Both Parties Ignore the Facts

An anonymous reader writes "Any democrat will tell you the republicans ignore the facts. Any republican will tell you the democrats ignore the facts. Turns out they're right. A new study monitored brain activity of partisans; they shun logic and use emotional processing centers to justify their candidate's contradictory statements. 'With their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.'"

Comments

Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

The definition of authoritarian is, at its most basic, one who ignores the facts. History repeatedly shows that the more government tries to get involved, the worse things get. Even in US history we see how politicians have led to death, poverty and addictions. When alcohol was illegal, the mob became the new provider. When cocaine was made illegal, the gangs created crack and cocaine blends for what used to be a positive medicinal product (ask any european dentist).

I have to call shens on this article though. I see a few problems:

A new study monitored brain activity of partisans

Since when do supporters of either party have brains?

they shun logic and use emotional processing centers to justify their candidate's contradictory statements.

Emotions? Taking hard earned wealth from people you don't know with the threat of a gun or jail is not what I consider emotionally-stable or even emotionally-available. Supporting either party offers just that -- free money by forcing others to part with it against their will.

Be Democrat locally. Be Republican locally. Join communities that accept your views and were you can truly vote with your feet if you disagree -- maybe moving a few miles. When you bring your authoritarian mandates to the federal government, you force your will on people who don't accept your authority. Even though I am an anarcho-capitalist, I do see value in the Constitution. Uphold it, stop worrying about the rest of the country or the rest of the world or even the rest of your state. Focus on your community and not only will these studies not matter, but there won't be any facts to ignore as long as you're living with those you agree with.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[voice_of_all_reason]

Uphold it, stop worrying about the rest of the country or the rest of the world or even the rest of your state.

If you can, more power to you. The problem is, the rest of the country/world/state won't stop worrying about you.

Take the Jihad on Smoking, for example.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[jim_v2000]

Definition of authoritarian adj 1: characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government" [syn: autocratic, dictatorial, despotic, tyrannical] 2: likened to a dictator in severity [syn: dictatorial] 3: expecting unquestioning obedience; "he was imperious and dictatorial"; "the timid child of authoritarian parents"; "insufferably overbearing behavior toward the waiter" [syn: dictatorial, overbearing] n : a person behaves in an tyrannical manner; "my boss is a dictator who makes everyone work overtime" [syn: dictator]

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[ari_j]

Please share your dictionary. It is not the same as mine, which defines authoritarian as favoring blind submission to authority and/or favoring centralized monarchy or oligarchy with no limits on their power.

To be perfectly fair, authoritarianism comes in many forms, some of which are blind to the facts (Nero) and others of which are not (Stalin). The common thread is lack of any check on power, which is what we're working our way towards the more people rely on the federal government. And, by "people," I mostly mean entitlement-mentality asshats.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

Change your dictionary.

Both parties are to blame for the rise in power of the central government. These politicians are mandated by the Constitution to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and they've failed that. I have a solution for those that violate the law they promise to abide by or create.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

Take the Jihad on Smoking, for example.

Actually, I blogged about smoking yesterday. The town my church is in is thinking of banning the SALE of cigarettes at all stores. They'll watch their convenience stores go bankrupt as many of them make a decent profit on cigarettes.

Yet I'd rather see cigarettes banned by stupid towns (people will drive a town over) than banned at the state or federal level. The same is true of cocaine, alcohol, porn, whatever -- if you want to ban it, just do it at the local level and I'll avoid your town if it is a product I support.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[bombadillo]

History repeatedly shows that the more government tries to get involved, the worse things get.

This really depends. If you are talking about issues on personally morality then you are correct. The alcohol and drug wars are a great example of the government trying to legislate morals. Government can not help a person find inner peace, only the individual can do that.

However, the government is generally succesful when implementing a communities infrastructure. Examples would be TVA and the Highway system. These infrastructures are the foundation of our modern economy. We can thank the government for that.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[smittyoneeach]

Even in US history we see how politicians have led to death, poverty and addictions. When alcohol was illegal, the mob became the new provider.

Politicians, mob: would that the distinction were sharper.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

they shun logic and use emotional processing centers to justify their candidate's contradictory statements.

Emotions? Taking hard earned wealth from people you don't know with the threat of a gun or jail is not what I consider emotionally-stable or even emotionally-available. Supporting either party offers just that -- free money by forcing others to part with it against their will.

Very clever!

Your response is a pretty good example on how logic is shunned and emotional processing centers are used to justify political statements. You appeal to strong emotions such as anger and fear when you start talking about threats, guns, jail and force. There is no logic involved, just emotion.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

That was sort of the point -- to be funny :) Unfortunately the emotions of anger come first, I guess.

I think slashdot needs a "post a photo of your face right now" feature, hah.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Hatta]

You should think about this article a little harder. It's not just the parties in power that ignore the facts, but any of us with very strong convictions. That's as true for the revolutionaries as those currently in power.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Ours]

top worrying about the rest of the country or the rest of the world or even the rest of your state
Yeah sure, what the World needs is the US ignoring even more what's happening elsewhere. I would have rather said "stop trying to fix the rest of the State/Country/World". But keeping in touch with what happens in our World while working to improve our close communities is probably more positive.
Some communities kind mind their own business when their business is influenced by a very close-by neighbour. They have to work together in common interest. But sure, I guess that in the US there are plenty of far-and-away communities who just have to take care of themselves and not worry about the rest. They just need to keep in touch with what's happening.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you consider it Authoritarian to Buy first post every single article with your * * * * * * * * ?????

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Hatta]

However, the government is generally succesful when implementing a communities infrastructure. Examples would be TVA and the Highway system. These infrastructures are the foundation of our modern economy. We can thank the government for that.

Government projects are generally extremely wasteful. Anything good the government would do will be done more efficiantly when the people involved are not coerced. And besides, if free individuals won't work together to make their own roads, why should they be forced to?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[SirTwitchALot]

Since when do supporters of either party have brains?

That's a loaded response. Such a statement makes me question whether the poster is thinking logically, or just ignoring facts to reward his particular ideology. I'd be willing to bet a brain scan of the original poster while reading this article would show many of the responses he is trying to deride.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[bombadillo]

Government projects are generally extremely wasteful. Anything good the government would do will be done more efficiantly when the people involved are not coerced. And besides, if free individuals won't work together to make their own roads, why should they be forced to?

Corporate projects are also extremely wasteful. If you ever work for a major company you will see that things could be done cheaper with a smaller company. However, the big company always gets chosen for their track record and stability. The Government is similar if one person leaves the government it won't fall apart. Build any roads lately? I bet you use roads on a daily basis.....

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I think this is the best troll in years.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[B3ryllium]

It's called a webcam, and no one with a Y chromosome (or two) should have one. :)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Jonny_eh]

Sure, but just wait until they ban it at the next town over, ad infinitum.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the entire Libertarian party were one big troll. I guess each one needs to help out in their own little way though.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Jon Luckey]

Anything good the government would do will be done more efficiantly when the people involved are not coerced.

Q: How many libertarians does it take to stop a nazi tank column?
A: None. They prefer to let the invisible hand of the market take care of it.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

By commanding us to change our dictionaries, you are assuming authority. I, for one, don't appreciate having your will imposed upon me.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Admiral Ag]

Look up "market failure" and "collective action problems". Then, if you can master your emotions, change your ridiculous politics.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[TWX]

Government projects are generally extremely wasteful. Anything good the government would do will be done more efficiantly when the people involved are not coerced. And besides, if free individuals won't work together to make their own roads, why should they be forced to?

The entire point in government originally was that it was free individuals working together to accomplish something. That's what, "Of the People, By the People, For the People," means. It's corrupted now.

It's an economy of scale, too. Something paid for by a few thousand people for the benefit of those people will cost a certain amount. Something paid for by a larger group of people, like a few million, should cost less per person and achieve the same per-person results, sometimes drastically cheaper.

Also remember, the government didn't use to tax in the manner that they do now, or nearly as heavily as they do now. Taxes were predominately put upon imports, and that paid for the government. It wasn't until the 20th Century that an income tax successfully stuck against the populace from the Federal level.

I don't believe that anarchy would work any better than communism worked. Anarchy would require everyone to behave else things would degenerate into violent chaos as individuals who have a desire to achieve more, posess more, or have more status than others would exploit a lack of authority defined from the people to achieve their gains. Government perpetuates law enforcement and thus the possibility for recourse or retribution if an individual seeks gain at the peril of others, and I don't believe that society can ever do without that, as much as it would be utopian if it could be achieved.

Back to your original argument, wouldn't, "...the people involved...work[ing] together to make their own roads..." be a form of Government itself?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[giorgosts]

From what we can assume here in Europe, the last election was the most politicized the US has had for a long time, ie the core issues were discused about economy, security and US's role in the world. The general perception is that Americans don't believe that their life is going to get better through politics. Last elections' example though changed that. People have to realize that the only way to push society forward is through participation in the free exchange of ideas and involvment in politics, firstly by making an informed decision, ie. voting.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[six11]

OT: I don't know anything about what unanimocracy's web site is all about, but I have to say that the four images at the top of that page are f*&#@ng hilarious.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

So towns should be able to sells guns to whomever they want as well?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Admiral Ag]

Except that you are completely mistaken. The point of government is to restrict our freedom in certain respects. Of course that sounds bad, but in fact it improves our lives immeasurably.

You assume that just because everyone has an interest in promoting an outcome, that this outcome will be achieved. Please Google "The Prisoner's Dilemma" for information as to why this is not the case. Then think about how many of the good things we enjoy would be subject to the same problem as the Prisoner's Dilemma if we didn't have the government to compel us to fund them.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

History repeatedly shows that the more government tries to get involved, the worse things get. Even in US history we see how politicians have led to death, poverty and addictions.

"History shows" is a very broad statement. You're generalizing thousands of years of humanity. It's a statment that covers thousands of governments and billions of people. If you're trying to convince me of something, don't start with the authoritative-sounding "history shows" phrase. Thinktanks and pundits often use this tactic - it's flashy but not convincing.

When alcohol was illegal, the mob became the new provider. When cocaine was made illegal, the gangs created crack and cocaine blends for what used to be a positive medicinal product (ask any european dentist).

This is a statement about supply/demand and economics. It's not enough to generalize from these examples to all government intervention. The particulars of both the "drug war" and prohibition are very relevant - race, social mood, economics and political pandering all play roles. All are relevant to an understanding of these policy failures.

Taking hard earned wealth from people you don't know with the threat of a gun or jail is not what I consider emotionally-stable or even emotionally-available. Supporting either party offers just that -- free money by forcing others to part with it against their will.

Let's parse this:

Taking hard earned wealth from people you don't know...

How does "knowing" or "not knowing" somebody impact the ethics of wealth-taking? If I know you and rob you, is that ethically "better" than we being strangers? Maybe your issue is the "wealth-taking".

...with the threat of a gun or jail...

All governments tax, all governments take wealth from the nation's citizens and all governments usually tax with an implicit threat of jail. There's a reason for that - some people don't want to pay. But are all taxes immoral? If you answer yes, then you see governments as intrinsicly immoral or else you have a vision of human nature that isn't supported by fact.

is not what I consider emotionally-stable or even emotionally-available.

Ah - we must submit to your standard of emotional stability. No thanks.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

Absolutely. Professor John Lott discovered that when more guns are sold to peaceful citizens, crime drops.

To use an overused example, imagine that you are a criminal and you have two towns to choose to rob a house from. One town lets anyone have a gun for any reason. The other town bans guns entirely. Which town will you go to?

Gun regulations give criminals the equivalent of a sign that says "Rob Me!" in your yard.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[masklinn]

At one point, everyone "needing" the product will use/go to the last few locations still allowing it, and these locations will reap so much money and wealth from these products that they just won't have any reason to ban them too.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[RobinH]

Anything good the government would do will be done more efficiantly when the people involved are not coerced.

This is true of government projects, in general. The Canadian health care system is a counter-example, of course, since it provides more efficient health care (due to substantially lower administrative costs) than the American "system", but of course there are other issues with a centralized mandatory system. I've used both systems, and the Canadian one is more efficient with my money, and I'm even in a high tax bracket.

However, when you think of major economic recessions, such as the depression, the only way to get out of such a situation is for people to spend money, but it's against their nature to do so as free individuals. The way it's regulated now is that governments control the interest rate, so they lower it in a slow economy to get people to take money out of the bank and spend it on things you normally finance, like houses, cars, machinery, etc. Conversely when the economy is going gang-busters, the government raises interest rates which stops inflation from going out of control, which would in turn lead to a deep recession. These controls instituted in the latter half of the 20th century have led to much more stability and prosperity overall. This is something that the government does well. Other ways the government can get an economy moving is by spending money on infrastructure or military, even if you're not taking it in as tax money. WWII ended the depression, first for Germany, then for the rest of the world because governments were forced to spend money they couldn't afford to spend. It was counter-intuitive at the time, but it worked.

Thinking about it some more, the whole concept of currency is something we are better off having, and you can't manage currency efficiently at a local level.

So I find your comments to be overly broad, but your heart is in the right place. Building a bridge in Alaska for 50 people or whatever is complete stupidity, and your best example of government waste.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Read the beginning of http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap16a.asp

One excerpt:
"In many parts of many countries, bandit groups win the passive consent of
the majority in a particular area and establish what amounts to effective
governments, or States, within the area. The difference between a
government and a criminal band, then, is a matter of degree rather than
kind, and the two often shade into each other."

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[TWX]

I live with the reality that exists or has been demonstrated, rather than with fantasy. We've seen what happens without government. Somalia. Afganistan. The Middle East, before Europe attempted to assert itself.

With no government, people attempt to take power. It happens in the form of dictatorships, theocracies, 'councils' of those looking to gain, etc.

Anarchy is great, in theory. Unfortunately as soon as you add people to the mix, then you have disagreements, which leads to fights. On a large enough scale you develop factions, which lead to direct conflict, action, and violence. And, you keep getting stuck with some form of organization, which is government.

I'd rather have a potentially just government that actually has laws to protect me from other individuals and from itself, even if it doesn't do the best job of it, than to have no law.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[masklinn]

That's because government projects are (supposed to be) driven by other goals than positive monetary ROI within 3 years: reliability, durability (horizon of vision > 20 years), backward compatibility with existing structures/projects, forward compatibility with future structures/projects, national pride, quality of life of the citizens (at the town/state/nation level), common good, national independance, ...

Theorically, the one and only goal of a government is not to make money but to improve the quality of life for the people it "governs" in their name.

Now, I do know that this is as much of an utopy as capitalism, communism or liberalism (e.g. that it Just Can't Work in the Real World for various reasons including but not limited to human stupidity, greed, and overall behaviour), but losing money is part of being a government (even though wasting money isn't) and you can't judge the behaviour of a government based on the behaviour of an individual or a corporation

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Art Tatum]

I like to think of it as a "Free Market of Laws." Municipalities compete on tax codes, restrictions on drugs, tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, and on anything else government tends to get involved in. Unfortunately, there are so many people with Sacred Cows (abortion, the "temperance" movement, slavery, drug use, whatever) that they believe must be universally abolished or allowed, that they'll never allow local populations to compete on it and see what's *really* best. They just can't stand the fact that somebody, somewhere, is doing something they deem wrong, or not allowing something they deem necessary. In the process, they become advocates of monopoly power in moral government.

But how many of those people will (rightfully) complain about monopolies in the private sector?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[PriceIke]

You just described trying to buy alcohol in Arkansas. It's laughable to make it nearly impossible to legally purchase a product that is legal to own, legal to transport and legal to consume.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[CaspianXI]

This about this -- murder is wrong and no matter what you tell me, and no matter how persuasive you speak, I'm not going to accept murder as OK. Refusing to accept the opponents' arguments isn't always bad...

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Dlugar]

It's called the confirmation bias, and it happens to everyone. Even me.

Whenever you see information, your brain is hard-wired to interpret that information as best fits your current conclusions, and to forget or ignore parts of that information that don't fit as well.

Once you know the confirmation bias is there, however, you can more easily see yourself doing it, and perhaps mitigate the effects more easily. But it's still there!

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[PriceIke]

Only "authority" over facts. His recommendation to change your dictionary could have just as easily been construed as a helpful push in the direction of the facts. When one is right (as in, correct), they tend to want other people to be right, too.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Shads]

There's a reason large cities in texas have such low violent crime rates compared to other parts of the country.

A larger %age of the citizens have guns. on them.

By gun regulationists reasoning texas should have a HIGHER rate of violent crime.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

That's logical. If you only sell guns to people who'd never misuse them, of course crime will drop (or at the very least, not go up). However, ensuring sale of firearms only to such people, and ensuring that such firearms will never be stolen and misused is impossible. The statistical arguments for both sides conflict to be honest.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[darjen]

I live with the reality that exists or has been demonstrated, rather than with fantasy. We've seen what happens without government. Somalia. Afganistan. The Middle East, before Europe attempted to assert itself.

The countries you cite as examples are in a ruinous condition precicely because of an outcome that huge failures in government produced. This directly contradicts the ideas you are trying to uphold.

With no government, people attempt to take power. It happens in the form of dictatorships, theocracies, 'councils' of those looking to gain, etc.

In a place with no government and no laws, I suspect that it would be mighty difficult for someone to take central control of an infrastructure that didn't exist. Especially if the citizens had guns to protect themselves. Also, for anyone who is able to gain a little power, it would probably be on a much smaller scale than the current USA government.

Anarchy is great, in theory. Unfortunately as soon as you add people to the mix, then you have disagreements, which leads to fights. On a large enough scale you develop factions, which lead to direct conflict, action, and violence. And, you keep getting stuck with some form of organization, which is government.

You will always have people who commit crimes. There is no possible way that a government will ever be able to stop that. The most heinous crimes of theft and mass murder in history have all been commited by governments, inluding the American government. Governments themself are the sole cause of the "direct action, conflict and violence" of which you speak. In a land without the mass concentration of resources that a powerful central government provides, it would hardly be pretty hard to carry out such mass murder and robbery which is currently perpetuated today all over the world.

I'd rather have a potentially just government that actually has laws to protect me from other individuals and from itself, even if it doesn't do the best job of it, than to have no law.

I'd like to see an example of one single government that has ever been just. If there ever has existed one it was surely corrupted pretty quickly. Power corrupts, it is precisely because people have a violent nature that makes it so hard to maintain an incorruptable organization without seroius violations of freedom and liberty.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Courtland]

The only thing that blows about that model is that going through multiple municipalities sucks. As a real life example, the city of Carbondale, IL does not allow you to pssess a pistol (and it might even extend to all firearms, I'm not sure and can't be bothered to look it up right now) within its limits. Fair enough, but what if you're driving though from one town that allows it, to another? Well, you can get fined/arrested for breaking a municipal ordinance. That's the only city in the state that I'm aware of that has this law, but imagine if every city had a entire catalog of different laws than its neighbors. It would be a bitch to figure out all the different stupid laws municipalities like to pass, and then remember them when you visit each one. Stupid shit like what time the liquor store closess is no big deal, but when it comes down to vehicle codes and weapons possession laws, they can vary greatly.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[bach37]

Miami has the highest crime rate in the country, and has for some time. And the largest amount of guns per person. Highest murder rate, everything. There are plenty of arguments on both sides for this debate.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Lord_Slepnir]

Government projects are generally extremely wasteful. Anything good the government would do will be done more efficiantly when the people involved are not coerced. And besides, if free individuals won't work together to make their own roads, why should they be forced to?

ok, I'll bite.

People, on an individual basis, are generally greedy and miopic (especially in this culture). They will only spend money on things that will benefit them instantly. They will not spend money on infrastructure that will benefit them in the long term. Think about a small town out in the middle of no where that is only accessable by a small dirt road. The farmers in the area would want to spend the money on paving the road to help them get thier crops to the market in BigCity, but the local shop clerk wouldn't. All of his customers are in walking distance, and he only has to go into down 1-2 a month to get a few crates of supplies. In fact, anyone who didn't have a direct business link to an outside market wouldn't, even though it would benefit them. The farmer would be able to sell his crops easier, and would have more money to spend at the shop clerk's store, etc.

