going to do whatever he can to maintain and extend the US's hegemony then you are the one who needs some serious readjustment.

Basically what it all boils down to is who has the economic growth, who has the money to support a large military, who has the money to buy off locals, and who has a compelling alternative government. A century and half ago, the powers were Spain and England. England had everything except cash and economic growth. Mosty people were kind of happy with the english way of life, and england had military power. However, due to england's lack of cash, it had to borrow money from the colonies, which meant that England was no longer a free agent. When you owe someone lots of money, you are no longer your own person.

My main disagreement with the article is that the US has been in a real position of power for 100 years. We had some success in the early 20th century, but we never made it to international status due to the robber barons which put us in a hole that we did not crawl out of until the 50's, but not really until 70's. At this point we have had two solid generations of superpower status. We are not leaders in economic growth, and the middle class which used to defined growth is becoming non existent. The weak dollar is just making the middle class even smaller. Now, the government and the populous has to borrow,and who are we borrowing from, the chinese.

One thing I heard about england is that it was not growing economically, and this what caused the loss of power. While the us is, we do not seem to be growing in such a way to increase spending and consumption. Those with median income and below has seen almost no growth in income over the past 40 years. Those with top 20% of income has seen their income jump 30% or more. Unless the economy is being based on yatchs and butlers, this is not a way to build a broad based economy.

So the way to fix the economy is socialization. Spend 2 trillion a month on a war. Create new redundant departments to spend more money. Pump money into the economy be giving away cash. Don' bother with structural changes, don't worry about money that can't be paid back, just socialize, just like britain.

Of course it is not the weak dollar that is the issue. It is the lack of discretionary income. It is the the fact that we are soon going to owe 40% of debt to foreign agents, who are now free to call us for favors, and we can no longer pressure. These facts put us back a pre-super power standing. What were the issues? Growth? We aren't on top. Debt? We owe everyone. Cash? We have none. Military? The F-22 is our cool jet, but the f-35 is yet to be built, and everything seems to be ineffective against kitchen table IEDs. The weak dollar is not the cause, but it is a symptom. We need to get serious about innovation, and serious about true fiscally conservative values.

Obama is *not* in favor of ending the war in Iraq. In the debates he refused to pledge to have all troops withdrawn from Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. Read the fine print. His "withdrawal" plan would redeploy troops around the Middle East so they could be sent back in to Iraq at any time. He would leave the world's largest embassy in Baghdad and the dozen or so military bases the US has constructed there. He would leave 100,000 lawless and unaccountable mercenaries operating in Iraq. Seriously, read his manifesto for a kinder, gentler empire which he published in Foreign Affairs. It should sicken any genuine progressive or antiwar person.

The vast majority of money Obama has taken in is from corporate sources. He may have received lots of tiny donations, but they represent a small fraction of the overall money he has received. He has raked in more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in the race. In addition, he routinely lies about not taking money from lobbyists, which is a demonstrably false statement. In fact, both he and Clinton have taken in far more money from corporations than McCain has--which shows where corporate America is placing their bets.

Take off the rose-colored glasses. He's not a different kind of politician, he's only better at playing the game.

Ugh. How is this insightful?

China threat theory is sooooo out of favor among people who know their stuff that it boggles my mind how the rest of the world (except for US army leadership of course, who just want more toys to play with) keeps nagging on about it .

'Heping jueqi' is the 21st century mantra for the chinese. They don't want to fight any serious wars, and aren't going to be able to project global power in any serious way for quite a long time.

China is a great power in name only, they are not willing and capable of acting like a great power yet. They're still on the edge of the world system in a lot of ways. What they want right now is to be accepted into it, and if anything, the west should accomodate them. You might want to read John Ikenberry's extremely insightful essay in Foreign Affairs of Jan08.

Also, they walk a razors edge in their national politics, balancing economic freedom and political dictatorship. Nobody can expect them to 'go western' all of a sudden. It'd destroy their nation as a unit. All our complaints about human rights violations, morally right as they may be, are trumped by their national survival. China is preoccupied by raising its living standard right now. Deng Xiaoping got something very right when he allowed for just economical freedom, but also gave China a huge national problem.

All this crap about 'china's growing military' pails when compared to current US power. China is not 'getting ready to attack'. China is getting ready to be able to protect her trade-lanes in the east/south china sea. That may scare americans, who have regarded that little pond as their own back yard for a century, but it's only natural for a rapidly growing nation. Yes, China is indeed growing its army, but that does not mean they're pumping liquid oxygen into their DF-5 ICBM's just yet. Misinterpreting the goals of a rising power is the surest formula to kick off a war. As a Rising power, China is risk-averse and, for all intents and purposes, seems to have limited revisionist aims.

The biggest threat of war with China comes from self-fulfilling prophecies about war.

The reason everything "suggested" in their bimonthly magazine, forums, conferences etc. starts being implemented by democrats and republicans alike is because they just happen to always like what they see there. In fact, it's pure coincidence, right?

The first step of any investigation is to ask yourself, no matter what happen, "cui bono?" (who benefits?). This will give you a good list of possible starting points, many of which false positives. The second step is to go around researching further evidence. And the CFR offers lots, and lots, and lots of evidence, all in the open.

A "conspiracy theory" ceases being a theory when there's hard documental evidence. It also ceases being a "conspiracy" at that. A conspiracy, by definition, is something that requires few people, all keeping secrets. There's nothing secret about the CFR. Just go to their own publications and read them.

By the way: if you want information on the specific Republican take on implementing the CFR's guidelines, a good source of information their own Project for the New American Century's website. PNAC was founded and has many CFR members.

You should read the global baby bust. Under-population threatens to be a serious problem to developed economies in future - this is partly why immigration is allowed in such large numbers. I'm not saying it'll happen for sure, but I can well believe that in 30 years we'll look back on worries about over-population the same way we look at 70s worries about global cooling today.

"Of course, economists will tell you they won't because that would cost them money."

And what the hell do they know, they're only experts, while you, on the other hand are a slashdot poster. It obvious to me who we should be paying attention to...

"I say once they want to devastate us..."

They'll realize that using debt is a stupid choice. We can choose not to repay, thereby pooching their plans completely.

Or were you not aware that was an option when you were constructing your oh so scary yet totally inaccurate rant?

The US population owns most of the US debt. Fuck, China isn't even close to being the foreign country with the most US debt, yet people like you are too fucking stupid to realize that. You hear some moron run his mouth, decide you like his charismatic presentation, then off you go, spewing retarded half-truths and gross misunderstandings while pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html

You're wrong, and you're an idiot. Please stop posting until you can do so without being wrong and idiotic.

You gotta be kidding. Sony is certainly more American then Toshiba, Sony's biggest share-holder is American (Dodge & Cox), not to mention its run by an Welsh-American CEO. By comparison, Toshiba has to be the most un-American company in existence. During the Cold War, Toshiba was found guilty of illegally selling the Soviet Union and helping build propellers for Russian nuclear submarines that could sneak past NATO's defenses, which is against the COCOM agreement that the US and Japan are both part of. Congress almost past a bill that would ban all Toshiba products being sold in the US.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19871201faessay7874/george-r-packard/the-coming-u-s-japan-crisis.html

Granted, we all have to die somehow - but you seem a little defensive! Allergic to bees, perhaps? Again, the math:

Your chances of getting killed by a terrorist (from here):
But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaedalike operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

From here:

All figures below are for U.S. residents.
Cause of Death Lifetime Odds

Heart Disease: 1-in-5
Cancer: 1-in-7
Stroke: 1-in-23
Accidental Injury: 1-in-36
Motor Vehicle Accident*: 1-in-100
Intentional Self-harm (suicide): 1-in-121
Falling Down: 1-in-246
Assault by Firearm: 1-in-325
Fire or Smoke: 1-in-1,116
Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.): 1-in-3,357
Electrocution*: 1-in-5,000
Drowning: 1-in-8,942
Air Travel Accident*: 1-in-20,000
Flood* (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-30,000
Legal Execution: 1-in-58,618
Tornado* (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-60,000
Lightning Strike (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-83,930
Snake, Bee or other Venomous Bite or Sting*: 1-in-100,000
Earthquake (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-131,890
Dog Attack: 1-in-147,717
Asteroid Impact*: 1-in-200,000**
Tsunami*: 1-in-500,000
Fireworks Discharge: 1-in-615,488