There is a lot of waste in the government, but saying that we should just abolish all of it and go to an anarchist system is just crazy. There are just some things that only the government can do.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[VAXcat]

But, if you allow guns to be sold to anyone, and the majority of people are peaceful, law abiding, life-andproperty rights respecting people, then it's a win. If you believe the vast majority of people are vile, despicable, lawless and likely to commit gun crimes, then civilization is lost already (and you are probably a democrat).

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[bmalia]

I would hate to live in your town. As a smoker, banning the sale of smoking would be frustraiting but would not stop me smoking. I would make weekly trips to the next town over and stock up.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

Culture, economic status, drugs, desperation, etc, have far more to do with violent crime than how many citizens carry guns.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attitude, though held with benevolent intentions, is exactly the sort of international policy that helped lead to 9/11.

Every time the US becomes the international Santa Claus--every time it "chooses sides" in an international dispute--it creates a US ally... but it also creates a US enemy. When I'm helping your enemy out with food and supplies, you don't tend to regard me highly.

And we're supposed to be surprised when one of these enemies, that we created via our international policy, bites back at us? Give me a break.

Washington and Jefferson had the right idea: peaceful commerce with all nations, yet entangling alliances (and consequentially enemies) with none. We've got to start staying out of international affairs unless they pose a direct threat to us. If the people of this country want to help others not in this country, I think that's great--just use your own pocket money and let US taxes take care of the US first.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but it has fairly harsh gun laws, which means that it's the criminals who have the guns, not most ordinary citizens. "Guns per person" is a completely meaningless number.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

What percentage are legally owned and registered? I think the previous poster's allegation is that in cities where many law-abiding people obtain guns legally, it lowers crime rates. You statement about Miami has no bearing on his if the ratio of illegal to legal guns is high.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[bmalia]

Criminal's also like to avoid houses with dogs. Let's give the dogs guns!

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

I don't like any gun laws or regulations. I believe people who are peaceful will learn to use guns properly, take proper care of them, and know how to use them in defense only. I believe when peaceful people have the opportunity to be armed, the criminals will have a much bigger risk ahead of them.

Crime, right now, is very unprofitable in towns without gun regulations. But in cities like Chicago, we see the same guy (in the news today) who robbed something like 9 stores in the past week and no one did anything. My retail stores that I owned until recently were always armed, and I've displayed a gun twice to defend myself. Just displaying a gun is usually enough to send the criminal running, or even better, puts them into a shower of tears and pleadings.

If crime goes up, I'll start planting criminals who attempt to harm me or my property. If more people had this attitude, I think crime would go down.

This guy in Chicago robbing random stores really peeved me. The news media said that the police said to just give up the cash and let him go, and to try to get his license plate number. Sorry, if he came to my store or home and asked for money, he'd get his cash in lead.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[IamTheRealMike]

This argument is often used to justify lack of gun control over an entire country. I'm not sure if that's the context you were implying, but if so then this argument only makes sense when talking about towns as opposed to nations.

In other words, I don't think your average burglar would be willing to fly across the Atlantic to do some robbing simply to avoid the possibility of encountering an armed home-owner.

Obviously, some crime is international, for instance after the introduction of EMV in France card fraud in the UK went up as fraudsters moved across the channel. But typically the sorts of crimes that move around like that are the type that wouldn't be stopped by guns anyway ...

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[rabbit994]

Sure why not? Places like Vermont have very few laws on guns. In fact, concealed carry is legal there with no permitting. They don't see the need to change it either. Most people from Vermont doesn't see the problem with it.

New York City on the other hand has pretty strict gun laws and they want more. So they are working on getting more gun laws. However, what bothers me is Mr. Bloomburg trying to convince the rest of the country to get on board with his NYC gun laws which wouldn't work (or be needed) in a state like Vermont.

Personally, I believe blaming guns for violent crime is simply moving the problem from people to inanimate objects. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I would agree guns can help. The solution to crime is not just one thing, it takes a bunch of different things however locking up violent offenders seems to help solve the problem. I think the libertians have it right.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[meringuoid]

I like to think of it as a "Free Market of Laws." Municipalities compete on tax codes, restrictions on drugs, tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, and on anything else government tends to get involved in. Unfortunately, there are so many people with Sacred Cows (abortion, the "temperance" movement, slavery, drug use, whatever) that they believe must be universally abolished or allowed, that they'll never allow local populations to compete on it and see what's *really* best.

The case of slavery doesn't fit here. Suppose Town S has slavery, while Town N does not. In a free market of laws, someone disagreeing with Town S's policy could simply go to Town N. But of course, the people living in Town S who have a problem with slavery are not free to go to Town N, because, well... they're slaves.

A free market is all very well, provided that all participants are free. If some are slaves, then that market is definitely not free.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[mooingyak]

There's a reason large cities in texas have such low violent crime rates compared to other parts of the country.

This presupposes that large cities in Texas have low violent crime rates. They don't.

The three largest cities in Texas would be (in order) Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

All three have higher rates (as of 2002) of Murder, Rape, and Aggravated Assault than NYC, and Houston and Dallas have higher Robbery rates than NYC as well.

NYC has some of the stricter gun control laws in the US.

And in response to the other poster I saw who replied to you, I don't know what Miami gun saturation is, but the violent crime rates are no where near the worst in US big cities.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

Haha. Actually, anti-gun advocates always tell me to get a dog instead of my weapons.

Why should I have to take care of the dog 24/7 when I can properly maintain my weapon a few times a month?

If I had a kid in the house, I might consider getting rid of the piece, but I surely wouldn't tell anyone. Hell, you can buy weapons that have been disabled completely, and they still work to chase off criminals.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

The alcohol and drug wars are a great example of the government trying to legislate morals.

It has nothing to do with morals. It has everything to do with money. All prohibitions are about money. It's that simple. The subject never even comes up...except as a mass media distraction.

"Both Parties Ignore the Facts"=Water is wet. Can we be a bit more obvious? Not only do both parties do it, the vast majority of gen pop does also. How do you think these people get re-elected every time? New Slashdot category needed: "Duh!"

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[RebelWithoutAClue]

I think its federal law that if you can show that you're only passing through, transporting a weapon, youre not liable for breaking local gun laws.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

I go to the town where people aren't home during the day and break in then.

Or, for muggings, I target the people who look slow.

The way to avoid getting robbed is to look like you're ready to destroy somebody. It's not about laws.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Greatmoose]

Just have to say, "Damn skippy." Well said.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Firearms are illegal in the District of Columbia. And yet, somehow, criminals seem to have no problem with obtaining them and shooting each other.

I've always found it interesting that shootings in DC don't make the news nearly as often as shootings in locations where guns aren't already illegal. Almost as if the news organizations don't want to admit that an outright ban doesn't work ;)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

Not the vast majority, no, but in many areas... enough are.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

And no gun regulations is the equivalent of a sign that says "be sure to kill me before you rob me because I have a gun"

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Radres]

There was some investigative news show demonstrating the techniques that home robbers use. As an example, they had an ex-con break into the reporter's house. The reporter had dogs and all the ex-con had to do was pet the dogs and they left him alone. So unless you're going to have a trained attack dog, it's probably a waste.

Also, you must be pretty brave to draw a fake gun on a criminal who potentially has a real gun himself. Even if you get the drop on him, what's to say he isn't going to try something?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

I wasn't aware people robbing stores deserved the death penalty, nor was I aware you were appointed head of vigilante justice. The right thing to do is fork over the money if he's got a gun, not try to shoot him and hope you don't miss. Money is only money.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[williamhooper]

However, ensuring sale of firearms only to such people, and ensuring that such firearms will never be stolen and misused is impossible.

Which is the exact reason gun laws don't work, only the law-abiding obey them. Do you really think that someone that has decided to rob or murder is concerned about breaking a gun law?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[whig]

Lott's analysis is in some doubt. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about the controversy.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Chris Burke]

It's called the confirmation bias, and it happens to everyone. Even me.

But it doesn't happen to me! I'm different, and always view things based solely on logic. Mmm... It doesn't happen to me. It doesn't happen to me. I'm purely rational, never emotional. Oh yeah, that's the stuff. Right in the pleasure centers... It doesn't happen to me...

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[hswerdfe]

The entire point in government originally was that it was free individuals working together to accomplish something.

Wild man...here I thought the first government was an attempt to control the citizens. while gaining power and wealth for the one(s) in charge.

you learn something new everyday.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

It isn't just up to the police. You need to provide real oppertunities for people. Who is more likely to rob you, a poor crack addict or someone with a full-time job who isn't blowing their money on drugs? People need hope and jobs.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

It isn't so simple. The idea is to make guns harder for criminals to get -- Not impossible. Just because you can't stop every criminal from getting a gun doesn't mean you can't reduce the number. We can't stop every rapist either, but even a 10% reduction in rapes is worth pursuing.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[citizenr]

Like USA and UK? hmm lemmeseee, USA.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[FungiFromYuggoth]

That's ironic - you seem to have ignored some key facts involving John Lott. Pulling stats out of bodily orifices != "discovery", and creating sock puppets to defend your arguments doesn't even rise to the level of scientific rigor seen in the Professor Emeritus of Gilligan's Island.

The answer to your example is: "The house where people aren't home, and don't have a security system". There's a reason why burglaries aren't news, and "home invasions" are - burglary is a much lower-risk occupation when nobody is around.

You can see some real facts on burglary statistics here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreporte d/02-nburglary08.html (I hope you won't get the vapors changing from Mary Rosh to the Real World). The FBI stats show that the Northeast (home of gun control) has the lowest rate of burglaries per person, and is the only region where burglaries are declining.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Fanther]

Professor John Lott discovered that when more guns are sold to peaceful citizens, crime drops.

Did he?:

"Within a year, two determined econometricians, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin (1998) published a study showing that if they changed the statistical model a little bit, or applied it to different segments of the data, Lott and Mustard's findings disappeared"

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[photon317]

Jesus, did I just hear you say, "the right thing to do is to fork over the money if he's got a gun"? By some very temporally localized definition of the word "safe", that might be the safest course of action, but how can you say that's the right thing to do? It's certainly the wrong thing for the criminal to do. Why is it the right thing to do to give up your property (or anything else)?

This isn't a matter of execution for robbery or vigilante justice. Follow the logic (try to turn off that emotion center from the article):

1) Stranger demands your property/cash, and has no right to do so.
2) You say, "no", which is about the only reasonable response to such a request.
3) Robber pulls gun, threatens your life in order to convince you to say yes.
4) Your response to the unlawful threat of lethal force by this criminal is pretty much unbounded.

If you decided to shoot him in order to stop this threat of unlawful lethal force, and succeed in doing so, you've done nothing wrong. The important distinction here is that you are not shooting someone for trying to take $50 from you. You're shooting them in order to stop the unlawful threat on your life, to defend yourself against lethal force. If they hadn't brought the lethal force to the table, then a simple "no" would have sufficed to protect one's property.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[madprogrammer]

This reminds me of a quote from a TV show I saw when I was a kid:
guy calling into radio show with southern accent: "You know, if everyone carried around a sawed-off shutgun, there'd be a lot less crime!"
DJ's response: "Yeah, and a lot less people too, dork!"

To paraphrase - you're not going to stop criminals by giving everyone guns. You're just going to create "stronger" criminals - and a lot more people will die, criminals and non-criminals included.

Based on your example, I expect all the criminals robbing the town without guns, will have gotten their guns from the other town. They'll build up a veritable collection of guns, and once the town without guns increases their security (either through police, technology, or guns) then do you think the criminals are going to stop? No, they're gonna say, "Well... this town over here has a bunch of security now. This other town over here has no security, but i know a lot of'em have guns. But I bet I have *more* guns. Yeah, let's go boys!" So now, instead of some material goods being stolen, people are getting killed, maimed, what have you.

Look, the point of gun control is not to punish responsible citizens. The point is to make it harder for criminals to get guns.

I want to tie this back in to cigarettes, but my views on cigarettes are skewed due to public health care. Guns on the other hand create the same issues universally.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dada21]

Money is only money

No, money is not only money. Money is a store of labor -- my labor. Laboring is part of why we live.

If someone decides they want to threaten me, on my property, and take from me, I will teach them the lesson of using forcing aggressively. I am fully in support of using force defensively on your own property to repel an attack, an intruder or any criminal. If they think they can take what is mine, they have another thing coming.

There is no difference to me between a thief, a rapist, a murderer or an arsonist. My body is my property, my land is my property and my business is my property. If my property is harmed directly by someone for bad reasons, I will defend my property completely.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

But on what basis do you reject murder? Is there any reasoning or logic behind your decision, or are you only blindly rejecting that which conflits with your beliefs?

There is a difference. If you have a firm conviction based on reason and understanding, you will most likely adhear to it under any conditions. If you are only driven by an emotional impetus, no mater how strong you believe your conviction, you will most likely be easily swayed by other emotionally driven forces, like mob mentality or jealousy.

How many murders do you think are commited every year by people who believe murder is wrong? Or, does your rational mental facilities ceased functioning at this question, and you blindly reject that anyone who commits murder could believe that it is wrong.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Johnboi Waltune]

Jesus, did I just hear you say, "the right thing to do is to fork over the money if he's got a gun"? By some very temporally localized definition of the word "safe", that might be the safest course of action, but how can you say that's the right thing to do?

In concealed carry permit classes, they tell you it costs about $20,000 to defend yourself in court when you use lethal force on someone, regardless if it was justified or not. Criminals usually have families, and they will usually file a wrongful death lawsuit against you. If you're carrying less than $20,000, it makes more financial sense to give it to the thief rather than shoot him.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[williamhooper]

Do gun laws actually make it harder for criminals to get guns? Drug laws haven't made it too hard to get drugs, it just drives up the price. Prohibition didn't make it harder to get alcohol, it just drove up the price.

Gun laws only make it more difficult for a criminal to get a gun if they don't have time to plan. So instead of getting a gun to kill a guy, they beat him with a baseball bat, stab him with a knife, or heck, shoot him with a crossbow.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[SilverspurG]

Where there are people who need to travel or engage in commerce there will always be roads built. We don't need government to accomplish this task. We do need an organized and coordinated effort but the government has proven in many ways that their involvement in infrastructure is an excuse to cash in on the resulting graft.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[hahiss]

Other people have ably commented on the fact that ``Professor John Lott" (woo-hoo, a positive remark about a professor!) is a fraud, but let me add this:

Texas has a fairly permissive concealed carry licensing policy: take a class to show you can shoot straight, pay a fee, and you're basically good to go. This hasn't exactly helped people in Dallas or Houston remain crime free---despite the fact that the concealed carry law requires concealment so that criminals cannot tell who is carrying.

Now, to answer your rhetorical question: if the town with guns is substantially wealthier, I'm going there to commit my crimes. I'm just going to be clever about my criminality, and, barring that, I'm going to be more inclined to shoot first while committing the crime. (If the reward is high enough, then the risk is justified.)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[h4rm0ny]

Change your dictionary.

I think we'll all stick with the commonly accepted definition, thanks - the purpose of language being to communicate with other people and all that.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[StevoJ]

Guns do put a deadly long-range combat weapon in the hands of your average nervous and broke drug-addict though. Plus, there's no good reason to have them, except for the fact that other people have got them. Wouldn't a better solution be to take them away from everyone?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[lynx_user_abroad]

And the same should be true for nukes?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Politburo]

You again.

History repeatedly shows that the more government tries to get involved, the worse things get.

False. Labor protections, consumer safety, environmental protections, fire departments (they used to be private!), health protections, financial protections (think FDIC, SEC, Fed Reserve [quasi-governmental]), construction standards, social insurance, infrastructure, protecting the nation, the list goes on. Only people like you think these are bad things. The rest of us welcome them.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[eheldreth]

If your looking at this from a purly financial point of view, then that would only make since in the short term. A long term analisis of the problem would show that a criminal that is able to succesfully rob a store once with few complications will likly rob again. So the most financialy sensable thing to do is stop the criminal the first time he attempts to rob your store.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

The government usually only pays for the roads, they generally contract out the work to a construction company, and usually what costs the public extra money is the amount of government oversite in the construction of the roads.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Bluetick]

That would be an interesting statistic, if it were true.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[danaris]

There is no difference to me between a thief, a rapist, a murderer or an arsonist.

It is this kind of thinking that led to the death penalty for thieves back in medieval times (or maybe Dark Ages, not sure of the exact time frame). That led to greatly increased murder rates--after all, if you were going to be killed anyway if you got caught, you might as well kill the people trying to catch you. They can't kill you deader than they were already going to...

Dan Aris

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[mosb1000]

"We can't stop every rapist either, but even a 10% reduction in rapes is worth pursuing."

But doing that by removing the penis of every law abiding male is probably not a good solution. Why would you try a similar approach with guns? Isn't a drastic reduction in personal freedom to help with what is, by comparison, a small problem.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[danaris]

Drug laws haven't made it too hard to get drugs, it just drives up the price. Prohibition didn't make it harder to get alcohol, it just drove up the price.

And in what way does driving up the price not make it harder, hmm?

More people can afford a black-market gun at $20 than at $200, and more can afford one at $200 than at $800. If you drive up the black-market price, it will make it harder for criminals to get guns.

Dan Aris

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[BlewScreen]

So a woman that's about to be raped should just lie there and take it? Rape is not a crime punishable by death in most jurisdictions... If she's armed, she can't shoot her attacker?

What about the cop who is pulling someone over for speeding. If the speeder draws his gun and points it at the cop - w/out firing - the cop is going to do his best to shoot the speeder BEFORE he gets shot himself. Is this wrong? Speeding isn't a crime punishable by death...

If someone attempts to rob me and POINTS A GUN AT ME, s/he is essentially saying that if I do not comply, I will be shot. So, rather than comply, I'll save my own life by taking theirs.

No one is talking about being a vigilante. No one has offered that they'd go out of their way to hunt this guy down and kill him w/out a trial. But if this guy is unlucky enough to chose me (or the guy you're replying to) as his next victim, he won't be taking my money and getting away.

-bs

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Damvan]

The dog protects your property 24/7, while the gun only works when you are there.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Damvan]

To add to your point, in the town with the guns, those guns are worthless if no one is home. And likely to get stolen along with the TV and DVD player.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Jeremi]

I do see value in the Constitution. Uphold it, stop worrying about the rest of the country or the rest of the world or even the rest of your state. Focus on your community and not only will these studies not matter, but there won't be any facts to ignore as long as you're living with those you agree with.

This all sounds fine, except that there are some problems that can't be dealt with on a local level. As an example, if every local community in the U.S. had just stuck with their local issues and not worried about what was going on in Europe in the '30s and '40s, would we all be speaking German now?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[phlinn]

But in a country founded on the concept of liberty, I don't need to justify having something. You need to justify taking it away.

In any case, your statement isn't true. There are good reasons for people to have weapons (there may also be good reasons for certain individuals not to have them, but I'll let you argue that point). Defense from dangerous animals and individuals, hunting, hell even even target practice.

The use of guns as a weapon is a great equalizer, so that the strong can't get as much of an edge on the weak. How many 80 year old individuals could reasonably defend themselves from a 20 year old violent criminal using only melee weapons?

Target shooting is an enjoyable sport that happens to involve something easily used as a deadly weapon, whereas baseball is an enjoyable sport that happens to involve something easily used as a not quite as deadly weapon.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[mosb1000]

"I wasn't aware people robbing stores deserved the death penalty"

It should, because property rights are extremely important to our way of life. Most thieves are not one time offenders, and they each exact a high price on society in general.

"nor was I aware you were appointed head of vigilante justice"

I appointed myself head of vigilante justice, that's how it works.