Nah, old words. Just took them out for a walk to amuse myself. The phrase "adroit and vigilant" will be recognized by students of political theory or the cold war. It was used in 1947 by George F. Kennan, the architect of the "containment" strategy. Here's the original paper: The Sources of Soviet Conduct.

While 130 nuclear warheads is not sufficient to carpet bomb a country the size of the USA, it is quite sufficient to take out large cities, industry, food production and central administration. The end result is likely massive death toll from starvation and plague, and collapse of the USA as a nation, or at the very least its removal from its world power status.

What you describe is entirely unlikely. You act as if the U.S. military would sit back passively while the Chinese spent hours fueling their 130 nuclear missiles. Why would we when we have the means to hit them before they even get off the ground (via Submarine-based ICBMs and Nuclear-armed cruise missiles)?

I suggest you look up the term Nuclear Primacy. Having nukes doesn't mean much if they would be obliterated before they can even be launched.

So no, no one dares attack China.

Perhaps not conventionally, but this is more for geopolitical reasons than military ones. Even in conventional warfare, the U.S. Navy is completely unmatched by anything China has to offer.

The funny thing is is how these facts shock even Americans. Should this really be that surprising? The United States spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world combined. You get what you pay for.

-Grym

Nor does it take into account agricultural surpluses that likely still exist, and the food destruction. I have no idea what state the world is in now, but I know that even 10 years ago the issue was not food, but getting food to the poor. Nor does it take into account the corn is only one means of ethanol production, an inefficient form that in fact exist only because it is promoted by the famously independent and conservative farmers who are used to suckling at the government teat, and there are other sources, such as prairie grass, that might work just as well.

One interesting thing is that the US has a corn economy, and corn ethanol, though not perfect, is a good fit as it requires minimal effort, since we have so much corn infrastructure to begin with. As a transitional step away from fossil fuels, it is quite rational. As a effort to continue burning hydrocarbons, it is not rational. But such burning, if we are in fact concerned with the poor people that cannot even afford corn, is not justified. The death toll to get the hydrocarbons is not small. The subjugation of the Nigerian people, the deals made with the Saudi monarchy, the tens of thousands dead in Iraq. Really, how can we compare such real and present destruction with a theoretical problem that, at it's most practical level, is meant as method to help reduce the level of the comprimises we must make for energy.

One last thing. Oil is a commodity. It does not matter where the oil that one uses came from. If any oil field shuts down, even if it not an oil field that supplies the local pump, all prices increase.

The Guardian article is not correct, in stating "the first known incidence of such an assault on a state". James Adams published an article entitled "Virtual Defense" from Foreign Affairs, May/June 2001 that details a number of cyber-attacks on a massive scale, against the United States. Specifically the Pentagon, NASA, as well as private universities and research laboratories, and a number of military defense contractors were targeted and the security breaches were enourmous, with highly sensitive documents vulnerable. Here is a link to the article (brief preview, then they make it available for purchase - sorry) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010501faessay4771/ james-adams/virtual-defense.html According to Foreign Affairs: The U.S. government now believes that more than 30 nations have developed aggressive computer-warfare programs. The list includes Russia and China, volatile governments such as Iran and Iraq, and U.S. allies such as Israel and France...The hackers have built "back doors" through which they can re-enter the infiltrated systems at will and steal further data; they have also left behind tools that reroute specific network traffic through Russia. [end of excerpt] The danger here is very high, especially for small businesses, who certainly do not have the technical resources of the US military (and even that was breached). Many small businesses have military contracts, etc. In short, this is a genuine act of war, and the potential for breaches of security across small businesses in the US (or really anywhere) is very high.

Didn't you read my post? I cited peer-reviewed research:
"The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy," International Security 30, no. 4 (Spring 2006).
There's a summary of the paper here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204 /keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nucle ar-primacy.html

(note: I accidentally posted as AC so I'm reposting with my name)

Didn't you read my post? I cited peer-reviewed research:
"The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy," International Security 30, no. 4 (Spring 2006).
There's a summary of the paper here: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204 /keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nucle ar-primacy.html

what's democracy anyway: Two wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner.

Did you read The Outsourcing Bogyman? Please do, it brings light to the situation most Americans are in. Also, think of it this way, even though they can replicate your skills, it takes a while for them to do so. And as soon as they do and you stop trying, you just give up adapting and falter to the pressures of a global market, that's when that guy in India starts deserving the job more than you. I know it may seem strange, but you must listen to me, if you don't adapt, if you don't try to be worth something to your company, you will loose your job. That's just how it goes, and how it will go. Don't be like the dinosaurs, grow, find a niche, innovate, whatever will work in your situation. Just know that staying where you are will only get you burned...

Globalization is always to blame when professionals are out of work. Did you know that Intel has offices in Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, and finally Vietnam. And you are worried about ONE new office in India (U.S. comparison)?

It amazes me that people think India to be the biggest threat, and that everyone will loose their job to some guy in 'over there' (see: The Outsourcing Bogeyman, Daniel W. Drezner). Well, that 'guy' adapted to his conditions and the conditions of the market, and got a job knowing that he will get paid less than some guy from the U.S. But you know what, he deserves that job more. Even if he hasn't worked harder for it, which I'm not sure if 'they' do or not, he deserves it simply for being who he is and where he is. And you know what? Even I have to compete against him. But I have innovation and adaptability on my side as well, so I really don't care about him. And neither should the average software guy either. We should all worry more about doing our best to adapt, to innovate, and to provide something that someone else doesn't. I shouldn't have to tell you that nearly every large successful company out there survives on this sort of arrangement. And it seems to work. So what do I suggest? Beat them at their own game, if you so wish to compete head to head. Find a way to stay competitive, do something extraordinary with the resources you have, and you will indeed become the one deserving of 'that job'...

kdawson really seems to like this topic... as pointed out in the summary, this was slashdotted two weeks ago on her watch.

This submission, furthermore, stems from "plasmacutter". In a mini-flame war between he and I (note - this is in response to my post, yes), he goes on to claim that:

- Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, Policy Review, and the Christian Science Monitor "have been thoroughly debunked as extreme right" (I'd love to know who did that bit of debunking, and just how they determine what's "extreme right") while considering Al Franken to be an "influential political thinker". (source)

- Apparently believes anyone who has a Ph.D., particularly in the political sciences (I realize the social sciences aren't popular here on /., but when one is discussing election results/poll data, they're the best source) must belong to the "elite echelons" of the upper class (Also... people with Ph.D's in fields like those you are speaking about also tend to be in the elite echelons of the upper class, because those degrees tend to cost you more money than you make from them (without the right connections, of course.. wink wink).. and you wander why they espouse elitist right wing values and are listened to by elitist right wing leaders? (source). I got a good laugh out of this then, and still do, especially considering my top 3 favorite political science professors are, in order: 1. a Democrat, 2. a Green, and finally 3. a Republican. And I attend one of the most conservative universities in the entire U.S.

The submitter of the previous story was similarly a bit off his rocker.

In short, what we have here is kdawson publishing pretty much anything he or she likes about this matter to stir up debate and ad clicks, and all of it coming from that bastion of journalism, that peer-reviewed gem of western society, Rolling Stone.

Surely Slashdot can do better than this. There are LOTS of topics of interest to the left that could be covered in a decent manner. Why kdawson keeps banging away on this one note is baffling to me.

-withdraw from iraq, try to do so gracefully since were damned if we stay and damned if we go.