"The right thing to do is fork over the money if he's got a gun"

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. This is the attitude that makes it so easy for criminals to get away with crimes. If they had to fight for their life every time they wanted to mug someone, a lot less people would be willing to do it. Not only that, but a lot of sexual assault begins with a mugging. You can never really know what someone is going to do once you begin to submit to their violent cohesion.

I really hate it when law enforcement officials say that you should just do whatever criminals say, and they'll take care of it. The police are not a powerful enough enforcement body to protect everyone, everywhere (and I would be afraid of any law enforcement system that was powerful enough to). The fact of the matter is that we have to protect ourselves.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[rabbit994]

I'm sure your feel good solution makes you all warm inside but your solution is going to leave the weak in the hands of the strong and besides, governments have killed 170,000,000 people in 20th century alone. When you disarm the government first, I'll consider it.

Besides, that 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment don't mean much to you obviously. (If your not a US citizen then they don't but /. is American site so I'm assuming that you are)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Jeremi]

I have a solution for those that violate the law they promise to abide by or create.

Yeah, I remember when they tried that one. In Cambodia.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[raddan]

Maybe. More guns means more guns. I am not convinced that fewer guns mean fewer crimes, or even just gun crimes, since criminals won't let what's illegal stop them from doing that which is illegal. However, it doesn't make sense to me that guns should be easy to get, either. If guns are inconvenient to acquire for law-abiders, then they should also be difficult to acquire for criminals who have to either 1) go through the inconvenient process of registering, waiting, and then buying, or 2) acquire them illegally. The difficulty of acquiring them illegally probably depends on where you live.

I'm in favor of making getting guns inconvenient, but LESS inconvenient than acquiring them illegally. People with a legitmate purpose can put up with the process-- assuming that you grant that the state is just enough to have a monopoly on force, then you can also grant that they have a legitimate interest in regulating firearms. Sometimes I feel like the NRA likes to gloss over the fact that for some kinds of weapon, YES, they are only designed to KILL PEOPLE.

Your little snipe about being a Democrat undermines your argument, rhetorically speaking. Didn't you RTFA?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Deep Esophagus]

Speaking of ignoring the facts... where did you get that "statistic" about large cities in Texas? Houston has nearly double the national average violent crime rate:
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Houst on&state=TX
Same for Dallas - 1.80x national average. For those who don't remember their history, Dallas is where the "Amber" of "Amber Alert" fame was kidnapped and murdered.

I'm not saying gun control laws reduce crime, but I am saying there is ample evidence that lack of gun control does not reduce crime either. But thanks for proving the point of TFA :-)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[electroniceric]

Your theory in a nutshell: "the good people only use guns at the right time, and only the bad people use them for bad things". I don't really want to debate that statement, as that's a philosophical and moral framework, not a question about the effect of guns.

Here are facts: It's undeniable that a substantial fraction of the people who use guns are 18 or under. It's undeniable that the likelihood of someone dying is greater in a gunfight than in a knifefight. It's undeniable that guns carry with them risks like improper use, mistaken identity, and use by unauthorized persons such as children. And it's undeniable that Great Britain, which does not permit individual gun ownership, has long had a much lower homicide rate than the US. Kids with guns, fights turned deadly, higher homicide rate? The facts don't entirely support your proposition that "if you allow guns to be sold to anyone, ... then it's a win."

The debate over gun control is not fundamentally fact-based, it is philosophy-based, and it often tends toward cultural issues ("are we defend-ourselves-with-a-gun type people or not?").

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[lynx_user_abroad]

Government projects are generally extremely wasteful.

So?

Once you get anywhere beyond small time, the ability to get anything done at all requires government coordination.

Do you think a completely non-governmental entity could build a highway, dig a canal, construct sewer lines, implement a retirement system, etc?

Government projects are generally extremely wasteful. But that's no different than saying concise sentences generally have a lot of words or that oceans are generally loaded with fish.

If it's waste you're worried about, focus on reducing the waste wherever it is. Yes, you'll find a lot of it in government projects, but you'll also find a lot of it in non-government projects, too.

Anything good the government would do will be done more efficiantly when the people involved are not coerced.

So, how would you propose an airline fly across country? Should they negotiate overflight rights with all the property owners individually?

What should a society do with a serial killer who refuses to stop killing unless coerced?

What's to be done with the Typhoid Mary who insists that disease is a problem for people who suffer from it?

Should I negotiate a contract for the provision of clean air from the power plant next door? Perhaps I can arrange a trade for the rights to run power lines across my property?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Karma Farmer]

There is a difference between burglary and robbery, and you've purposely confused the two to make an potentially interesting argument into a provocative troll.

As a pointless aside, is your Slashdot username inspired by the infamous "Signal 11"?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[electroniceric]

Ethically it's certainly a wrong for the robber to rob you.

Is it a good idea to pull a gun on a robber? I'm not so sure, practically or ethically. What if you miss and hit the pregnant store clerk instead, thus taking another life (or lives, depending on your view on abortion), and not accomplishing the goal of stopping the robbery. What if both you and the robber die? What if the robber's gun wasn't actually loaded? Is justice served in these case?

I just don't think owning, carrying, and pulling the gun at the first sign of a robbery fixes what is unquestionably an ethical wrong by the robber. And your "logic" looks an awful lot like that partisan reasoning: you know what you think is right, and any other line of argument is of course foolish.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Noxx]

Since when do supporters of either party have brains?

As anyone who has ever seen the Jerry Springer Show can tell you, having a brain is not the same as using it. :)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Tongo]

As said elsewhere, only a dog that is trained specifically for protection work is worth relying on for personal/property protection. Otherwise, some nice juicy steak or even just a pat on the head will "disable" the dog.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Zentac]

I love it how you brought Jesus into this :P what do you think he would have thought of your statement..
In my personal opinion you HAVE done something wrong when you kill him, WHATEVER your mativations might be
but hey, thankfully I live in a country where such a thing is illegal anyway

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really know where you got that Texas has a violent crime rate. According to this website http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ Texas has a pretty high violent crime rate. You will have to actually do a little work and look at the statistics for every state. Texas doesn't have the highest, but it is still pretty high.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in their right mind modded this outright falsity to +5?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Mr. Slippery]

Unfortunately, there are so many people with Sacred Cows (abortion, the "temperance" movement, slavery, drug use, whatever) that they believe must be universally abolished or allowed,

Some of these things are not like the others. Some of these things just don't belong....

To put "slavery" - the use of force to hold another human being to labor - in the same category wity "drug use" - the private decision to alter one's body chemistry - is ridiculous. If the next town over is allowing the keeping of slaves, I say we get a posse together and go free 'em, using whatever force is necessary.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Thangodin]

Not unless that law abiding majority always get the drop on the bad guys--and since they aren't the ones who are planning to go out and kill people, it's the guy intending to commit murder who has the element of surprise. And he'll be the one wearing body armor, and he won't be with his kids, or carrying anything, or not paying attention, as you might well be. You're just living your life. He's the one who's psyched and prepared.

So, give guns to everyone, and you automatically confer an advantage on the criminal. If you happen to be alone, that's all he needs to kill you and get away with it. Your chances of winning are very slim.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Hatta]

Anarchy would require everyone to behave else things would degenerate into violent chaos as individuals who have a desire to achieve more, posess more, or have more status than others would exploit a lack of authority defined from the people to achieve their gains.

Statism would require everyone to behave or else things would degenerate into a corrupt bureaucracy as individuals who have a desire to achieve more, posess more, or have more status than others would exploit concentrated authority to impose their will on the people.

Government perpetuates law enforcement and thus the possibility for recourse or retribution if an individual seeks gain at the peril of others

It's a nice thought, but in reality government ends up being controlled by those who seek gain at the peril of others.

Back to your original argument, wouldn't, "...the people involved...work[ing] together to make their own roads..." be a form of Government itself?

No, governments are coercive. If there is no coersion, there is no government.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Mr. Slippery]

Also remember, the government didn't use to tax in the manner that they do now, or nearly as heavily as they do now.

The government also used to govern a sparsely-populated agricultural nation, not an urbanized industrialized one. (Or one with imperial ambitions.)

Americans still pay significantly lower taxes than other industrialized nations.

I don't believe that anarchy would work any better than communism worked. Anarchy would require everyone to behave...

Zenarchy holds that Universal Enlightenment is a prerequisite to abolition of the State, after which the State will inevitably vanish. Or - that failing - nobody will give a damn about the state anymore.

The question then becomes, what to do in the meantime? Thornley has some ideas.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[cypherz]

1) We should punish crime. Not potential crime. I think even felons should be allowed the means to defend themselves, ie. possess firearms. Crimes committed with firearms should be punished harshly.

2) Its not a crime (in Texas) to use lethal force to defend your property after dark. No state monopoly on use of force here! Thank Goodness!

3) I put up with the "process", most of the gang bangers down the street just swap dope (or dope income) for guns (or so the cops tell me). The legit "process" doesn't make weapons more difficult for anybody EXCEPT law-abiding citizens, so we might as well do away with it. The only restrictions of the right to own firearms that _might_ be justified is for potential owners to prove their ability to safely store firearms, and prove their ability to operate them safely (and kill their attackers!). Again, this won't slow down crooks, just make sure that the law abiding folks know their responsibilities.

4) ALL my guns are made for self defense or military use. I like military firearms. Thank God its still legal to own them.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Johnboi Waltune]

So all the other store owners will take up a collection for the legal bills? I doubt that.

As long as there is poverty and drug abuse, there will always be armed robbery. Doesn't matter how many people you shoot.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Mr. Slippery]

I live with the reality that exists or has been demonstrated, rather than with fantasy. We've seen what happens without government. Somalia. Afganistan.

Those aren't places without government. Rule by the local strongman or by roving gangs is still government.

And, you keep getting stuck with some form of organization, which is government.

"Anarchy" does not mean "no organization". It means "no hierarchy".

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[jheath314]

As I've written elsewhere, there are a few problems with this:

a) pulling a gun on a criminal is basically upping the ante, which could easily escalate minor crimes like robbery into major ones, like murder
b) the same gun that the owner thinks will protect him can just as easily be used against him if he is not careful
c) people make mistakes. The gun owner can end up killing an innocent man in cases of mistaken intentions or mistaken identities, or even just through bad aim.

The way to reduce crime isn't by allowing more dangerous weapons into more hands... it is by enhancing the effectiveness of the people who we pay to fight criminals for us. After all, the police are the ones who are trained to use guns effectively and responsibly... the same cannot be said of the average citizen.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[cypherz]

Utter complete crap. If you are confronting an armed robber in your house after dark, you'll likely be dead long before the police arrive. There are a few "wrecking crews" operating in Houston right now. They've killed a few families. If they come to your house and you have access to a weapon and a phone, you're gonna call the police instead of attempting to stop the guys raping and killing your family? WTF?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[OrangeTide]

It's not hard to get a firearm illegally. Just steal it. So many guns are sold on the black market that are stolen. Some just stolen from some guys house, some stolen in bulk from the militaries of collapsed governments. Some are just "parts kits" that have been assembled and the simple illegal pieces have been made at some car shop after midnight.

But for a person like me who has no desire to go into a bad part of town, find a shady character and hope he doesn't steal my money when I try to buy something out of the trunk of his car, I have little choice but to be at the mercy of the government and lobbists whim when I want to get a gun for sport or protection.

I have no desire to commit a felony by obtaining firearms illegally, but if I already have a felony on my record what does it matter? Plus it's not like criminals think they will get caught.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Hatta]

Do you think a completely non-governmental entity could build a highway, dig a canal, construct sewer lines, implement a retirement system, etc?

Yes. Why not? Also, if they chose not to do so, what right of mine is it to force them? If The People won't come together of their own accord to do something, then so be it.

So, how would you propose an airline fly across country? Should they negotiate overflight rights with all the property owners individually?

Obviously without a government to enforce it, private property would be obsolete.

What should a society do with a serial killer who refuses to stop killing unless coerced?

What's to be done with the Typhoid Mary who insists that disease is a problem for people who suffer from it?

These are real problems, but we must be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease. How many people are killed by serial killers? How many people die due to the policys of a corrupt government?

Consider how many people are lost due to the War on Drug Users. People who overdose or use conaminated drugs, people who can't get the drugs they need because their doctor is afraid to prescribe them, people who die in robberies because an addict couldn't afford the artifically inflated price of their fix, I could go on. On the one hand they fight against murder with laws and jails, but on the other hand they encourage murder by persuing policy which creates motives for murder. So government purports to be the only solution to a problem that they create!

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit off-topic, but a War on Guns would work just as well as our "beautfiul" War on Drugs has. And the reason is simple: economics.

In a free market, if there's enough demand for a particular product or service then that demand will be supplied one way or another. If a product or service is banned by the government, then the black market will take over supplying the demand.

Government banned liquor during Prohibition, and we saw that--because the demand continued--a black market popped up to supply those consumers demanding their fire water.

It is impossible to prevent people from obtaining products or services if they truly desire them. Hippies will continue to smoke pot (including this one), and gun nuts will continue to carry and use their arms (again, including this one). This will never change, regardless of what the policy-of-the-day dictates.

If government was to ban guns, the same thing would happen. Policy rarely affects the overall demand of a product or service; only societal conditioning can do this.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[CodeBuster]

The alcohol and drug wars are a great example of the government trying to legislate morals.

The problem with some personal moral choices is that the effects of those choices are not entirely independent from the rest of society. The smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts in our society impose negative externalities on the rest of us in the form of increased medical costs and other financial burdens which we are then forced to pay in the form of higher taxes or deficit spending. It is not fair for some people in society to pass of the costs of their poor choices unto the rest of us and so we make certain choices illegal to prevent those people from making them without consequences.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[VAXcat]

Sheesh...you anti gun guys are mighty scary - you always posit a "bad guy weapons escalation" scenario, that, fortunately, out here in the real world, almost never happens. Criminals are not fighting a war, and will not gear up for an encounter with a hard target - they are lazy cowards, and when confronted with a target that might possibly be able to shoot back, will tend to avoid that confrontation and look for a safer target, or some safer scam to generate some revenue. Although, now that I think about it, restricting weapons possession of you types, that seem to always have this scenario on your mind just might make a difference (Ha! Just kidding!). In the real world, practically free access to weapons, as occurs for instance, here in Texas, has driven crime way down, and not ramped up incidents of these "high tech, highly motivated armed criminal" bogeymen your kind always presents as an argument...to sum up, it's an interesting fantasy (and, really, valuable insight into YOUR mental state), but, except for very rare instances (the LA bank roberry is the only one I can think of off the top of my head), not present in the real world.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[crymeph0]

That makes me want to reform our judicial system more than it makes me want to fork over money to the thug.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't so simple. The idea is to make guns harder for criminals to get -- Not impossible. Just because you can't stop every criminal from getting a gun doesn't mean you can't reduce the number. We can't stop every rapist either, but even a 10% reduction in rapes is worth pursuing.

Actually, it is so simple.

Let's say we ban guns completely. While we're at it, let's ban marijuana and alcohol... Oh wait, we tried that and found out it doesn't matter what policy says; if someone wants their gun/pot/liquor, they will obtain it. Even if you criminalize the source of the product--the manufacturing--people will still get what they want.

It's not hard to find pot (trust me) even though it's illegal where I am. It wasn't hard to find liquor back during Prohibition even though it was illegal then. And it wouldn't be difficult to find a firearm if they were to make them illegal.

EVEN IF it did increase the difficulty 10%, the unforseen consequences wouldn't be worth it. The previous law-abiding gun owner, under gun prohibition, would have less incentive to find a gun illegally than a criminal intending to do harm. The criminal WILL find the gun; the nice guy just wanting protection says it's too much trouble (and because he'd have to go through the black market, increases his risk of injury--the very thing he's wanting to be protected from).

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[LackThereof]

You can discuss this and play armchair robbery victim all day, but the simple reality is that when faced with the choice of handing over a wad of cash, or entering a battle of lethal force, the smart choice is to hand over the cash. What your chances of winning this battle are is inconsequential.

I work as a delivery driver for Domino's Pizza. At Domino's, up on the notice board is a list of all the crimes perpetrated against Domino's employees in the past week. Usually it's a list of events which end in statements like "42 dollars + hot bag and cell phone taken. Driver suffered minor bruises." Every few months, however, one goes up on the list that ends in "Driver killed." We all know exactly what happened. They decided to fight for it.

When a mugger threatens you with lethal force, you give him the money and walk the fuck away. I'm not dueling some crazy-ass dude over a days pay and my cell.

I have been mugged twice, I still have all my cash, and I have never been threatened with lethal force. The most agressive thing I, personally, have had to do to keep my money is hitting someone with my car at 10 mph. The muggers in Redmond, WA don't generally put up much of a fight. I now deliver in Seattle, and I've never been mugged here. But all my co-workers and I agree, when someone pulls a gun, you do the smart thing: give them the cash and GTFO. You stand a much better chance of living to call the police.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[cypherz]

And I suppose you were armed? No? Then WTF are you talking about? You didn't have the choice to shoot the mugger! When you say "choose to fight" I think you mean "fight an unarmed battle against an armed man". IF I'm armed and someone tries to rob me and IF I can get to pistol instead of wallet, guess which one I'm gonna go for? Obviously, if the mugger is already presenting a firearm, your chances of shooting him go down dramatically. If however, the bad buy doesn't have his weapon pointed at me or seems as if he's not really motivated to kill me, he's gonna die (unless he shoots me in the head first!)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[dgatwood]

The point of gun control laws should actually be expanded to require gun safety training prior to purchase of one's first firearm....

Not only is expanded sales of guns not guaranteed to reduce crime, it is guaranteed, as you mention, to increase the probability that crime will involve a loaded weapon. But more than that, it is also guaranteed to increase the number of accidental deaths due to firearm discharge. Even now (well, a study in 1997), almost 8% of all handgun deaths due to civilian firearm use were due to accidental discharge (calculated as accidents / (murders + accidents)).

Another purpose of gun control laws is to reduce the rate of crimes of passion--your wife sleeps with somebody else and you have the urge to kill her, so you buy a gun at the store and kill her. With a waiting period (often referred to as a "cooling off period," this actually ends up reducing the number of firearm deaths even without taking into account background checks weeding out purchases by criminals.

Now, I'm not saying that abolishing guns would be a good thing, but some gun control laws actually are for the benefit of the would-be purchaser.... The same goes for cigarette control laws. If adults have to drive a few miles to get cigarettes, the truly addicted will do so. Some of the rest will decide not to do so, and pubic health will improve. More than that, the extra distance will make it significantly less likely for kids to get cigarettes, thus substantially decreasing the number of young people who become addicted to them every year.

There is also no question whatsoever that second-hand smoking causes an increased risk of disease. There have been -countless- studies that show this. Airline stewardesses (back when smoking was allowed there) and restaurant/bar employees have a substantially increased rate of cancer deaths, lung diseases, and heart disease even when all other increased risk factors are factored out. Wives and husbands of people who smoke have also shown similar trends.

Even if you could discount one or two of these studies, there is a -mountain- of evidence. And you will never find any scientist who doesn't acknowledge that smoke and other atmospheric contaminants leads to an increase in asthma in children. While smoking may not be the biggest source of this in general (though it is the primary source for children of smokers), it is a source that can easily be eliminated without any -significant- inconvenience simply through laws that apply reasonable limits to where people can smoke (e.g. no smoking indoors in public buildings, no smoking indoors in a household or car where children are present). The same can't be said about other sources of smoke (power plants, cars, etc.). Thus, we should start by picking the low-hanging fruit and fixing the easily solved problems, -then- work our way to the harder issues.

Arguing that second-hand smoking is not harmful to the public health ranks right up there with arguing against evolution. Anybody who tries to tell you otherwise is almost always trying to escape a feeling of guilt from having caused harm to others.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Duhavid]

Depends on the dog(s).

For instance, I have three dogs, all lab mixes.
Anything that happens near my house sets them off
barking. Even the postman, who comes by every
day, day in and day out sets them to barking.