So, the Democrats' official position is that Iraq's hopeless? Wow, I'm inspired with confidence. The solution of "no solution". Great.

-undo the damage to our civil liberties done by the patriot act

Yes, because the majority of the U.S. population is so pissed off that you can look at library records. Forgive me, but the PATRIOT Act is by far the least of my concerns. As someone who has done more than his fair share of studying national security issues, I recognize the need for something that goes well beyond FISA, which was designed to operate against different kinds of threats.

-reform social security by removing the blatant privatization bush put in which basically amounts to abolshment (but with the added benefit of commissions to brokers before your stock tanks)

Make Social Security insoluble. Great. Pardon me as I run for the ballot box...

-Universal health care (which responds to the increasing 10s of millions of people without healthcare, and which they make a damned good economic case for!)

Because it's worked oh so well for Europe and Canada! Quick, let's all jump on that bandwagon! And where do you plan on getting the funding for all of this?

-Investigation into bush's illegal activites, followed hopefully by impeachment

DOWN WITH BUSHITLER! Please, did you bother to read the post above?

-Investigation into oil companies among others for gouging.

Because there could only be one source for all the world's problems - rich people.

Among others.. it's all laid out..

I sincerely hope this isn't a serious party platform. Please, please tell me that your post is some kind of sick joke. No serious group could put this forward and expect people to vote for them.

Big media is owned by republicans so you don't see it.. listen to air america and they spend each and every day spelling out those exact same points.

And, of course, the big time media conspiracy theory which I don't buy from the right wing and find particularly fatuous when coming from the left. Yes, I must listen to the great Air America and exorcise the right wing demons like Ted Turner! Save me! Why, I've been wasting all of this time reading ridiculous publications like Foreign Affairs, Policy Review, and the Christian Science Monitor when I could've been listening to some idiot and paid political actor with a BA in Government tell me what to think in the form of nice, compact bumper sticker slogans! Oh, the fool I must be! I must throw away my entire library of books written by influential political thinkers and replace it with Al Franken and Noam Chomsky ravings!

If you're looking to convince me your party has anything resembling a platform, you've failed miserably.

No, we don't fucking work for you. No civil servant works for you.
A bold statement, but your authority is only the authority delegated to you by the citizens, and your funds are only funds provided by the citizens, and the only reason you exist is to serve the citizens. It may be inconvenient for you, but it's true.

It's our job to protect you
No, it's your job to obey the law and follow the instructions of the citizens' elected representatives.

It's by rule of majority ... the safety of all outweighs the convenience of the one
It's not rule by majority -- that's mob rule. Rule by majority is the Shiites in Iraq deciding to imprison all the Sunnis, or, as someone said, 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'. Instead, we are a Constitutional Democracy, where the powers of the majority are strictly limited, both in what they can do (the powers given to government) and what they cannot (the restrictions in the Bill of Rights). The rights of the one, for example to freedom of speech, do outweigh the will of the majority; obviously, when you reduce the issue to convenience, that's something else, but that's just a straw man. In any case, my point is that the government's powers are limited, and the individual is specifically protected. Here's a great article describing the differences between democracy and constitutional democracy:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19971101faessay3809/ fareed-zakaria/the-rise-of-illiberal-democracy.htm l

Even if I don't agree with your attitude, if you are indeed a civil servant. thanks for your hard work.

According to a Foreign Affairs article, Saddam fell victim to his own bluff. One one hand, he was desperate to prove that he had complied with the requests to destroy any WMD; on the other hand, however, he still kept playing the WMD card in regional matters. When he finally did decide that it was time to quit bluffing and prove that he really didn't have a WMD program anymore, these steps were intrepreted as an attempt to cover up existing WMD.

Don't take it from me, take it from a respectable economist.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83304 /daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html

Understand that we are a more technologically advanced economy. One thing that will certainly destroy this aspect of our economy is more subsidies to things like Agriculture and steel production. We will adapt to produce what nobody else can produce.