Bring a steak or some affection, they will bark
for that! And bark at you till you give it
( to all three... )

The thing that would work for a thief would be
( pray God it does not happen ) would be to
dump poisoned meat over the fence. Are they
that committed? And the dogs would still bark
( and fight ) all the way to it.

We dont have our dogs for protection, but I do
feel safer ( note, safER, not absolutely safe )
having them around.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

The most basic problem with anarchy is that a decent majority of people WANT to be led. They want someone to tell them what to do and someone to blame if things go wrong. This is government.

This want of leadership is what creates the factions the you mention. Until people learn to think for themselves & accept responsibilty for their own actions (or inactions), true anarchy will not work as optimistic supporters would hope.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

The problem with some personal moral choices is that the effects of those choices are not entirely independent from the rest of society.The smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts in our society impose negative externalities on the rest of us in the form of increased medical costs and other financial burdens which we are then forced to pay in the form of higher taxes or deficit spending.

This is just an instance of too much government creating the problems it says we need more government and more laws to solve.

The only reason we have to pay for someone else's substance addiction problem is because the government forces us to do so. Solution: No more tax-funded health care for treatment of addictions. If some members of society sympathize with the addict and want to help them, they can donate their own money to appropriate charities. The problem then belongs to the person who created it or to people who voluntarily want to help them. No more effects on unconsenting third parties, no more need for laws prohibiting it.

It is not fair for some people in society to pass of the costs of their poor choices unto the rest of us and so we make certain choices illegal to prevent those people from making them without consequences.

If the substances the person is consuming is harmful, then there will be consequences inherent in the activity - we don't need laws to create them.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[hahiss]

Agreed! After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people . . . .

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[lynx_user_abroad]

In a place with no government and no laws, I suspect that it would be mighty difficult for someone to take central control of an infrastructure that didn't exist. Especially if the citizens had guns to protect themselves.

Um...if there isn't any infrastructure, how do the citizens get guns? And what exactly are they citizens of if there isn't any infrastructure?

I'd like to see an example of one single government that has ever been just. If there ever has existed one it was surely corrupted pretty quickly. Power corrupts, it is precisely because people have a violent nature that makes it so hard to maintain an incorruptable organization without seroius violations of freedom and liberty.

The cycle goes like this: So long as everyone is acting only in their own interest, we're all just a bunch of animals fighting to see who's genes are best adapted to the local environment. As soon as a few of us rise above all that survival of the fittest we can begin to cooperate and build a society. But the very act of cooperation involves each of us giving up some of our personal freedom in order to grant liberties (they are different things, you know) to others. But the society we gain is generally considered to have a greater value than the freedom's we give-up to get it.

But whenever we create a society, we're also creating a new environment that certain individuals within that environment can exploit for their own survival of the fittest needs. The infrastructure we create when we create such a society (such as a system of agriculture, language, artifacts such as houses, tools, and weapons, etc) becomes infrastructure to be exploited by those who are more comitted to their own survival and less comitted to the survival of the society.

To the extent that such a society can ferret out those 'selfish' individuals and prevent them from using the infrastructure of society for their own aims, the society remains coherent. Maybe that would meet your definition of 'just'. Note that coherence does not require the society to grow.

Selfish individuals who enrich themselves at the expense of the society are fairly easy to spot and root out. A harder problem is identifying those individuals who enrich both themselves and society (not in itself bad) but enrich themselves more. Such societies are characterized by addiction to growth, and quickly develop inequities in wealth, subsequently followed by the development of classes, and eventually leading to a concentration of power in the hands of the most ruthlessly selfish of the selfish individuals in the classic survival of the fittest fashion we're all so familiar with. Working the process in reverse, this leads to a reduced emphasis on cooperation in favor of unilateralism, a gradual (or sometimes rapid) destruction of the infrastructure of society which made the environment attractive to the selfish individuals in the first place, and sometimes leading to the complete destruction of the civilization, but more often leading to a new equilibrium as the cycle begins to repeat.

As for examples, we've seen very stable civilizations in China (4000+ years) and Egypt (4500+) based on the dynasty model, dependent on the benevolence of a single family line, and characterized by slow technological growth. I'm not sure what your definition of 'just' involves, but perhaps these would qualify. If you compare things like wealth inequities or the extent of outlawed behavior, they might qualify as more just than 20th century America.

Religious institutions could conceivably qualify as societal structures, and perhaps even meet your definition of 'just' as well. Some of these have had runs of 800-3500 years of stability and have tended over that time to be able to manage a far faster rate of technological growth without imploding. Fascinating study, too. Ra

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Mark_in_Brazil]

You "forgot" an important example, but that's almost certainly either because it doesn't neatly fit into your preconceived notions, or because your history classes ignore it. The example is the large parts of Spain that were organized in Anarcho-syndicalist collectives during the Spanish Civil War. Orwell went to Spain a Socialist but once there, found he respected the Anarchists (Anarcho-syndicalists) more because of their ability to actually get things done while the Republicans (different meaning there and then than it has now in the USA), Communists, and Socialists bickered over politics.
You cited some examples of what happens in a "without government" situation (and I don't necessarily agree with that assessment). I'll remind you that Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and somebody Godwin prohibits me from mentioning were all able to do the horrible things they did because they used the power of governments. Would it be fair for me to say we've seen what happens when there is a government, citing these examples, and conclude that governments just don't work, except in theory?
FWIW, I'm not an anarchist, but I just hate seeing the same ol' lame authoritarian apologist arguments against anarchism (whether it be anarcho-capitalism, communist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, or any other variety) parroted. One who believes anarchy can work is no more naïve than one who believes government can work.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Coryoth]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it tends to get taken too far and quickly lead to an escalation of punishment to the point where everything is punishable by death. Is it reasonable to shoot someone spray-painting graffiti on your wall? Presumably you should only be allowed to do what is required to restrain the other person. But then they may well be armed, and your effort to restrain them may well result in them shooting you, so do you have to risk being shot before you are allowed to shoot them? How about you draw your gun and warn them you'll shoot them if they continue? What if they do continue?

How about we try the same example except this time it's someone parking in your parking space. They've infringed upon your property, so presumably you can use whatever force ncessary to defend that property.

The point is that while the basic idea has some merit, at some point you have to give up trying to reason from some pure ideal and inject some practicality into things.

Jedidiah.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the obligatory "I live in Miami you insensitive clod",

I also need to add that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Whoever modded the parent +4 informative should be banned from /. forever. Morons both ye be!

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[lynx_user_abroad]

How many people are killed by serial killers?

In this world? Relatively few, but probably still too many.

How many people die due to the policys of a corrupt government?

Many more than are killed by serial killers, and certainly still too many. But still relatively few.

But in this world we do have things like a concept of private property, respect for law, and governments. That's the very reason why we can discuss the tragedy of getting killed by a serial killer or corrupt government.

You seem to be proposing a world that does not include 'governments' but does include everything which is made possible by them. That's kind of like wanting a charge account without the bill.

The world you are proposing, a world of individual entities acting only in their own self interest, and cooperating only where it serves their own benefit, has been given a fair trial...

That's the world we had for some 800 million to 2 billion years, and none of those entities were able to sustain enough technology generation-to-generation to produce something as simple as fire-on demand.

In the world you're promoting, you wouldn't have to worry about getting killed by either serial killers or corrupt governments. But you would have to worry about getting killed by everyone you meet, to feed their children, if they thought they could take you. You probably wouldn't last one day in the world you're proposing. I know I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to.

And to top it all off, you're promoting such an idea on slashdot!

Get some perspective, please.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Straif]

Just to go a bit off topic and add my 2 cents to your health care example; the Canadian health care system may be cheaper on a per capita basis than the American (in fact the same can be said for every other country in the world) but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a shing example of government efficiency.

As a supposedly 100% public system (there are varying degrees of private participation across the country), what we save on cost we sacrifice on service. Procedures and tests routinely done in the States on the same day or later in the same week can take several weeks or even months in Canada to have performed. Until we can match the available level of service (I am am well aware that those in the US without insurance do not generally have access to these services ... period) it's hard to say which of the two systems is working better.

If we bring the EU into the picture we see that the best systems seem to involve both private and public interaction. A little more private involvement to add competition and through that, improvements in service availability, with a signifigant government involvement to ensure standards and access for everyone.

While I'm not advocating a 'fend for yourself' system, as is generally the case in the US, I also don't think that our current Canadian system of dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator is anything to be gloating over.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Hatta]

You seem to be proposing a world that does not include 'governments' but does include everything which is made possible by them. That's kind of like wanting a charge account without the bill.

You are not listening. This is a perfect example of what this /. article is about. What I am proposing is that government is not necessary for all those things you claim it is. Perhaps a little Thoreau would clear things up, he's much more eloquent than I:

Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

The world you are proposing, a world of individual entities acting only in their own self interest, and cooperating only where it serves their own benefit, has been given a fair trial...

I propose no such thing. Anarchism is a community oriented philosophy. While no one is coerced to do so, working along with your fellow man is highly advantageous and man as a social creature will naturally form communities.

That's the world we had for some 800 million to 2 billion years, and none of those entities were able to sustain enough technology generation-to-generation to produce something as simple as fire-on demand.

It's pretty disingenuous to pretend that a primative tribal structure is the same thing as a modern form of social organization.

In the world you're promoting, you wouldn't have to worry about getting killed by either serial killers or corrupt governments. But you would have to worry about getting killed by everyone you meet, to feed their children, if they thought they could take you.

Well obviously we need to organize such that people don't need to kill to feed their children. Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So it's much better to reduce the motives for crime than to try to punish someone after the fact.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[MrHops]

And this is where a big part of the argument falls apart; if the mugger/robber isn't threatening you with immediate, lethal force, your justification for up and shooting him dead is not complete.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Someone with a baseball bat could be lethally dangerous; do you kill him? How about someone intentionally sideswiping your car on the freeway? Can you shoot him too?

I'm not a gun control fanatic. I believe that guns should be regulated at least as much as cars, and there should be a separate insurance category for gun ownership (as it is with cars; I don't agree that homeowner's insurance with a gun rider is the same). Having said that, I also believe that non-felons should be allowed to own guns; I don't have the moral/legal/ethical authority to deny anyone anything categorically.

I could have said more, but this should be enough to garner flames from both sides...

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[cypherz]

"And this is where a big part of the argument falls apart; if the mugger/robber isn't threatening you with immediate, lethal force, your justification for up and shooting him dead is not complete."

[IANAL]

Yes. It is. In Texas you can use lethal force (after sunset) to defend your _property_ not just your life. Is this moral? Yes, I think so from a deterrent perspective. Crime is lower here 'cause the Bad Guys can get dead just from being on private property after dark. The important thing to remember in Texas is "Stay off/out of other people's property after dark!". This has been tested a few times in the last 6 or 7 years here in H-town. A guy shot a repo man driving away in his (repossessed) truck. Shot him thru the cab. City didn't file charges 'cause the repo man didn't ID himself, just came up in the driveway and got the truck. Now, I think thats taking things too far, but thats how the law is interpreted down here. (And we don't care how y'all do things up nawth) :-p

[/IANAL]

Now, all that being said, I don't think I'd shoot a guy I caught running down the road with my TV. If he was in my house... that's another story.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Do gun laws actually make it harder for criminals to get guns?..."

Don't forget the side effects.

If gun sale and ownership is strictly controlled, there's no real opportunity for potential miscreants to practise on a range or anything other than a completely isolated private setting. They can't line up some Q's and perfect their Weaver stance while expending several boxes of amunition. Outcome: They can't shoot for shit, probably hold the weapon sideways for dramatic effect and as a result they either stage their attack from a range where a knife would be quicker and deadlier or they miss, pitifully.

Also, if guns are tightly controlled it's probable that the ammuntion is too. Again, less opportunty to gain proficiency, a greater inhibition to use up precious ammunition, especially if the weapon is rented.

Overall, the gun is relegated to status symbol, less than a useful criminal tool.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Hatta]

We've seen what happens without government. Somalia. Afganistan. The Middle East, before Europe attempted to assert itself.

Warlordism is a de facto government. It is not anarchism.

With no government, people attempt to take power. It happens in the form of dictatorships, theocracies, 'councils' of those looking to gain, etc.

Indeed, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Unfortunately as soon as you add people to the mix, then you have disagreements, which leads to fights. On a large enough scale you develop factions, which lead to direct conflict, action, and violence.

Same thing happens in statism. Except there the effect is worse because concentrated power is more easily abused.

And, you keep getting stuck with some form of organization, which is government.

How many times do I have to say this? Organisation is not government! Coersion is government. A functioning anarchist socity MUST be well organised to meet peoples needs and avoid concentrating too much power.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Millenniumman]

I wasn't aware people robbing stores deserved the death penalty, nor was I aware you were appointed head of vigilante justice. The right thing to do is fork over the money if he's got a gun, not try to shoot him and hope you don't miss. Money is only money.

If they robbers know that people will just hand over their property (which is what you are saying) they will commit many more crimes. If they think they might be shot, they will certainly hesitate.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Art Tatum]

The case of slavery doesn't fit here. Suppose Town S has slavery, while Town N does not. In a free market of laws, someone disagreeing with Town S's policy could simply go to Town N. But of course, the people living in Town S who have a problem with slavery are not free to go to Town N, because, well... they're slaves.

A free market is all very well, provided that all participants are free. If some are slaves, then that market is definitely not free.

You misunderstand the metaphor. Those who are subjected to legislation are not the participants, any more than customers are the participants in a economic free market. The legislators are the participants.

If slavery is an inferior and self-destructive way to organize society (and I think it is), it will be the downfall of societies that embrace it. Meanwhile, those societies that embrace free labor tend to succeed and prosper more freely.

Let's put it in another context—one that is slightly less emotional. The inhabitants of the Eastern Bloc nations during the Cold War could not vote with their feet. Should the West have launched a military invasion to force them to "do the right thing"? I say not. Rather, we simply let them crumble from within, a victim to their own deslf-destructive vice. (Ronald Reagan helped push them over the edge by reducing the amount of help the West gave to the Eastern Bloc, but that's non-interference.)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Art Tatum]

To put "slavery" - the use of force to hold another human being to labor - in the same category wity "drug use" - the private decision to alter one's body chemistry - is ridiculous.

In moral terms, certinaly they're different. But not from the standpoint of local vs. central control. There are people in the world, some of them are or have been in charge of governments, who see drug or alcohol use being as bad or worse than slavery. Remember prohibition? The only safeguard against moral dictatorship is to keep the moral reach of governments small, localized, and competitive.

If the next town over is allowing the keeping of slaves, I say we get a posse together and go free 'em, using whatever force is necessary.

A stirring sentiment, and one that I agree with in theory. But if they're not threatening you militarily, this would be overstepping your bounds. Governments and peoples cannot take military action against anyone in any place that they deem to be morally corrupt simply on the grounds that they are morally corrupt. Individuals and governments were never granted that authority by anyone.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[PeeAitchPee]

They'll watch their convenience stores go bankrupt as many of them make a decent profit on cigarettes.

Extremely unlikely. I work for a retail software vendor who sells to c-stores and I can tell you that both cigarettes and fuel have become commoditized to the point that unless a particularly huge store is selling amazing numbers of smokes (like at a truck stop on a busy interstate, for example), getting rid of cigarettes, while it would affect the store's bottom line somewhat, wouldn't come close to shutting it down. Most c-stores recognized this commoditization years ago and are already diversifying and expanding their business models in other ways (e.g., through food service).

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Art Tatum]

Yes, that is one of the tradeoffs of distributed government. The upside is that communities, states, or even regions can make laws that best suit their culture and legal needs. Plains states are going to need different laws from coastal states, simply because of the different economic sources of income (agriculture versus transportation). But things are that way right now. In fact, the Constitution, as it was intended to function, gave even more latitude to state and local governments than it does now. The Bill of Rights, for example, was intended to be a restriction only on the actions of the Central Government. States were free to draw up their own Bills of Rights, and many did.

This is the reason that Thomas Jefferson regularly proclaimed days of "religious observance" as the governor of Virginia but steadfastly refused to do so when serving as President. The restrictions on the Central Government would not, in his opinion, permit him to do that as President. But he was perfectly free to "establish religion" while a state governor.

This is the situation [1] that sparked the famous phrase "wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson received a letter (and an enormous cheese-wheel, which is an interesting story in its own right) from a Baptist organization requesting clarification on his anti-religious-establishment stance as President. He responded with a well-thought-out letter that included the famous phrase. Of course, it has been severely twisted since then. But in context, it makes perfect sense.

[1] This is all from memory, so I may miss some details or confuse something.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Jim_Callahan]

The problem with this argument is that it relies on the neighboring town having strong restrictions on firearms. If every place is equally dangerous, you've got an even chance of being robbed again. The criminals aren't going to stop burglary altogether, they'll just be more careful that you're out of the house first if they think you're armed (given the preceding assumption that a less well-guarded target does not exist).

I'd say a better argument for light gun regulation is that people are better at defending themselves, properly equipped, than any police force we could reasonably afford.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[moz25]

If the ability to have sexual intercourse equates your ability to shoot people, then you probably fall in the category that should have neither ability ;-)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[loraksus]

I don't know where you live, but buying a firearm illegally was quite easy where I used to live and Portland, Oregon isn't exactly one of the hotbeds of crime in the USA. I can only imagine that it would be much, much, much simpler to get firearms in Detroit or somewhere else.
In any case, it doesn't get any more convienient than "here's some money, thanks for the gun." Hell, you can even bargain. There are millions of firearms available for sale illegally out there, and making it annoying for people to legally purchase won't exactly put much of a dent in what is out there.
If you or your friends can find drugs, you can find guns. It is that easy.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[GenSolo]

On the other hand, if 90% of people had and could use guns, how many would-be rapists would decide it's not worth the risk of getting shot?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[GenSolo]

If you only sell guns to people who'd never misuse them, of course crime will drop (or at the very least, not go up).
Well, criminals will get them on the black market no matter how hard it is to get them legally. Millions of people come into the US illegally every year. Millions if not billions of dollars worth of drugs come into the US every year. It's not really any harder to bring an AK-47 in than a bunch of cocaine or heroine. The point is that the better the general citizen is armed, the greater the risk is for the would-be robber/rapist/murderer. If nobody has a gun, all you need is a knife. If nobody has a knife, all you need is a fist. If everybody has a gun, you never know which victim is going to give you his wallet, then shoot you in the back as you run away.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[GenSolo]

If I have a steady source of income, it is no more difficult to buy something for $800 than for $20. It's simply a matter of time. It may take a year instead of a week to save up the money, but that doesn't actually make it harder. It only makes it harder to get a gun on short notice, and then only if the price is increased above your level of petty cash.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[GenSolo]

Just, as a side note, robbery and theft are not the same. Theft is larceny. It's simply taking something that isn't yours. Robbery is a violent crime. It's taking something that isn't yours, directly from someone else, by force or threat of force. It's the force/threat-of-force that justifies the reaction.

If I come home and find my stereo missing, then find the person who stole it, the proper thing to do is to have the guy arrested and prosecuted, not shoot him. On the other hand, if I come home and a guy is trying to steal my stereo, I tell him to put it back and get off my property, and he pulls out a weapon, I'm going to shoot him in the chest to protect myself and my family.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are only alive because it's illegal to kill them.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[GenSolo]

What if you miss and hit the pregnant store clerk instead, thus taking another life (or lives, depending on your view on abortion), and not accomplishing the goal of stopping the robbery.
Well, if you are proficient with a firearm and you miss, those are the breaks. It's a tragic accident, but a tragic and fatal accident is frankly better than a murder. (Note: murder is intentional) On the other hand, if you are not proficient with a firearm, you don't need to try to use one. It's about personal responsibility.

What if both you and the robber die?
That's a personal decision: "was it worth it?" I personally would say, no, it's not worth it. On the other hand, I would give the guy the money and then likely shoot him as he tries to leave because he's directly threatening everyone in the parking lot.

What if the robber's gun wasn't actually loaded?
Irrelevant. If the gun reasonably appears to be a real gun (ie, those air pistols that look like a Glock or Desert Eagle count), the reasonable response is to defend yourself. You can't know if it's loaded or not, and if you point a gun at someone, that's a threat of lethal force. This elevates the appropriate response to the level of lethal force.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Millenniumman]

People do need hopes and jobs. And it is their responsibility to obtain them. If they instead choose to do drugs, or commit crime, it is their responsibility. And when you say "you" need to provide real opportunities to people, who is "you"? The people who worked hard and decided not to waste their money on drugs? And murder isn't always, or even usually, committed by very poor people.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[GenSolo]

The solution here is that the upper ranges of government coordinate between the municipalities. The national government coordinates commerce and transportation between states. The states can coordinate between municipalities. For one, municipalities can play nicely with each other and honor each other's decisions for each other's citizens. This is like how a driver's license from one state is valid in any other state. Also, states can create rules that, for example, it is legal to transport alcohol through a dry county in a sealed container, but a rational municipality that wants to play nicely with its neighbors may decide that since it's illegal to have an open container of alcohol in a vehicle because of DUI issues, there's no reason to prohibit transportation of a closed container if you prohibit possession of the alcohol outside of a car. I think I drifted a bit in there, but the main point is that the tradeoff doesn't have to be as big as some would suggest if local governments can be assumed to behave in a manner that is at least somewhat respectful of their peers or if the encompassing layer of government can be assumed to provide coordination between sub-governments.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

You're nothing but a potential murderer with a small penis. Fuck you.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

Wow -- I totally responded to the wrong comment. Oops! Sorry. :-)

Slashdot fucks it up, I swear...

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[electroniceric]

John Lott is not a professor - he is a right wing hack given a cushy job by the American Enterprise Institute. He was long since discredited in the academic community for, among other things, fabricating data, and impersonating a student (and lest you think that comes from us nasty terrorist-lovin' Democrats, it was the Cato Institute who tracked down his impersonating-a-student shenigans). Let's not make the mistake of comparing this "research" with real, peer-reviewed academic research.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Mr. Slippery]

If crime goes up, I'll start planting criminals who attempt to harm me or my property. If more people had this attitude, I think crime would go down.

While I have no problem with (and encourage and teach) self-defense, "planting criminals" who "harm" your property is a serious crime. You do not get to be judge, jury, and executioner if some punk kid eggs your car, or even tries to steal it.

The news media said that the police said to just give up the cash and let him go, and to try to get his license plate number. Sorry, if he came to my store or home and asked for money, he'd get his cash in lead.

And you'd quite possibly get killed.

Whatever cash you lose is probably less than than the attorney fees plus lost wages you spend in court after killing the guy, or in the hospital if he wounds you - or your lost wages in the grave if he kills you.

If you're in a situation where repeated robbery is a threat to your ability to feed and house yourself, it may be worth it to fight. But in general, fighting an armed robber, who has the massive advantage of determining the time, place, and circstances of the encounter, is not the wise choice.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[vDave420]

The entire point in government originally was that it was free individuals working together to accomplish something. That's what, "Of the People, By the People, For the People," means. It's corrupted now.

Sorry, but I gotta call shenanigans to this statement. Granted it is "patriotic" and all, but it simply isn't correct.

First off, since you use "of the people, ..." I must assume you are referring to the government of the USA.
Second, assuming (First) is correct, you are still wrong since "Of the people..." does not appear in any founding document for USA. It appears in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which occurred nearly 87 years after the country was formed. I don't believe that you can attribute this phrase as being "originally" the point.

Sorry!

-dave-

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Blackhalo]

Your evidece is weak. Other factors play a greater role in the statisics than gun ownership. Property values and employment rates far outshine firearm ownership in crime rates.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Blackhalo]

Anarchy is an unsustainable state. Nature abhors a vacume. This is nicely detailed in Larry Niven's Cloak of Anarchy http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarchy .htm

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Art Tatum]

The solution here is that the upper ranges of government coordinate between the municipalities. The national government coordinates commerce and transportation between states.

Absolutely. Well, that's the way it started out. The state governments were the real governments that exercised moral authority and derived their legitimacy from the citizens. The Central Government was created to coordinate on the basic administrative issues that states could not easily agree on but which were causing serious practical problems under the Articles of Confederation (currencies, foreign policy and treaties, common defense, interstate transportation, etc.)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Mr. Slippery]

The only safeguard against moral dictatorship is to keep the moral reach of governments small, localized, and competitive.

Ah. Like, it's supposed to be so much better to be oppressed by a local rather than a national government? Sorry, I must disagree.

The idea that local governments are better for liberty than a national government was laid to rest between the passage of Amendment XIV and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Governments and peoples cannot take military action against anyone in any place that they deem to be morally corrupt simply on the grounds that they are morally corrupt. Individuals and governments were never granted that authority by anyone.

Who granted anyone the authority to stop me from carrying out my anti-slavery raid, then? I didn't.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[jdbo]

Lott has been pretty thoroughly discredited as a researcher.

This is an ineresting article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2078084/

And here is a U Chicago class that actually uses his work as an example of poor research:
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/Academic/syllabi/ PP481HS451.pdf (warning PDF)

Finally, the guy is rather nuts - he's admitted to creating an online fan persona to rally supoort for himself online:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8884-200 3Jan31?language=printer

I'd recommend not raising John Lott as an authority, it reflects poorly on your ideas regardless of their merit.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Concerned Onlooker]

Take the Jihad on Smoking, for example.

It's actually not a Jihad on smoking. It's a Jihad on the jerks who do the smoking. It never ceases to amaze me how inconsiderate smokers are. They foul the air that other people have to breathe (in public) and then about 99% of them throw the cigarette butt on the ground. One smoker can ruin the air for dozens of yards around him/her. Never mind that no one else wants to breathe your smoke or look at all that garbage you leave, as long as you get what you want. Talk about entitled, narcissistic behavior.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Bloke down the pub]

if you allow guns to be sold to anyone, and the majority of people are peaceful, law abiding, life-andproperty rights respecting people, then it's a win.

I'm inclined to think that the probability of different types of people using them should be factored into your profound analysis, somehow.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Bloke down the pub]

Sorry, if he came to my store or home and asked for money, he'd get his cash in lead.

You talk a good fight. Whether you'd be so brave when actually staring at the business end of a gun, particularly if the perp has cought you by surprise, is a different question.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[cypherz]

Heh, that happens to me sometimes. Or this:

"Why Oh Why couldn't you have the Preview button?!" :-)

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[voice_of_all_reason]

Actually, I was referring to stuff like:

People being fired for smoking at home (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1657624.stm)
Laws against smoking in private establishments (bars) that force people to go outside and foul the air
Taxes on cigarettes that exceed the price of the actual product.
Confiscating shipments of cigarettes from indian reservations because they don't have the high taxes

No, you shouldn't light up on a crowded train or while you're teaching a bunch of kids in the classroom. That's being an ass. Still, there shouldn't be a law against it. Secondhand smoke, despite all the "studies" saying otherwise, is vastly less dangerous than actually sucking the concentrated smoke into your lungs. Standing in the vicinity of a smoker for a few minutes might shave oh, 20 seconds or so from your life. Probably alot less than the effect of inhaling car/bus exhaust on your way to work or the mosquito-killer sprayed over your city during the summer.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Hatta]

You do realize that's fiction, right?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[lynx_user_abroad]

What I am proposing is that government is not necessary for all those things you claim it is.

I'm sensing you and I may have different definitions of what a "government" is. It's a rather nebulous term so such a misunderstanding is perhaps excusable.

One way to characterize "government" (and the way I'm guessing you are seeing things: please correct me if I'm off base) is by it's power to tax, it's power to make laws (and compel people to obey them), to form armies for common defense, etc.

I tend to define a "government" more broadly to include the system by which any society capable of ensuring the passing of technological artifacts to subsequent generations maintains it's order. This would include everything from the aboriginal tribal system of elders and shaman through the more familiar totalitarian state and representative democracy. It would therefore include such things as neighborhood watch associations, Church assemblies, and quite probably Fred Flintstone's Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes as well. It notably excludes systems in which all participants are directly related biologically (simple family units) even though such systems clearly demonstrate these traits, because biological-only systems are predominant in nature and thus offer only uninteresting cases.

Using (what I believe to be) your definition, you seem to be proposing that it's possible for people to "just get along", cooperate in producing projects of benefit to all, obey agreed-upon rules (as opposed to laws) of their own accord, etc. While I admit the theorhetical possibility that a group of people might be able to accomplish that, I'd feel strongly that the burden of proof should be upon you.

Thoreau was writing in the context of a historical accident: a newly "discovered" and vast nation with seemingly unlimited resources, but was himself simply demonstrating a deeper truth. We're all happy when we can get what we need with little or no struggle. And when the resources are plentiful and the opposition weak, life is good.

But, as Thoreau points out, life begins to suck when you become the opposition, and when others fail to see the same values you do.

While no one is coerced to do so, working along with your fellow man is highly advantageous...

No argument there.

...and man as a social creature will naturally form communities.

But there's the rub. If we exclude humans, every other organism on this planet is geared toward gene-survival, Darwin's survival of the fittest. There is no evidence to suggest that humans are different biologically, plenty of evidence to suggest that they are greatly similar biologically, and an insurmountable avalanche of evidence that we can escape Darwin's trap and cooperate in ways which are not goverend by Kipling's Law of the Jungle.. The various civilizations we've built stand a testament to that.

But claiming that man will "naturally form communities" is a stretch. There is no evidence that any other species (with a couple billion years to crack the problem) ever rose above kill or be killed. We don't know that humans, left to their own devices, will always form cooperative communities, although we do know that humans, left to their own devices, who don't form cooperative communities don't leave much behind for us to study.

The only model we have of how to keep homo-sapient alive as a species involves forming those communities. And the only communities which have had any sort of permanence (if you can call a mere 4000 years permanence) are the ones in which some form of governance has played a role.

Now maybe you're right, and we will eventually discover the essence that seperates civilized creatures from the uncivilized jungle. A

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[mooingyak]

I actually agree with you.

My point wasn't that gun control necessarily reduces crime. I was trying to state that increased gun ownership does not necessarily decrease crime.

That and I wanted to point out the glaring flaw in the original poster's argument, mainly that big cities in Texas don't have the lowest crime rates around.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Blackhalo]

Of course, Science Fiction. However, the same socialogical factors that case anarchy to fail in the story would happen in any real world attempt to achieve a state of anarchy.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[gg3po]

However, ensuring sale of firearms only to such people, and ensuring that such firearms will never be stolen and misused is impossible.

Determining beforehand who will misuse a firearm (or any potentially dangerous technology) is not necessary. There's a saying: "People can't be trusted with guns -- that's why everyone has to have them." Even if you are someone with a propensity to misuse your firearm, you can be held in check if you know that all those around you are also well armed and trained in their use. If you still ignore this and decide to misuse your firearm, you will quickly be gunned down in such surroundings. The bad apples will be outnumbered and outgunned by the good ones. There's a reason whay guns are referred to as "equalizers." Unfortunately, in today's modern, domesticated societies, guns have largely been concentrated into the hands of people with criminal intent -- which furthers the impression that guns are inherently bad. After all *everybody* knows that only bad people have them, right?.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Thangodin]

The very fact that the time of the event is chosen by the criminal and not you is what makes the difference. He knows that trouble is about to happen, because he is the one initiating it. You don't. And in the absence of "safer targets"--which is what you will have if everyone is armed--the criminals will gear up, as they do in L.A. when they fight each other.

I wouldn't brag about the crime rates in Texas, by the way. Violent crime in Texas is one of the highest of any State (6th), and in fact, one of the highest in the Western World. Drops in the crime rate have happened in all states, due to changes in demographics, as the number of young males ages 17 to 30 have declined as a percentage of the population. This is not because of gun policy, which has not really changed in Texas. The consistently high rate of violent crime is more indicative of the results of the gun policy there.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[RobinH]

I've been a consumer of both systems, and I'm saying that overall, the Canadian system is much better. The reason for lower cost is that in the US, each insurance company has many many many forms and paperwork that needs to be filled out by medical companies and individuals to submit claims. Every single doctor's office needs to be up to date on all the different plans that they want to accept. It's not a small cost, in recent figures, it was over a 3rd of the operating expense of a doctor's office.

In Canada, it's so much simpler - there's just one insurance policy to deal with - the gov't. Nobody worries about what is covered and what isn't. The government doesn't maintain a huge staff that sits there reviewing claims trying to figure out if this particular procedure is covered on this person's insurance plan (which American insurance providers absolutely do). Every service in a hospital with the exception of private rooms and drugs are covered. Same with doctors.

Not only that, but in the US, you are limited to go to a specific "network" of doctors, and you may think you have choice, but not if you want a decent price, so you're a slave to the whims of the executives of the company you work for. In Canada, I can go to see ANY doctor - that's freedom. I agree that in Canada they use the rules of triage to choose who to serve first, and in the US they use the rules of credit cards, so in Canada if you have money, you may be waiting longer than you will in the US. In my experience, the wait times are comparable (political scare tactics aside).

In the US I had what is considered to be a really good health care plan through my employer - blue cross, blue shield. Every time I went to submit a claim, not only is there a deductible (which is fine), but there are tons of these rules about how many procedures of certain categories you can have within a certain time period. They would always send back a letter declining your claim, and you'd have to spend half an hour on the phone with them arguing to get your money. It sucked.

So don't tell me the American medical system is better. I've used it, and it sucks. The Canadian system is better, but it could use some constant feedback to keep it up to date, and some funding wouldn't hurt, but hey... Canada's the only G8 nation not running a deficit, so what do you want? Either irresponsible finances and more money to health care, or we can pay down the debt for our children, and cut back on care a little bit now. Over the past decade Canadians chose with their votes. This is what they want.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[John Nowak]

I think you're under the misassumption that everyone who has a gun is capable of controlling their anger and not acting like the animals that they are. When you get right down to it, you can't trust people to think rationally in all situations. Plenty of people could get properly pissed and try to kill someone, even knowing the other person most likely has a gun on them as well. Me included -- Rush hour pedestrian traffic drives me mad. By your logic, the wild west would've been the pinnacle of order and peacefulness as so many people were armed. It doesn't work that way in practice.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[lambadomy]

As much as I wish he had, John Lott didn't prove anything, and all of his work has been largely debunked

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lo tt

This is a man who has posted reviews of his own book on Amazon.com, pretending to be one of his students. A man who's own co-author admits to huge flaws in their study. A man who used a study that he supposedly funded himself, and then lost when his computer crashed, as the lynchpin of his argument.

You or I could want an armed populace to be justified by something like crime deterrance - but fake studies aren't going to do us any good. Plus, if you really believe the populace should be armed, for defense of liberty, or because it's wrong to restrict their rights, or whatever other reason you have, that should be enough in itself.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Straif]

Creating a budget surplus by not paying your expenses is not very sound fiscal management and that is essentially what has been happening in Canada for the past 12 years. In that time the enourmous amounts of debt have been transfered to the provinces through reduced transfer payments and the cuts in national programs such as military spending have dropped to an abysmal level all so someone can use their managerial accounting skills to point to a positive number on the balance sheet.

Our own emergency response team, DART, supposedly one of the better funded and equiped military groups, can't even be deployed until weeks after a disaster strikes, and even then sometimes not at all, all because of funding problems and the fact that the Canadian military doesn't have adequate transport for what equipement we do have.

We created the idea of Peacekeepers and we can't meet the minimal levels required to meet our UN obligations on that front. All the while, our service men and women fly aircraft and ride in vehicles, with the exception of some of our jeeps, that were designed and built, sometimes decades before they were even born. Our federal leaders have repeatedly refused to even ride on the very helicopters they order the troops to use, instead opting to use British or American transport. In at least one case refusing to board a helicopter that had been specifically sent to pick them up, and instead making a special request to a foreign government to give them a ride to a Canadian ship which was not even equipped to properly handle the other helo.

So please, don't try to use a positive balance sheet to try and make things look rosey for the future. All the feds have done for the past 12 years (and for some things much longer) is pass the buck and delay paying for essential services. It's like not changing the oil in your car. You may save $50 once or twice a year, but at some point the engine is going to seize and that $100-$200 you managed to save won't quite cover the $30,000 for a new car.

As for funding, recent reports comparing each provinces wait times versus money spent on health care have shown that in all but one case (and I can't remember which one but I think it may have been Alberta), increases in funding have not in any way impacted wait times or service levels.

But that's all besides the point. I have already stated that I don't believe we should copy the American health care system but believe we should move closer to the systems the major European nations use; a public system with private options. That type of system has the benefits of improving health care service availability as well as reducing per capita cost.

For example, if Ontario allowed private MRI clinics but put restrictions in place to require OHIP (the Ontario medical plan) only billing during the hours of, say, 8am to 6pm, but then allowed private billing after those hours, with the added condition that during those public hours the machine would have to be operating on par with a publicly operated machine (so no slacking off during the 'cheap' hours), private MRI clinics would be popping up wherever current logjams exist and would greatly reduce, if not eliminate the current delays. So if John or Jane Doe requires a test, they can schedule one at a clinic of their choosing with no worries about payment, but if Mr. of Mrs. Moneybags want a test done because they have the sniffles, they can go to the same clinic, after 6:00 and pay whatever fee the market will bear. The public at large is provided better access to services while the clinics themselves can make a healthy profit, pardon the pun. Everybody wins.

A similar system could be expanded to include Doctors, especially those who are experts in their fields. This would allow the doctors to make money off their hard work, while at the same time keeping them availble to the public system. Right now, while doctors can still do ok for themselves in Canada, if they actually become good at what they do, it is mostly just out of the goodness of their hearts that they don't move to some private clinic in the States to make the really big bucks. Well that and the general litigious nature of medicine in the US.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[raddan]

Just a minor nitpick to #1. Felons did commit a crime. Not being able to own a firearm is a part of the punishment. You may have a point about non-violent felons not being able to own firearms, but their status felons definitely puts them lower on my trust scale.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[gg3po]

I think you're under the misassumption that everyone who has a gun is capable of controlling their anger and not acting like the animals that they are.

Not at all. I specifically accounted for it in my first post.

Plenty of people could get properly pissed and try to kill someone, even knowing the other person most likely has a gun on them as well.

I also made accounted for this. You might want to reread the entire post.

By your logic, the wild west would've been the pinnacle of order and peacefulness as so many people were armed. I

Not really. The wild west was a much politer society than ours currently is -- which thing is owed much to the prevalence of firearms. I don't consider obtaining a "pinnacle of order and peacefulness" necessary nor desireable -- just an acceptable level. Maintaining personal freedom and equality for all is much more important.

Let's think about this a bit more. When you talk of prohibiting firearms to certain individuals, who do expect to enforce it? What means will the use to enforce it? Probably firearms. This means that we aren't really talking about removing firearms from all, equally. We're talking about a legal monopoly of firearms for a specific class of people -- the "authorities." Why can these officials be trusted? Maybe they've been tested somehow to determine trust. Who made this test? Can they be trusted? Surely they wield much power. Are you aware that around 170 million people were murdered by their own government in the past century? This number is far higher than those killed in petty firearm crimes. How can we provide a check to such unbridled power with a history of extreme violence?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Art Tatum]

Ah. Like, it's supposed to be so much better to be oppressed by a local rather than a national government?

No. But your chances of being oppressed rise when centralization occurs, just as your chances of being shafted rise when one player monopolizes an economic market. Also, power breeds power. Large governments with large budgets attract people who like power and influence. Power-hungry people do not gravitate toward smaller and less significant governments.