Also note that the agricultural subsidies have made it impossible for farmers in third world countries to export their goods. We've set a trend amongst advanced countries, I would really like to see Habib in Afghanistan making a living by producing something other than Opium! Look at the big picture man, and educate yourself.

This is the most enlightening article on outsourcing I have ever read:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83304 /daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83304 /daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html

You're blurring the lines between reality and politics. The politicians want your vote, but they surely should know that any counter-measures against outsourcing is bound to hurt the U.S. economy.

This is campaign rhetoric. You really aught to look at the facts.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83301 -p0/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83301 -p0/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html

We're not supporting our troops with enough body armor.

This is exactly what I am talking about. In a perfect world we would outfit each soldier with a robotic titanium shell to completely protect them from the hazards of the battlefield. We all know that our world is far from perfect. The fact is, our troops in Iraq have the best body armor of any military force in our history. They have more body armor than our troops did in the first Gulf War, our troops in Vietnam, our troops in Korea, and our troops in WWII! And those unarmored Humvees that have received so much attention? For the most part they replaced open-air Jeeps that often didn't even have doors or windshields.

Of course, this doesn't mean that our troops shouldn't have more armor, but to claim that this is some sort of proof of Bush Administration incompetence while ignoring the historical perspective is disingenuous at best. That is what Donald Rumsfeld was saying- if you are waiting for 100% perfect conditions before you do anything, then you will be waiting forever, because there is always something more that could be done.

I have the utmost respect for the men and women of our military. They knowingly risk their lives for our cause, and they are heroes because of it.

It is interesting that you bring up Vietnam. Our loss in Vietnam was not a military defeat- it was a political one. Yes- we need to avoid the mistakes that were made in Vietnam, but before we can do that we need to understand just what those mistakes were. Here is an opinion piece by former Sec of Defense Melvin Laird. I hope you read it. Iraq is a very winnable war- we have already made tremendous progress towards our goals. But our future success there depends just as much on what happens here as what happens in the ground in Iraq. Wavering in our commitment to finish what we started is a sure-fire way to turn this into another Vietnam.

To these politicians, democracy naturally means no censorship, and things such as freedom of the press. It will probably come as a great surprise to them when many of these democracies they helped promote elect very theocratic controlling governments that do things such as censor and control the press.

A very important distinction: Western tradition supports not just democracy but constitutional democracy, where minority rights are protected and gov't power is limited. Democracy without the constitutional limits is just mob rule. Someone said, 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner'.

Here's an in-depth, very thoughtful article about the difference between the two.

The pages are in japanese but Kansai Electric has a subsidiary- K-Optic ISP. . K-Optic started 1 gigabit shared internet service in september, 05.

For more details on why such high speed access is taking root in japan, read this article from foreignaffairs.org. Broadband nation

The best coverage of the issue I've seen so far is from Foreign Affairs:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment846 02/kenneth-neil-cukier/who-will-control-the-intern et.html

They place it in perspective, but also point out the nations who are shouting the loudest are also the least free. Overall, a good read.

Fortune ran an article this month on this very subject. Had a nice scientific angle to it, rather than just an emotional-political bias. Also illustrates that lovely topic "natural selection" or "evolution" to be perfectly rude.

The gist of it is, if you dump Tamiflu into the environment to save a bunch of chickens, which is what the Asian governments are discussing [not, as you might think, to save a few sidereal infected humans] you're going to destroy Tamiflu's effectiveness. To put this in perfect perspective for you, if THEY push Tamiflu into the environment when the virus hasn't even crossed over to a human pandemic state, the virus will adapt, and by the time it's crossed over and YOU are SICK AND DYING, Tamiflu will have zero affect on the virus, and YOU will have no defense, making your chance of death about 25% based on historical projections. So Monday, when you get to work, look around, and imagine 1/4 of those people not there because some fucking QUACK in ASIA had to save some DUCKS.

Some cultural suffering v. My survival = ROAST DUCK Here's more background material from Foreign Affairs, written by some smart people that may shed additional light on the subject.