The idea that local governments are better for liberty than a national government was laid to rest between the passage of Amendment XIV and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

The idea was never laid to rest. The Central Government merely usurped our power as sovereigns in an illegal fashion. Popular sovereignty means the people are the King. As the King, we delegated authority to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The authority granted never included anything approaching the authority the Congress has treasonously taken for itself. The 14th Amendment did not grant Congress that authority, nor did it repeal the 10th Amendment, which gives extra force to our sovereign rights. The American people today are like Louis XVI. We have lost our rightful control over our public servants through neglect of oversight. When we lose our head, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

Who granted anyone the authority to stop me from carrying out my anti-slavery raid, then? I didn't.

God. Or the people to whom the land belongs. Take your pick. If you want to carry out anti-slavery raids, go to Africa and do it now. There's still plenty of slavery there. But I doubt you will have much success.

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Mr. Slippery]

But your chances of being oppressed rise when centralization occurs, just as your chances of being shafted rise when one player monopolizes an economic market.

Central versus local is orthogonal to libertarian versus authoritarian. I'll take a limited central government over an overbearing local goverment any day.

Ideally, the central/federal and local governments act as checks on each other. I certainly agree that the balance has tilted too far in the direction of centralism (I wrote a little about that here).

Power-hungry people do not gravitate toward smaller and less significant governments

Sure they do. "All politics is local", after all. The power of a federal government is largely abstract; if you want to rule people's day-to-day lives, become mayor.

Who granted anyone the authority to stop me from carrying out my anti-slavery raid, then?

God.

Heh. Please.

Or the people to whom the land belongs. Take your pick.

Land ownership is a creation of the government that issues the deed; if it's not my government but that of another locality, why should I care?

Re:Ignoring the Facts: defining "authoritarian"

[Art Tatum]

Warning: excessive rambling follows. :-)

Central versus local is orthogonal to libertarian versus authoritarian. I'll take a limited central government over an overbearing local goverment any day.

My contention is that you may not be able to have a limited central government. Since there are no other options, a central government can expand to fill all available space and challenge any practice or belief you hold dear. Or as Jefferson put it, a government large enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Consider also religious and cultural standards. Why shouldn't people in Utah be allowed to marry more than one wife? I think it's wrong but I don't see why it's my job here in South Carolina to stop it. There are an awful lot of things that people simply will not and cannot agree on. Many of them are portrayed as being black and white by the mainstream, and perhaps some of them actually are. But responsibility lies with individuals within a particular cultural, economic, or religious group to deal with it. If they don't, and the practice is truly bad, it will end in disaster for them and the practice will stop. Those watching from the outside will be enlightened. Are abortion and gay marriage truly destructive to society? Let those who favor them try it and we'll find out. But that can never happen if those values are universalized, one way or the other.

That's all I'm really shooting for here. Not to mention the fact that the structure of the government described in the Constitution requires that approach unless and until the Constitution is explicitly changed. Of course, there are so few people paying serious attention these days that Constitutional government is an unrealistic goal.

Ideally, the central/federal and local governments act as checks on each other. I certainly agree that the balance has tilted too far in the direction of centralism (I wrote a little about that here).

Well put. It's funny to watch Left and Right advance and back away from Federalism constantly. But then, they're both built on the same foundation: the Puritans' vision of a shining city on a hill. They mostly just disagree on which hill and what color the light should be.

That's why I threw slavery into the mix. The hidden philosophical argument behind the Union and Confederacy was the appropriation and modification of the Puritans' Biblical interpretation by the Northeastern Transcendentalist movement. The Northern religious establishment won out on the issue of political activism but later split into what we know as Liberal and Conservative over interpretations of what the Bible dictates for society. That's why both sides often use identical arguments for supposedly opposed ideologies. Of course, there were also influences from Marxism and other philosophies. But they were largely interpreted in the language and tenor of Puritan utopianism.

Sure they do. "All politics is local", after all. The power of a federal government is largely abstract; if you want to rule people's day-to-day lives, become mayor.

I was actually referring to the concentration of money more than detailed day-to-day operations.

Land ownership is a creation of the government that issues the deed; if it's not my government but that of another locality, why should I care?

If one respects borders and sovereignty it makes a difference. But that's part of the point in question here. :-)

Acknowledge the other side

[suso]

I think one of the biggest problems facing our society is not being willing to acknowledge when the other group is correct or when we are wrong. Everyone is too convinced that they are correct that they are blind to the other person's point of view and opinions. This is spread all across the spectrum, not just in politics. Acknowledging when someone else is correct is good for you and good for relations. The person that you are discussing with will acknowledge that you are seeing their side and can listen to what they consider to be "reason" and they are more likely to listen to your point of view. Its just like here on Slashdot. Often times I get replies to my comments from people who have a different opinion or just have some smart ass remark. I understand, people have different opinions, and they are just as human as I am.

You can still acknowledge the other side and remain strong.

Enemies are people too.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Billosaur]

I think one of the biggest problems facing our society is not being willing to acknowledge when the other group is correct or when we are wrong. Everyone is too convinced that they are correct that they are blind to the other person's point of view and opinions.

I don't think it can be pinned to the idea of "one side is correct and the other is not." Both sides often have convincing arguments but these are overwhelmed by "politics." Partisan bickering has replaced thoughtful discourse. The idea is to build consensus, to winnow out the good from the ideas of both sides and merge them into a coherent, mutually satisfying compromise. This retreat-to-the-castle-and-raise-the-drawbridge mentality that seems to pervade Congress is the reason that elections are so hotly contested and have led to the detestable "red state/blue state" school of politics.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

The key problem with this argument is that our society has roughly split down the middle on some pretty key issues. The things that are makeing Republicans hate Democrats and vice-versa just aren't going to see one side acknowledging the other as right.

Abortion, preemptive war, tax the rich vs tax the poor, social welfare programs, socialized medicine, environment preservation: people who hold strong beliefs about these things are relatively unlikely to find themselves acknowledging the other side as right or themselves wrong on these issues.

With other, relatively less inflammatory issues, I think you'll find that people are open to debate. But as long as there are issues like these that are considered 'unsettled', the parties will continue to be able to divide us on them quite effectively, and calm debate about less divisive issues will essentially be buried under the weight of these more dramatic ones. So long as we have so many things where it seems like the position of one side or the other can be taken as evil it is going to be hard to get people to take things calmly. And frankly, they shouldn't. You shouldn't sit quietly debating when your opponent is evil, you should be making a loud noise to make sure people are attending!

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[swillden]

Acknowledging when someone else is correct is good for you and good for relations.

Bullshit. You couldn't be more wrong.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[suso]

The key problem with this argument is that our society has roughly split down the middle on some pretty key issues. The things that are makeing Republicans hate Democrats and vice-versa just aren't going to see one side acknowledging the other as right.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. People have polarized themselves so much that when an opposing opinion to their viewpoints comes along, they hit it like a wack-a-mole instead of considering it for a moment and trying to understand it.

Take me for example, for the longest time I was opposed to the idea of money and wealth in society, but I finally opened up to it (with some helpful influence of a book and my wife) and realized that if I'm going to accomplish some of the things I want to do in my life, I'm going to need money to do it. I have to play the game first before I can start changing it.

To use your example of anti-abortion activists, if you try to sit down with most extreme anti-abortion activist and discuss the issue, they will probably not ever listen to the reason of what you might have to say. They will only agree with you if you agree with them. This is not healthy for them (or you) because they just lead themselves further down the road to delusion.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

I think you're wrong about most people. I think most have looked at the opposing position, considered it, tried to reason with it, and ultimately given up. You can only hold a dialogue with an evil opponent for so long before giving up in frustration, and frankly you are right to do so, as your time is probably more effectively spent trying to rally your cause rather than trying to convert the other side. And when you're fighting against evil, effective really matters.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[suso]

Bullshit. You couldn't be more wrong.

I'll see your sarcasm and raise you belligerence.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[HangingChad]

Everyone is too convinced that they are correct that they are blind to the other person's point of view and opinions.

I think it goes well beyond not considering another person's point of view, it's more like intellectual blinders. Today it's pretty easy to pick and choose news and commentary consistent with ones political views. There is no fairness in coverage anymore.

In addition to that I've noticed a real tendency for people to not just be "right" but virulently right. Not content to be simply dismissive of other points of view, but hostile to them. I've seen that more from the right and particularly the extreme right. All my life I've seen people holding strong opinions, never in my life have I seen this country so polarized and such angry divisiveness. And I don't remember a time when people had such an almost desperate need to have the answers, even if they're wrong. It's as surprising as it is sad.

My dad says it reminds him of McCarthyism but he doesn't remember it being as angry as it is today. He said it was more dogma but less anger. Don't know, I'll have to take his word for it.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[suso]

You're correct ;-). I am making a generalization about "most people" and that's not a good thing to do. The problem is that its difficult to form opinions about people that you don't know and the only impression you get of them is when you see them stating an opinion that is different than your own. Where do you draw the line between knowing people and making a generalization about them. I used to work on a military base only 45 minutes away and there I actually got into a few discussions where people stated what their opinions are and acted exactly as I explained in my original post. Now I'm working much closer to home and find that most people around here are open minded and not as I described. But Bloomington is kinda a unique place in my experience. Much more liberal than the rest of Indiana. My friends tend to be open minded people and that's probably because we have simular interests.

But then there are people like my Aunt and her daughter that are about as far right as you can go and whenever I get into a discussion with them about this, it doesn't matter how logical or based on fact my arguments are, they don't acknowledge them. I give them some credit for their opinions where it is due, but they don't budge one bit.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a great quote from Chris Rock - Never Scared (something like this, i don't have the film with me to quote word for word):

"Everbody's got a gang mentality in America, we all want to be part of a gang like "I'm a conservative!" "I'm a Liberal!", no normal human being is one thing, just shut the hell up and listen to the facts, let it swirl around in your head for a while and /then/ form your own opinion. Me? I've got some shit i'm Conservative about and some shit i'm Liberal about...crime i'm Conservative...prostitution i'm Liberal!"

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[mwlewis]

Not content to be simply dismissive of other points of view, but hostile to them. I've seen that more from the right and particularly the extreme right.

That's interesting, because being from the right (and possibly the extreme right), I have the exact opposite impression. With respect to partisanship in particular, an interesting contrast that has always stood out in my mind are the nomination processes of Justice Ginsberg vs Alito (or Justice Thomas, or Bork). I think that in each case you could find a large sample of Senators very opposed to the nominees, but the only time they really got ugly was when the nomination came from a Republican.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[foo fighter]

But look at that from a game theory perspective.

If you concede a point, there is no incentive for the opposite party to concede a point on their side. Instead they get a big benefit by jumping all over the fact that you conceded and will continue to argue against you.

Instead of ever migrating to both sides conceding when they are wrong you get both sides never conceding anything.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Dread_ed]

I notice this quite a bit when watching sporting events on TV with friends and family.

What I mean by that is that any call that goes against the team that they are rooting for is almost universally in dispute by them or even completely refuted. Many times I can see where the referees have made the right call and it looks obvious to me. However, those around me still proclaim that it is a "bad" call, etc. even in the face of slow-mo replay with HDTV clarity.

I think the difference is that I just don't give a damn about sports in most cases, even if it is my home team. If you couple that with an over developed sense of fairness and respect for rules it makes for some interesting post game analysis when talking to devoted home team fans.

This is just sports though. I am sure that there are numerous other areas of life where I am susceptible to the same type of discriminatory viewpoint.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Overt Coward]

Part of the problem, as you say, is that people don't willingly acknowledge facts that run counter to what they already believe. But another part of the problem is that there are many cases where both sides have a particular frame of reference and either discount or refuse to look at the problem outside that frame of reference.

Take what is likely the most controversial issue of the last 30-40 years: abortion. One side's views are dominated by focusing on the pregnant woman's control of her own body, the other is focused on the life of the unborn child. Both sides can make logical arguments, but have a hard time "getting through" to the other side because group #1 says, "yes, but what about the rights of the mother" while group #2 says, "yes, but what about the rights of the child".

Of course, it's much easier to recognize the problems that it is to come up with solutions. The best I can offer is to stop a moment to consider why the other side of the argments believes what they believe, and objectively decide whether that is reasonable without referencing your own beliefs. Even if you don't agree with the other side's position, you may at least be able to understand that they're not the evil gits you may otherwise assume that they are.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[dprovine]

I think one of the biggest problems facing our society is not being willing to acknowledge when the other group is correct or when we are wrong.

Before the 2004 elections, I asked people who supported Bush to name five issues on which they thought Bush was wrong, and people who supported Kerry to name five issues on which Kerry was wrong. To prime the pump, and demonstrate my own good will, and be bipartisan, I named five issues on which I believed both men were lost.

I posted the request for "where is your guy wrong?" to several Usenet groups, sent it to some newspaper columnists who had made endorsements, and sent it out to a few mailing lists. I was really hoping for some intelligent replies.

I got exactly one reply, by e-mail, from a Republican columnist. Nobody in any newsgroup, nobody on any mailing list, not even the people I'd mailed it to directly asking for their opinions, said a word. When I tried to follow up after the election, the replies made it clear: 99% of people didn't want to think about the idea that they were supporting a candidate who might be wrong on some issue.

Walter Lippman was right: "Where all think alike, none think very much."

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[ppanon]

Maybe Justice Ginsberg was more accepting of discussing her opinions openly? With Alito, you have a nominee who, when he admits to them, claims beliefs and attitudes that often are in opposition to his voting record. That means he's either lying to himself or to the Judiciary committee, and that provides a poor example for a Supreme Court nominee. Of course the preceding nomination of Myers was bordering on insulting and that admittedly made it more difficult to get a fair hearing for anybody who would have been nominated after her.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[dpilot]

Someone please spend mod points on the parent. I was going to try and make the same point, but was reading first, and "foo fighter" has done a fine job of it.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[cduffy]

If you've given up and decided to label your opponensts as "evil", you obviously don't understand where they're coming from. There aren't very many "evil" people in this world: Though there are a lot of people who support Bad Things, that doesn't mean they're bad people; rather, they have a worldview which emphasizes different elements than the ones you're accustomed to thinking in. If the elements that are deemphasized are things like human rights, that can make for some decisionmaking on their part which results in severely undesirable actions being taken -- but it doesn't mean they're evil.

I'm not saying that it's reasonable to expect to be able to change your opponents' minds -- this research demonstrates pretty clearly why that's not straightforward -- but it's worthwhile to understand how they rationalize (and potentially how they initially came to hold) their present beliefs.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[jafiwam]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. People have polarized themselves so much that when an opposing opinion to their viewpoints comes along, they hit it like a wack-a-mole instead of considering it for a moment and trying to understand it.

Yeah, because the next fucking time I hear "It's god's will" it's going to make rational sense after the 40 million times failed to do so.

Gimmie a break. Ever think that maybe the other guy is simply wrong? 2+2=4 in my universe and it always will be. Someone basing their beliefs and political views on _basic_ assumptions that are contrary to my view can never make sense. Nor should it. That PC crap of "all arguments need equal consideration" is retarded and needs to get snuffed along with the bible thumpers.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[prof.morbius]

I think one of the biggest problems facing our society is not being willing to acknowledge when the other group is correct or when we are wrong.

I would actually take this a step further and say rather that the problem is that fewer and fewer people are willing to acknowledge that another point of view may be right. This is true whether it's FUD instead of research about purchasing within an IT department, or immigration, or "terror-fighting" authority.

This is particularly serious because compromise depends upon this willingness. While it's a lot easier to call someone who wants to examine the consequences of the alternative "soft on X" or "opposed to Y", a lot of good thinking has come from sitting down with someone and saying "Okay, let's start by supposing that you're right; what would be the consequences of my proposal?"

Until the desire to grandstand, and to be right (and so to cover or justify your mistakes) gives way to mature discourse, the U.S. and other areas where this has been happening will have continuing, or even worsening, problems. And neither American party seems inclined to grow up any time soon.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[suso]

Ok, I can see why you might think that and I'm sure that's what the popular media like to jump all over that (when someone is weak).

But now look at it from a diplomatic perspective:

To earn the trust and respect of others you have to acknowledge their ways, beliefs while at the same time, respectfully criticizing them while still being open to their rebuttals. Its based on building trust with your opponent

I think that you are far more likely to be successful with your arguments if you use the diplomatic approach rather than the game theory one. But of course if people don't understand the diplomatic approach then maybe you won't win because they won't respect you. Maybe that's the problem.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

Yes, allow me to clarify. I think people actually being motivated by pure evil is relatively rare. What is unfortunately common is individuals motivated by intolerance, ignorance, and greed, who wind up advocating for and supporting evil outcomes. The ignorance has a pretty good case for not being an evil motivation, though it becomes hard to excuse when there are so many opportunities to learn in this world, particularly among the demographic I tend to see the highest incidence of it in. Intolerance tends to be learned in the family life, so there is some excuse for this as well, though it doesn't earn a full excuse since again there are so many opportunities to learn better. And finally there is greed, which is an unfortunate part of our baser nature. Still, resisting greed is an important part of being good, and so I can't fully excuse those motivated by it either. So all in all, though I think few people are motivated by pure evil, I do think far too many people are ruled by motivations from the more evil side of life.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[starm_]

Anti-abortion ideas along with other values that are mostly based on religion can't really be debated because they are based on dogma and not on reality or reason. Although anti-abortionists sometimes try to tie their ideas with reality it's a futile excersise and their arguments always end up being about faith and endoctrinated religious beliefs.

This is crucial to understand why there has been such a polarisation in americans. People are too ignorant to realise that debating such ideas is impossible and these impossible debates lead to very high frustration about the other side. When you combine this with the fact that this administration has brought so many issues that stem from religious beliefs, you get a very angry ans frustrated nation.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Puf_Almighty]

Actually, from a game theory perspective, if you concede a point it gives you the opportunity to change the rules of the game from zero-sum to non-zero-sum. The rules of a given argument aren't set in stone, so if you say "Wow, you're right on that point, so I concede that. Now you think about this thing- are you sure you want to keep arguing it?

The other person now has a chance to assent to the new rules, or not. If they choose to, then you have a meaningful and beneficial discussion instead of a wordfight. If they choose not to, all you've done was admit the truth of a true idea, and you have therefore lost nothing.

But you should probably be careful not to do this while in front of lots of other people, because if they're a politician then their power is based on all the other people that voted for them, and the voicing of those people's stupid ideas. Demagogue types can't change the rules in this way because too much is at risk, and that's why now that we have highly publicized debate between parties, the people are just modelling their behaviors after the zero-sum behaviors of the politicians (who are playing an unavoidably zero-sum game).

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[foo fighter]

But in a diplomatic situation both sides having more to gain by being diplomatic than by all over the opposite side when they concede a point.

Diplomatic situations are relatively rare and are usually rather tense. Both sides realise that choosing a word or turn of phrase or inflection improperly can upset the whole situation and revert it to game theory.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

Wow, that's interesting. I'd have been happy to tell you where kerry was wrong. Actually, 5 areas might have been pushing it, since he was so wishy washy on so many issues. Still, I figured he'd be better than bush, and i'm pretty well convinced by the outcome.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[osgeek]

Calling people or positions "evil" isn't always wrong, but it's one of those tactics where a little bit goes a long way.

I normally find that the "evil" label gets applied by people who are guilty of exactly what tfa is about -- they don't want to deal on a logical level with the other side's arguments, so slapping the "evil" label on the arguments allows them to move on to ignore concepts they don't want to deal with.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[MindStalker]

But the real deal happends when to stop and realize that your side also has some evil. Take the abortion issue for instance.
The pro-abortionist understand that before abortion was legal that many women would mutilate themselves in order to have an abortion at any cost, they think to ever allow this to happen again ever is evil.
The anti-abortionist think that killing a baby ever even inside the womb is evil.
Then on the flip side the rabit pro-abortionist think that anyone should be able to kill their children up till you cut the cord, while the rabid anti-abortionist think killing doctors is ok, but killing a day old embryo is sin. There really isn't any reconciliation of these views, but its impossible to say that one side of the extremist is any less evil than the other side.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[sjames]

Abortion, preemptive war, tax the rich vs tax the poor, social welfare programs, socialized medicine, environment preservation: people who hold strong beliefs about these things are relatively unlikely to find themselves acknowledging the other side as right or themselves wrong on these issues.

While people polarized on those issues are indeed unlikely to all shake hands and agree on the issue as a whole, but there are facts within those issues that can be agreed on.

For example, we can (potentially) agree that routine health care is out of some people's reach, that that isn't preferable, and that it would be expensive to just pay everyone's hospital bills while still disagreeing about the solution. The disagreement is in the value judgements around those facts. The problem is that when thought stops and emotion takes over, problem solving becomes impossible. All that's left is an endless rehash of the debate until someone gets enough political power to cram their pet solution down the other's throat.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[lynx_user_abroad]

Abortion, preemptive war, tax the rich vs tax the poor, social welfare programs, socialized medicine, environment preservation: people who hold strong beliefs about these things are relatively unlikely to find themselves acknowledging the other side as right or themselves wrong on these issues.

It's important to note that "people who hold strong beliefs" can be found leading both the party in power today and the party in power next time. One of the aims of a Constitutional Government is to forge a seperation of those powers, to create an environment where less forceful voices could and would be heard.

There are a lot of Democrats who are upset at the Bush administrations Strong Executive constructions. I wonder if the president's strongest supporters will still think this is a good idea when a Democrat takes office, or if they're hoping that having Bush claim that power now will prevent a Democrat from ever gaining that power?

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

Heh heh. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Republicans who will agree to your health care premises. Most of them feel that the status quo is just fine, that people with money should have access to better care than those without.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[MindStalker]

You just wait! Perl 6 is coming... Any minute now... should be here soon... really... oh heck...

And of course the really rabid political sides are still arguing the Perl 4 VS Perl 5 debate.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

Yes, unfortunately with abortion in particular, I think both sides are at least trying to take a morally defensible position. With most of the other issues, unfortunately, it's all greed/intolerance/ignorance as the motivators.

Frankly, with abortion, I think medical science is going to resolve the issue for us in about 30 years (maybe less), certainly before the issue can be solved by the partisan debate. Every woman will have the right to evict a baby from her womb at any time, and that baby will have the right to the best medical care available during and after the procedure, which will essentially mean that any woman who wants not to carry a baby to term will have the baby transferred to an artificial womb, with the costs born by the state. She'll give up all parental rights by doing so, and the resulting baby will have no legal connection with her whatsoever.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[jahudabudy]

People have polarized themselves so much that when an opposing opinion to their viewpoints comes along, they hit it like a wack-a-mole instead of considering it for a moment and trying to understand it.

I agree, that is certainly a pervasive problem in American politics. However, I think the example of abortion highlights another problem: for some issues, there is NO compromise. Ignoring right vs. wrong, the two sides are interested in mutually exclusive outcomes. Even understanding why the other side feels the way they do does not bridge the divide; I either can abort a fetus, or I can not. More understanding might lead to a more civilized discourse on the issue, but I don't see how it could help resolve the issue.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[blair1q]

>You can still acknowledge the other side and remain strong.

But if the other side knows it's being illogical and depends on your turning the other cheek, you'll end up nailed to a cross with a sword-hole in your side expecting a resurrection that will never come.*

Stay logical, stick to the facts, and do not give in to unproven assertions. That is strength.

* - okay, so there's a book that says that it worked for one guy, but it's been widely shown to be full of contradictions and other fantasies.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[feed_me_cereal]

except that the goal shouldn't be "to win the argument", but to produce a solution to the problem you're arguing over.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Bob Uhl]

Plenty of Republicans agree that it's unfortunate that not everyone can afford premium health care; they just also realise that it's impossible to provide premium service to everyone.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Jeremi]

This retreat-to-the-castle-and-raise-the-drawbridge mentality that seems to pervade Congress is the reason that elections are so hotly contested and have led to the detestable "red state/blue state" school of politics.

I think the problem is more the opposite: elections aren't hotly contested enough. Consider that in the 2004 elections only 2% of the of the seats in the House of Representatives we're considered "in play". That means that 98% of of congressman pretty much had re-election "in the bag", and didn't have any need to make political compromises in order to get more votes and be re-elected. Because of that, they have no motivation to do anything but play to their established base.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[cduffy]

Yes.

I'm still not too fond of the use of "evil", just because it's so darned fuzzy. Is it the intolerant bigots who are evil, or the liberals who are trying to destroy traditional family values in the name of their unproven ideals of political correctness? Depends on who you're talking to.

I personally support a number of economic policies that would have me labeled "heartless" by a significant number of groups -- heck, I even agree with them on occasion (as to the heartlessness bit, not as to their opposition to said policies), but think that such policies are likely to lead to better results for society in the long run, even if they deny assistance to people in the short run, some of whom will be in need of such assistance soley by operation of chance. Evil? Pragmatic? It's all just a bunch of labels, and "evil" is a mighty charged (and relative) one. Worse, though, is the extent to which a labeling a group as "evil" can lead to actions which aren't thought through -- because they're The Enemy, and seriously considering why they might be taking the actions they are is lending them support.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[GrievousMistake]

That's funny, but only assuming the only goal of the game is to 'win' by convincing the other.
If you both want to find the best possible answer, both players would gain by considering all arguments for objective truth.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[MindStalker]

with the costs born by the state. I have a slight problem with that as such encourages people not to be concerned with getting pregnant as there are no drawbacks and it gets them free medical care at best. Population control will also be important in the future. I don't know the solution, required sterilization for such a procedure maybe, though that may discourage some people from taking it. Possibly a drug to provide X years of sterilization might do the trick as most of these people might ONE day want a family, just not right now.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[sjames]

Plenty of Republicans agree that it's unfortunate that not everyone can afford premium health care; they just also realise that it's impossible to provide premium service to everyone.

Scratch the word premium for a start. I'm sure that many DO agree, but when it comes to public debate, I hear a lot more desperate claims that adequate healthcare is universilly available now since (my paraphrase) all you have to do is wait until your condition is life threatening and then the emergency room will give you treatment. To be fair, I have also heard desperate stretches on the other side claiming nobody ever gets denied wanted health care under socialized medicine.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Johnboi Waltune]

When artifical womb technology is developed, it will likely be too expensive to artifically gestate every aborted fetus (about a million a year in the U.S.) Who is going to pay to maintain roughly 750,000 artificial wombs? Who will pay to feed, shelter, and educate millions of orphans? A lot of people would take to the streets if taxes were raised for this purpose. I just don't see artifical wombs having any use beyond providing women without a functioning uterus a way to reproduce without hiring or convincing a 3rd party to gestate the fetus.

A more interesting situation will arise when fetuses can be transferred from one woman to another. Will female religious fundamentalists actually offer to gestate an aborted fetus and adopt the baby? I don't see that happening beyond a few cases either.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[PaxTech]

Anti-abortion ideas along with other values that are mostly based on religion can't really be debated because they are based on dogma and not on reality or reason.

Of course, the same statement applies to environmentalism and Marxism as well. Both of those are just as based on dogma as Christianity or Islam are, but we mostly don't call them religions.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Alan Hicks]

Before the 2004 elections, I asked people who supported Bush to name five issues on which they thought Bush was wrong

• 1- Immigration. Of course, neither party seems interested in any real change on this yet.
• 2- Prescription Drug Plan. Not only is this, IMHO, not the government's business, it's completely doomed to failure. The latest cost estimates are already triple the initial estimation.
• 3- Spending. I think this says it all.
• 4- Social Security Reform. Instead of privatizing it, we should face the facts that it is simply income redistribution and regardless of your moral leanings there, completely unsustainable in the long term. My suggeted fix? Tell everyone 30 years of age and younger you'll never get SS and phaze it out as old people die off.
• 5- Education. School vouchers are a good idea, IMHO, but don't go near far enough. It's not an issue of money like everyone likes to think, it's an issue of parents using public schools as free daycare. Without parents taking a real interest in their kids' education, no amount of funding is going to help, no standardized tests are going to help, and focusing on things like computers in the classroom is simply stupid. I learned to read "See Dick run" and can read and write as well as anyone. Focus on parents and the fundamentals of the three "R"s and things may improve.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Johnboi Waltune]

They probably thought you were pimping some dubious 3rd party candidate.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, that is certainly a pervasive problem in American politics. However, I think the example of abortion highlights another problem: for some issues, there is NO compromise. Ignoring right vs. wrong, the two sides are interested in mutually exclusive outcomes. Even understanding why the other side feels the way they do does not bridge the divide; I either can abort a fetus, or I can not. More understanding might lead to a more civilized discourse on the issue, but I don't see how it could help resolve the issue.

It's simple. Reasoned discourse, rather than blind emotional discourse, would lead people to ask the right questions. One side is interested in not killing an unborn child, and the other side is interested in protecting the rights of women to choose whether they do or do not want a baby, in the cases where pregnancy was an accident or the result of rape, or where adequate time and money is not available to care for a child.

This is definitely solvable, you just have to shut off the emotionally blinding section of your brain and ask, "When does an unborn child come to life as a functioning human which should have protected rights?" We have a perfect analogy already available to answer this question. Look at death of the elderly. A person is medically dead when brain function ceases, and thus, it is reasonable to conclude that a person becomes a medically alive person when brain function begins.

A functioning brain takes quite a few months of pregnancy to form (you can look up the details for yourself), and thus, before this is formed, there isn't really a separate human life present. So both interests can be resolved by permitting abortion before the brain is functioning, and prohibiting abortion after the brain is functioning, leaving plenty of time for decisions to be made and leaving full protection of the child.

And in fact, roughly 90%-95% of all abortions already occur before the brain is functioning, so enacting this as policy would be a minor change for society, and would resolve all reasoned interests in the debate.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Coryoth]

Nothing builds more respect amongst an intelligent audience than someone in argument admitting "Yes, actually you're right, I (hadn't considered it that way/didn't know that fact)". Being able to consider the information and make an about face given sufficient cause is a sign of maturity and that you actually think about what you are discussing.

Of course I said "intelligent audience" - there are plenty who will see such change as a sign of weakness.

And just as a pre-emptive point: I'm not talking about, for example, Kerry's "flip-flopping". While he did apparently change his mind, part of the whole problem was that he wasn't willing to admit that he changed his mind. Had he said "At the time I believed in the war in Iraq, but I have now come to see that I was wrong in that belief and oppose it" things might have been different.

Jedidiah.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[krysolid]

I agree with you there ... it is like these two groups do not
see reality the same, to trying to ease in ONE fact that
disagrees with their entire reality does not compute.

There is a saying I heard a little while ago that goes like this:

    "Never try to reason someone out of a position they did not
    reason themselves into first."

I admit I am biased towards the left, but I also have a lot of
conservtive beliefs as well, what trumps is my vision of what
the future looks like under what I see happening now. It is
not that I do not agree with some of the conservative ideas,
but their implementation is fatally flawed.

I do not want perpetual war. I do not want an even more
positive feedback loop for taxes, profit, benefits to go to
the rich while the middle, working and poor have to pay for
it all, and all the war to protect these riched they do not
partake in.

I believe in the theory that the crime rate has gone down
so much because of the ability for women in marginal positions
in life to decide what happens to their embryos. I do not like
abortion, I was a product of a forced marriage and would not
even exist if that was an opportunity for my mother at the
time ... however I would never have known about it, and I did
not many advantages of an upper middle class life.

What I see arguments as pointing out are the ablity of both
sides to nit-pick. I see the Republicans as following the
letter of the law, making arguments, built on other arguments,
that go in a direction they want, but not the spirit of the
law, which is what most liberals seem to be pointing out.

Both side think they are right, and even if they do not think
they are right, they will rationalize, or find a way to do what
is best for them ... the problem is when an elite gets to
decide what is best for everyone.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[danaris]

We have a perfect analogy already available to answer this question. Look at death of the elderly. A person is medically dead when brain function ceases, and thus, it is reasonable to conclude that a person becomes a medically alive person when brain function begins.

And this is where you lose the whole core of the abortion issue: the people who believe that "the start of life," meaning, "the gaining of a soul," happens at the moment of conception, and who will never believe anything different, because that's what their priest tells them to believe. (Or what their priest told their mother, who tells them, but you get the point.)

I happen to agree with you: I cannot see any reasonable argument that an embryo/fetus can be considered to be separately alive before it at least has differentiated brain cells, which doesn't happen for a while. Beyond that, I'm not medically qualified to judge.

But you and I are able to put aside emotion, and religion, for reason. Some people are not, and never will be.

Dan Aris

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[CashCarSTAR]

Ditto.

Actually, as being an active member of the liberal political blog community, quite a few people had problems with some of Kerry's ideas. Most if not all did. Now, because they disagreed with Kerry did NOT mean that they agreed with Bush. Mostly they independantly thought some third idea was better.

Unfortunatly, at this point the Republican party is motivated less by ideology, and more by pissing liberals off, and the feelings of winning.

From what I see on the right grassroots level, there's some disagreement about immigration, but pretty much all of politics has been personalized into Bush itself. Which is probably the ultimate in an emotional response.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[James_Aguilar]

On top of everything Surt said, there's another problem. I don't know if this is the same experience everyone has had, but for me, I have never been able to usefully convince anyone of anything by arguing with them. One of two things happen instead:

1. The person is remains unconvinced. This can come from stubbornness, blindness to facts, or weak arguments on my part.
2. If my logic is powerful enough or I have enough of an intellectual advantage over the other person, I can eventually force them to acknowledge my correctness, but they will hate me for it and still nothing will change.

When it comes right down to it, I have realized that there is nothing I can do to affect the opinions of others through arguments. This is true in politics too. The only way to win someone from the opposite side is not to convince them that you are right, but to convince them that you genuinely put their interests first and that, on top of that, you have the power to defend their interests from others. THAT is what wins in politics, more than anything else. Too bad that no one seems to be able to do that any more. =/

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[SIGFPE]

I think one of the biggest problems is confusing fact with value. Take, for example, the issue of abortion. The two sides disagree over what constitutes a person. But there is no fact of the matter in this situation. What matters is your value system. Simplifying: one side values unborn babies more, the other the freedom of the mother more. Both sides will adduce facts to further their cause but the issue isn't over fact. Often arguments over value turn into quite stupid fact slinging sessions because neither side is actually talking about the right thing. And this is also why the two sides will often ignore the facts when convenient because their values aren't actually derived from those facts.

Unfortunately, in our society, facts rule. Whether or not you are talking about facts or values we are taught to dress up our statements as if they are statements of fact. If you want to sway someone's values it's probably better to appeal to their emotions - but unfortunately this is frowned upon.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a slight problem with that as such encourages people not to be concerned with getting pregnant as there are no drawbacks and it gets them free medical care at best.

If dollars are your concern, unplanned children, particularly among the poor, can be much more expensive to society if born than any abortion costs. If people making smart choices is your concern, then you can't induce that by beating them with a financial stick. Education, and in particular, real, substantial, and complete sexual education is the trick to getting people to make smart choices.

Possibly a drug to provide X years of sterilization might do the trick

They're called birth control pills. How about having a real health care system in the U.S. that allows people who can't afford them to get access to birth control pills. Society as a whole would benefit greatly. Total economic burden would decrease. Emotional stability of children would increase. Poverty would decrease. Crime would decrease.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[starm_]

True about Marxism, and true about some forms of environmentalism. But that is such a straw man argument. Almost no one promotes or even acknowledges Marxism. Almost no one try to legislate anything but the most pragmatic environmentalist policies that internalise market failures and have a clearly positive benefit /cost ratio.

Your examples are way out of the mainstream. Mine aren't.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[magarity]

This retreat-to-the-castle-and-raise-the-drawbridge mentality that seems to pervade Congress is the reason that elections are so hotly contested
 
Which makes an excellent argument for going back to the way Senators were originally chosen: by state legislatures. If they didn't have to pander to their most vocal supporters then you wouldn't see a lot of the public mudslinging that Senators engage in these days. House of Reps works great as directly elected but each individual Senator has too much power to pander to the loudest (lowest?) common denominator. If their elections were removed by a layer then they could afford to be more understanding in public of the other side.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[MindStalker]

More concerned about population control if we add every child that was aborted to our population as well as remove the negative consequences of unplanned pregnancy population would spiral out of control. OR I could be wrong..

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Phreakiture]

You can still acknowledge the other side and remain strong.

I think that mondern American politics is a sort of a Prisoner's Dilemma. If you would like an example, please look at the conduct of the two main parties (<I object to the phrase "both parties" as there are alternatives</rant>) after the 2000 election, when the recount mess was going on.

Specifically, the Democrats appeared to be cooperative at one point, conceding the possibility that the Republicans could emerge victorious after a complete count. The Republicans, however, admitted no reciprocal possibility for the Democrats. This was then spun by the Republicans into an admission that the Democrats were wrong. From there, just kick in the mechanisms that were discussed in TFA, and you have the ensuing shitstorm.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone basing their beliefs and political views on _basic_ assumptions that are contrary to my view can never make sense.

If you're rejecting arguments as senseless under these circumstances, you're just as likely to be wrong as the other guy.

Now, if you check the assumptions and find out those assumptions are false, Ok. But simply stating 'the assumptions are contrary to my view' isn't sufficient.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[ipfwadm]

Tell everyone 30 years of age and younger you'll never get SS and phaze it out as old people die off.

Yeah... do that while still collecting SS taxes from them for the rest of their lives and you'll have a lot of very pissed off people. I know I would be. Of course, people at that age don't vote en masse, so maybe the politicians wouldn't care. Either way though, I agree, in its current form it's unsustainable. And privatizing it simply turns it into a retirement account, which it was never meant to be, though a lot of people don't seem to understand that.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Bimo_Dude]

That is very interesting; I wish it had been posted as an "Ask Slashdot" (even though it's not a tech thing. I think I'll do the same thing with my friends and family in the 2008 elections.

As for asking this of supporters of Kerry or Bush, I think that had people responded, they would probably have named the same issues, and that it would have been likely that both candidates had the same opinions on those issues. In other words, I could not really find any difference between Bush and Kerry, except that Kerry could pronounce the word, "nuclear."

Funny that in the time it took me to type this, your post was modded flamebait. Oh well, I have karma to burn, too. :)

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one of the biggest problems facing our society is not being willing to acknowledge when the other group is correct or when we are wrong.

I have to post anonymously because I get flamed for speaking the truth here, but anyway...

No, the biggest problem facing our society (USians) is selfishness, self-centeredness, and greed.

Honestly, I believe that we focus too much on making everybody correct, so that everybody is now wrong. Case in point, with the political correctness of the 90s we now call black people "African Americans", which by definition means black. If you are white and immigrate to the US from Africa, you are not allowed to call yourself an African American.

Now, for the controversial stuff. The summary says:

they shun logic and use emotional processing centers to justify their candidate's contradictory statements. 'With their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust.

Now, emotions are important. Don't get me wrong. But making decisions out of emotions is not wise. Its not wise to persue another mate after just breaking up with one because you are an emotional basket case. Often what you do is pick and focus on the new person for exactly what the old person is not, and you completely miss what was wrong with _you_ that caused the relationship to fail.

I hate to hurt people's feelings, but making decisions based on emotion is more of a feminine characteristic, and I believe that our government has had feminine characteristics for quite some time. Personally, I don't believe we have had a real leader in our Whitehouse since Kennedy. He was a man, fucked the hottie of the decade (Marlyn Monroe), put the man on the moon, and stuck by his beliefs and guns.

Fear is a valid emotion. It keeps us from being hurt and dying. But irrational fear, is a silly emotion. Another leader of our country said "The only thing to fear is fear itself". That is true.

I firmly believe that leaders should make decisions based on facts and weigh them so that they benefit the majority. Studies have shown that girls will modify the rules of a game so that nobody is left out of playing the game. Guys will simply stick with the rules and pick the best to be on their team, and leave the rest to do whatever they do. Personally, regarding sports, I was often the one left out.