First, immunity is not inherited. Curiously, the 1918 virus mostly killed young people, not old. The reason for that was that the older generation went through a similar virus pandemic 30 years before and had much better immunity against the 1918 strain.

Secondly, the Influenza Virus still exists. It mutates quite a lot and reconstructing the virus from 1918 does not really bring much new, we already have quite an idea how it works. The virus has a few variants and they tend to appears cyclically. The new Bird flu is a close variant, and is certainly out there in the wild.

Thirdly, the same bird flu is in circulation now and is probably going to cause a new pandemic in the next few years. It is a pretty damn good idea to study those bad influenza strains NOW.

Read the following Links:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84401 /laurie-garrett/the-next-pandemic.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84402 /michael-t-osterholm/preparing-for-the-next-pandem ic.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/2005/4.html

In short, we are not talking about a virus that does not exist here. We are talking about a very common virus with a slight mutation. And that particular mutation is very dangerous.

First, immunity is not inherited. Curiously, the 1918 virus mostly killed young people, not old. The reason for that was that the older generation went through a similar virus pandemic 30 years before and had much better immunity against the 1918 strain.

Secondly, the Influenza Virus still exists. It mutates quite a lot and reconstructing the virus from 1918 does not really bring much new, we already have quite an idea how it works. The virus has a few variants and they tend to appears cyclically. The new Bird flu is a close variant, and is certainly out there in the wild.

Thirdly, the same bird flu is in circulation now and is probably going to cause a new pandemic in the next few years. It is a pretty damn good idea to study those bad influenza strains NOW.

Read the following Links:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84401 /laurie-garrett/the-next-pandemic.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84402 /michael-t-osterholm/preparing-for-the-next-pandem ic.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/2005/4.html

In short, we are not talking about a virus that does not exist here. We are talking about a very common virus with a slight mutation. And that particular mutation is very dangerous.

First, immunity is not inherited. Curiously, the 1918 virus mostly killed young people, not old. The reason for that was that the older generation went through a similar virus pandemic 30 years before and had much better immunity against the 1918 strain.

Secondly, the Influenza Virus still exists. It mutates quite a lot and reconstructing the virus from 1918 does not really bring much new, we already have quite an idea how it works. The virus has a few variants and they tend to appears cyclically. The new Bird flu is a close variant, and is certainly out there in the wild.

Thirdly, the same bird flu is in circulation now and is probably going to cause a new pandemic in the next few years. It is a pretty damn good idea to study those bad influenza strains NOW.

Read the following Links:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84401 /laurie-garrett/the-next-pandemic.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84402 /michael-t-osterholm/preparing-for-the-next-pandem ic.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/2005/4.html

In short, we are not talking about a virus that does not exist here. We are talking about a very common virus with a slight mutation. And that particular mutation is very dangerous.

they [citizens of capitalist countries] see their own leaders as paragons of integrity...

It's sarcasm. Which you apparently didn't get, even though you realised something strange was going on...

First, I don't want to be explaining to you what exactly is difficult about discussing race. There are thousands of Americans who already explained it better than I ever can. Google and ye shall find. Second, do you really believe that Communist societies were based on dogma? Do you really think that national power grid, supersonic jet airliners, space ships, high-yield crops, new subways and everything else was created just by following dogma? Must have been pretty good dogma then...

You are a victim of lies. Right after the WW2 some forces in the US started to create and spread anti-Soviet myths. One of the most prominent lies is this article by X. Almost every paragraph in that article is either an outright lie or a crocked and twisted half-truth. This created the basis for large-scale propaganda. Millions of American (and to a large extent European) citizens were told these lies and they believed them, because they couldn't go and check it for themselves and they saw no reason not to trust their government. The American government routinely lies to its citizens, but they still believe it by default...

Almost everything that you think you know about Soviet Union is a lie fabricated by anti-communist forces. Soviet Union was not an evil empire, a totalitarian nightmare, a corrupt Marx-worshiping economic failure or any other propagandist fantasy. It was a normal country with normal people ruled by normal leaders. And as far as countries go, it was a pretty damn successful one and a nice one to live in. It was a country where you could fly a supersonic jet from Moscow to Alma-Ata for 64 roubles (about 100 dollars, I guess), not for 3000 dollars it would take you to fly on a Concord from London to New-York.

Communism is a wonderful idea, Soviet Union was a good (though not perfect) implementation of this idea and as a country it was much better than any alternative. Despite what your media tells you (do you still believe it?), people there were generally happy and most people in post-socialist countries either wouldn't mind going back or would give anything to go back. Ask people of Georgia (not the US state, the country), whether they would prefer to live in 1950s under Stalin or in today's "independent" "democratic" Georgia. I am sure more than half wouldn't hesitate for a second before chosing the first option.

That may be the last headline we read for years if the worst case of public health scares actually occurs. How long will the internet stay running if there is only 1-2 techs per city standing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4209615

From:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84402 /michael-t-osterholm/preparing-for-the-next-pandem ic.html

"A number of recent events and factors have significantly heightened concern that a specific near-term pandemic may be imminent. It could be caused by H5N1, the avian influenza strain currently circulating in Asia. At this juncture scientists cannot be certain. Nor can they know exactly when a pandemic will hit, or whether it will rival the experience of 1918-19 or be more muted like 1957-58 and 1968-69. The reality of a coming pandemic, however, cannot be avoided."

Michael T. Osterholm, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy

The core point is that in 1918 without air travel
the disease covered the entire world, with
modern movement, millions could be dead before
it even registers on the global awareness.

Very scary stuff. No one will care about 9/11 or Iraq when the big one hits...

In effect, the current administration decided that the telco and cable were sufficient compition and allowed everyone else to be squeezed. Niether of these have an incetive to provide high bandwidth because it would squeeze other bussiness units.

A very good and recent analysis of this is in foreign affairs. It details the policy change that lead to the US becoming a technological backwater.

Pakistan wasn't a country at one time.

Well, you're lucky to have all these choices. But you may not have so many soon.

The FCC is releasing the telcos from having to sell the last mile to your house to others. So far, they're offering contracts, but for how long ?

The telephone industry AND the cable industry are consolidating. MCI anyone ? Adelphia ? Pretty soon you're gonna have 2 choices. Then where's the competition.

Municipal networks don't necessarily mean municipal ISPs. Think about an open municipal network that's open to Joe's Internet as well as Verizon, SBC and Comcast.

There's an article in Foreign Affairs that you should look at. It talks about how Japan jumped past us in terms of deployment of high-speed internet. It's not about municipal networks, but the Japanese government did a lot to guide competition in ways that the Bush FCC could learn from.

My choices are 26.4K dialup and satellite. There's no cable where I live AND my phone company has 8.5 billion dollars to buy another company but not what it takes to put DSL in for the 750 families in my valley. Municipal broadband looks pretty good from here - it probably wouldn't take much taxpayer money either....

I think that ``looming labor shortage'' refers to their looming demographic crisis.

Japan's population is aging fast. They're getting older at the rate of one year per year, of course, but they aren't breeding fast enough to replace themselves. That's going to have lots of effects on Japan, most of them bad. One of those bad effects will be a labor shortage. You see, the number of people who are both willing and physically able to work is going to fall off as the current generation of workers gets too old to work.

Europe is facing the same problem, and they're dealing with it via gastarbeiters. Apparently, Japan is going to deal with it using robots.

These kinds of scary FUD stories come up again and again, but the problem is not world production, it is a distribution problem. So while US farmers are payed to produce too much food and while thousands of tonnes of food go to rot in Canada, African's are left to starve.

The real obstacle to the world's food issues have far more to do with economics, politics and popular will rather than the production capacity of the planet. Perhaps this won't be a big deal anyway, the UN forcasts that the earth's population will begin to decline in our lifetimes

He basically wrote all these economic books and once he was hired by the Bush administration, he contradicts his writings.

For an economically-informed discussion of outsouring, see this article by Daniel Drezner.