With the advent of the loss of leadership in the US, I have drawn a couple of possible reasons. 1) We simply do not need a leader. We are on autopilot for a while, and we just do whatever we want or 2) There simply are no real men left to run for an office, and men and women are too feminized to vote for a rational decision maker.

My 0.02$

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

Yeah, I have to agree, flamebait is off. Who was I baiting? The democrats I slighted or the republicans I slighted? I think both were deserving, but the post was merely intended to inform not to bait.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[kbielefe]

There are some issues which are matters of opinion, not matters of fact. For example, no one will ever be able to prove whether abortion is wrong or not. It's a matter of personal morals, and no amount of argument is going to change those. You can show what a majority thinks, but that doesn't make something a fact, just a more widely held opinion. And polls don't help much. Consider that a majority feels that abortion is wrong, but another majority feels that abortion should be legal.

Other issues aren't exactly matters of opinion, but also aren't provable either way. For example, we will never know for sure if going to war in Iraq improved things or made them worse in the long run, because we can only speculate what would have happened if we didn't.

The problem comes when people completely polarize, ignore the common opinions they hold, and resist any movement toward middle ground. For example, Judge Alito has been characterized as anti-abortion by both sides. However, his only anti-abortion judicial opinion merely supported a statute requiring the husband to be notified (no consent required) by certified letter, unless a judge approves an exception or the life of the mother is in immediate danger, and that was a dissenting opinion so it had no effect anyway. From my pro-life viewpoint, that seems pretty weak for 15 years on the bench. Trying to put myself in the other side's shoes, I think even the most ardent pro-choice husband would at least want to know his wife was having an abortion.

Remember that "immediate withdrawal" feud? Both sides reacted negatively, completely missing the fact that they were in almost total agreement. Nearly everyone wanted the troops to come home as soon as possible, but felt that immediately was too soon.

There are people that oppose good ideas from the president, just because they don't like the president. Likewise, there are people that support bad ideas from the president, just because they like the president. Those that can rise above the fray are the ones that actually get things done.

The democrat I most admire along those lines is Senator Feingold, even though I frequently disagree with him. He voted against the patriot act when it was highly popular. He voted against going to war in Iraq, but then supported the troops by voting to provide enough budget for the war effort. I think he could have won against Bush in 2004.

I also admire Senator McCain for taking a stand when he thought the president was wrong. There has been a lot of buzz about Condi vs. Clinton in 2008, but the race I would love to see is McCain vs. Feingold.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[ilyaaohell]

The internet is a HORRIBLE setting for discussion. It's not real-time. Each individual writes several paragraphs at a time, compounding on errors and incorrect assumptions to present their point of view, making it hard for the opponent to pick it apart and debate the issue point by point. And even when someone tries to do just that, their opponent will INVARIABLY and ALWAYS ignore at least 80% of the points being disputed and focus on just one, making for an incredibly frustrating "conversation".

Another horrible setting for discussion is television. Most people who debate on television are not necessarily well-versed in their supposed areas of expertise (Bill O'Reilly has no form of political or historical education or experience whatsoever that is in any way beyond that of an average college graduate). The reason these people are debating on television is because they're telegenic, confrontational, witty, and entertaining. Their opinions frequently do not make any sense for this reason: They lack the understanding of the topic to form educated conclusions. It's just as bad when newspaper columnists are brought in to debate on television. These people have degrees in either English or Journalism. They know how to write extremely well, but their opinions are often far less informed than those who specifically specialize in social studies, history, political science, or psychology.

I've noticed that the best way, by far, to have a debate is to do it one on one, without an audience to play to, and specifically using the Socratic Method. Ask what the other person believes in, ask them to back it up, ask them to illustration how the evidence and the conclusion are connected, and top it all off, ask them why your OWN opinion doesn't match. Don't tell them, ASK them. Always ask. If 80% of your statements are not ended with a question mark, you're doing it wrong. I've had these types of debates with numerous people. I've been convinced by several of them of things that I previously absolutely opposed, and I've managed to convince them that they were wrong on some things as well. On the things that are more interpretive and deal less with fact-based opinion, we've always managed to agree to disagree, and still respect each other's opinions afterwards.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

You put yourself in the wrong other shoes. The right other shoes are the shoes of the severely abused woman too afraid to leave her husband or to go to a court to seek an exception. Terrified of the abuse she and her baby will experience at the hands of her husband, she decides to get an abortion.

In her shoes, do you find it reasonable to be legally required to notify your husband?

Otherwise, I agreed with everything in your post.

And for 2008, I doubt either Condi or Clinton will make it through the primaries. Everyone says I'm insane to think so, but we'll see (and I leave this post as proof of my prediction).

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[matfud]

> And this is where you lose the whole core of the abortion issue: the people who believe that "the start of life," meaning, "the
> gaining of a soul," happens at the moment of conception, and who will never believe anything different, because that's what their
> priest tells them to believe. (Or what their priest told their mother, who tells them, but you get the point.)

But those poeple, like most extremists (pro or anti abortion in this case), are a very small but very very very vocal proportion of the population.

Politicians love these kind of issues. They give people the impression that debate is occuring when very few voters are actually involved. Its a great way to avoid needing well defined policies and comprehensive knowledge of the current situation and your own parties policies when being questioned.

These issues are a great way of polarising voters. Make them ingore the things your party is actually doing and make them concentrate on ideals. If you have enough people shouting in the media then most people will think it is important.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Rick BigNail]

Why not? If the husband is abusive, then a law in place would bring the abuse to forefront. That will help the wife don't you think? Perhaps the law would prevent the wife from going to abortion clinic, but that's life, unless you are absolutely sure that aborting a fetus is morally ok.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[danaris]

Actually, I think you might be (unpleasantly) surprised how many people believe, if pressed to give an actual answer, that life begins at conception—because a lot of them are Catholic, and have been told by the Church that that is when life begins.

However, I haven't conducted even an unscientific poll on the subject ;-)

Dan Aris

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Surt]

The problem is that the laws in place do close to nothing for victims of spousal abuse. Spend some time volunteering for a spousal abuse group. Hear some of the stories. It's terrible how cops and the courts treat women in this situation. If this was completely fixed, then you might have an argument for making such a law, but you clearly have to fix this problem first.

Also, what if the fetus bears no ties to the husband (ie the sperm came from another man)? Why should the husband get a notification? You wouldn't get a notification if your wife went in for any other sort of surgical procedure, what makes this one special that you should get notified?

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[HangingChad]

That's interesting, because being from the right (and possibly the extreme right), I have the exact opposite impression.

I guess when you don't want to admit you support evil people all you can do is keep hold of those impressions. All I know, as a former Republican, is you don't see Democrats lying about the honorable military service of men like Max Cleland, Congressman Murtha and John Kerry while lending vigorous support to a gutless draft-dodging frat boy yankee.

There aren't any Democrats listening in on my overseas phone calls without a warrant and claiming it's legal.

When the Democrats were in charge we had a budget surplus.

The Democrats didn't try to trump state's rights...one of their own states...in the Shaivo case.

When the Democrats ran things FEMA did a better job.

I have to think back to the phrase "by their fruits you shall know them." You can make claims and point fingers at the other side all you want but at the end of the day what you do speaks louder than your party affiliation. And right now my former party is a shameful, angry, dogmatic, ignorant shadow of its former self.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[CrazyDuke]

I have noticed a rabid leftist movement spring up in the past few years in responce to the rightist one. Both bother me terribly.

However, I would like to point something out. Wasn't Justice Ginsberg nominated by Republican Senator Orin Hatch after blocking Clinton's nominees? ...not that I have any love for Clinton or anything. Isn't that why she breezed through? Because, it was a horse trade between Clinton and the Congressional Republican Majority?

Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Alsee]

I think you are correct about that.

-

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[CrazyDuke]

I would like to add the insistance that the other "side" has no ideas for solutions, while ignoring said solutions, tends to agravate this outcome.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[mwlewis]

I'm not claiming that either side never is guilty of being hostile to an opposing point of view.

While your warrantless eavesdropping may be a valid point, it's as off-topic as the rest of your rant. You give examples of differing policy preferences, but nothing about being hostile to the opposing point of view.

You can't really say that the "Democrats" were in charge during the budget surplus, since the Republicans controlled Congress at the time (and, unlike the present, attempted to behave like fiscal conservatives, even if it was only to spite the President). Frankly, I think a split government works better than when one party controls the legislative and the executive.

Do you think that everything non-Republicans do is good?

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Bastian]

The problem is, an argument is almost never about what's right and what's wrong. It's usually about who is right and who is wrong.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[CrazyDuke]

Herm, this is difficult. Let me explain. Kerry had this problem where he using the old DLC stratagy of trying to please everyone by not being specific on anything. I guess I could say that in that, he was wrong potentially on just about every issue. Because, he would not take a solid stand on almost everything. It is hard to decern if someone is right or wrong on an issue if they refuse to make it clear where they stand on it.

It is kind of funny, the Democrats have a stratagy for the Presidency that is so similar to the Republican's judicial nomination stratagy: stealth candidates.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[CrazyDuke]

Unfortunately? I've told people what I was going to say, what their responce was going to be, and why that responce was flawed. Then I said it. And they did exactly what I said they where going to do instead of trying to argue why it was not flawed. That is what an appeal to emotion does. It allows you to control people in a way where they compulsively respond to you in a way they can not prevent.

There is a reason brainwashing works, folks. Think. For the love of everything you hold dear, think.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[SIGFPE]

To paraphrase Bertrand Russell: acting rationally is taking the best course of action to achieve your goals, but it can't tell you what your goals are. If you want to affect someone's goals rational argument might not be the best course of action. People on opposite sides of the spectrum have differing goals.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[FromellaSlob]

Frankly, with abortion, I think medical science is going to resolve the issue for us in about 30 years (maybe less), certainly before the issue can be solved by the partisan debate. Every woman will have the right to evict a baby from her womb at any time, and that baby will have the right to the best medical care available during and after the procedure, which will essentially mean that any woman who wants not to carry a baby to term will have the baby transferred to an artificial womb, with the costs born by the state. She'll give up all parental rights by doing so, and the resulting baby will have no legal connection with her whatsoever.

This "solution" presupposes that the purpose of women having abortions is merely to avoid the remaining months of their pregnancy. In every other sense it would have an identical outcome to carrying to term and giving up for adoption, which has always been available. When choosing abortion over adoption women generally rank the inconvenience of the pregnancy itself pretty low on their list of considerations. The most commonly given reasons are:

1. The anguish of knowing that your child is out there, never being able to have contact or even know how it is doing.
2. The notion that at it's current stage of development it is just a "blob of tissue" or "clump of cells", not yet a "person" and so not such a terrible thing to dispose of.

To go to the effort of constructing an artificial womb to save the fetus would be to acknowledge the falsehood of reason 2, and leave reason 1 unresolved.

In addition to these, there are lots of complex "rights" arguments made by pro-choice activists to say that development is irrelevant, even if we acknowlege the personhood of the fetus the mother still has the right to evict it from her body. However, these are rarely cited by the women who actually have abortions. It's usually very important to them to regard the fetus as being inconsequential. Unsurprising really, as being told you're "entitled" to kill an innocent is unlikely to make you feel any better about it. The pro-life side make counter-arguments that the baby has the right to be there. (Which IMO make a heck of a lot more sense, but then I am a pro-life activist.)

Note that these arguments generally apply to the majority of abortions for "social" reasons, not those for fetal abnormality (there's a whole load of extra arguments in there).

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[FromellaSlob]

Anti-abortion ideas along with other values that are mostly based on religion can't really be debated because they are based on dogma and not on reality or reason. Although anti-abortionists sometimes try to tie their ideas with reality it's a futile excersise and their arguments always end up being about faith and endoctrinated religious beliefs.

You shouldn't discount an entire position based on the poor advocacy skills of some of those who support it. Anti-abortion ideas are based on a moral framework. For the majority of pro-lifers this framework is based on their faith, which unfortunately leads many to resort to relgious arguments which boil down to "because God says so", sure to lose any argument with a non-believer. The irony is that the basic moral underpinning of the pro-life case is not at all exclusive to religious people, it is shared by almost everyone, and that is:

It's wrong to deliberately kill an innocent person without justification.

Most people accept this. Then the debate becomes about what constitutes a deliberate act, a person and justification.

Of course, not everyone accepts this. If you don't acknowledge that we should have a universal moral framework of some sort, you're a moral relativist and can't say anything is wrong. Was it wrong what those guys did on September 11th? Well, it depends on your point of view...

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[MacDork]

Instead of ever migrating to both sides conceding when they are wrong you get both sides never conceding anything.

Making both sides look like idiots. Introduce the possibility of real competition in elections, and you might see a lot of people start coming to sane conclusions. Right now, all we've got is rigged voting machines in gerrymandered districts re-electing the same good ol' boys in a forced two party system. That isn't democracy.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

--Now I'm working much closer to home and find that most people around here are open minded and not as I described. But Bloomington is kinda a unique place in my experience. Much more liberal than the rest of Indiana. My friends tend to be open minded people and that's probably because we have simular interests--

Hmmm... Yes, it's easier to call yourself "open-minded" when everyone around you thinks the same way you do (or approximately so).

open-minded = liberals?

That's the point of the research, isn't it? We get tunnel vision and tunnel hearing when it comes to opinions and we don't even realize it. Everybody fails at this...no one's immune...no one... Not even you, it seems.

Now, what do we do with what we now know?

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[kbielefe]

In her shoes, do you find it reasonable to be legally required to notify your husband?

No, but I find it reasonable to be legally required to get an exception from a judge. Those kind of proceedings might be scary, but they are confidential, and that woman needs help. Which is more cruel, to force a woman to confront her problem now, or to send her back to her abuser no questions asked? Overcoming some short term fear is well worth it in the long run. Two women very close to me were victims of abuse (and two others showed symptoms, but I'm not positive because they didn't confide in me), so I'm not talking in hypotheticals here.

And for 2008, I doubt either Condi or Clinton will make it through the primaries.

I'd agree with you if they were men. I think Condi would make a better president than Bush, but she is associated too strongly with his controversial administration. And Clinton is hammered in polls against McCain, and only really gets noticed when she gives off the wall speeches attacking the Bush administration.

However, I have learned not to underestimate the power of the uneducated electorate. The media is the only source of information for most people, and the media is already hyping the possibility of a woman president. People who don't know anything about their qualifications will think it's a cool idea. I think Boxer would make a better democratic candidate than Clinton though, but then again, most people outside of California haven't ever heard of her.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[starm_]

Almost no one will say they believe in strict moral relativism, (the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.)

Its funny though, how to ones who decry it are usually the ones who use it the most:

"For example, claiming that slaughtering civilians is unconscionable when Saddam Hussein does it, but is in the service of a greater good when we do it, is a fine example of moral relativism.

  one astute commentator on Kuro5hin put it:

        From the repugnant agenda of the Evangelical Christians (who see any social progress as a delay for their beloved Second Coming) to the blatant hypocrisy of attacking sexual misconduct (unless it is Newt Gingrich), degenerate gambling (unless it is Bill Bennett), government expansion and increased spending (unless it is done by G.W. Bush), drug use (unless it is done by Rush Limbaugh), the lies of the government (unless it is about a country the Republicans want to invade), treason (unless it is perpetrated by Robert Novak), and providing aid and comfort to the enemy (unless it done by Geraldo Riveria on FOX news)." -shamelessly ripped of from mykeru.com

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember the adage "A resonable attude is halfway to surrender"?

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[kbielefe]

Back to my original point. Judge Alito explains his position better than I can, and covers everything you have mentioned and more. I encourage you to read his opinion for the case. I think it is very difficult to read that opinion, especially considering it is his only anti-abortion opinion in 15 years on the bench, and come away thinking he would vote to overturn or cripple Roe v. Wade. However, that is what people on both sides of the debate are focusing on.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[FromellaSlob]

For example, claiming that slaughtering civilians is unconscionable when Saddam Hussein does it, but is in the service of a greater good when we do it, is a fine example of moral relativism.

Poor example.

Saddam Hussein slaughtered innocent civilians deliberately. Civilians casualties in wars happen as a side effect of action taken in the pursuit of genuine military objectives. Deliberate targetting of civilians is a war crime. Untill we invent the magic bomb that kills the bad guys, leaving the innocent unharmed, the "greater good" argument seems valid to me. Whether what we did in Iraq was a "greater good" is of course open to considerable debate, but try applying that logic to a less controversial conflict. Innocent civilians were undoubtably killed by Allied bombs in WWII. Were we wrong to fight? Was that a morally relativist thing to do? It all comes down to intent and justification, which is why I made sure to include those points in my original statement.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[jc42]

Then, of course, there are those who point out that an ovum or sperm is a living creature, every bit as alive as any adult. So obviously anyone who knowingly prevents fertilization is causing the death of a human. Abstention from sex is a form of negligent homicide.

So everyone join in singing "Every sperm is sacred ...".

(I haven't yet read of how God intended us to handle the obvious mathematical problem here.)

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it the intolerant bigots who are evil, or the liberals who are trying to destroy traditional family values in the name of their unproven ideals of political correctness?
Both?

It's all just a bunch of labels, and "evil" is a mighty charged (and relative) one.
Yes, but when applied to a policy, "X is evil" can almost universally be read as "As, or derived from, a core belief, I find X morally repulsive in the extreme". When applied to a person, it's often a different story, but in many cases, "P is evil" means "P supports a subset of {X: X is evil}".

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[GenSolo]

The amazing part is that both parties are in the wrong. Both parties support things that a large number (if not majority) of the people consider evil (or at least Bad Things). Generally, people pick a few key issues, pick a side based on said issues, and ignore the evils of "their" side because they have determined it to be the side of "lesser" evil. Debating an evil opponent is useless, but most people aren't evil. Most people advocate a position that can be construed to indirectly support evil things. Converting someone on their pet topic will never work, but in many cases, since there are few (I can only think of 1) topics where both sides consider each other to be evil (rather than one side considering the other evil, while the second side considers the first side misguided, stupid, counterproductive, or some other lesser form of "wrong"), it is far more productive to find common ground in the things that you both agree are evil and try to change them. Sadly, political parties inhibit productivity.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[ml10422]

It would be wonderful if we could even get people with differing opinions to acknowledge the same facts.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[xSauronx]

i imagine that if you could see statistics for WIC vouchers, child tax credits, and how much medicaid spends each year on pregnancy costs and delivering babies, youd probably realize alot of women are already not AT ALL concerned with getting pregnant.

hell, my sister and her husband have a few grand saved up in the bank, he has a job (albeit a crappy one, despite a 4 year degree and that he had an opportunity to make 40k/year recently and passed it over) and when she got pregnant, because of their joint income, *they* got medicaid. pays for all doctors visits, ultrasounds, all of it, and delivery, AND epidural during deilvery, and immediate nursery expenses where the baby is delivered, AND 1 year of medical checkups for the newborn.

the could have afforded it all, but the pregnancy wasnt planned, and they didnt want to deplete their savings. so, you and i get to pay for it, nice, eh?

want more? theres a 33 year old woman where i work, who has 3 kids. she has never been married to any of the fathers, makes maybe 8 bucks an hour (at about 25 hours/wk) and of course gets food stamps and medicaid. she got married last year, to a guy who almost immediately spent 14 months in prison (im not sure for what, he works part-time somewhere now) and THEY plan to have a kid together, so she can get more food stamps. im not guessing about that, i actually heard her say it. sometimes, people just dont really care about getting pregnant at all, or if they do, its not too much because hey....the guvment pays for it, and you get a cute-as-hell kid out of the deal, so its not so bad, is it?

im not sure how i feel about population control and forced sterilization, after all, shouldnt it be someones right to have kids if they want them? i havent even got a good answer to that, part of me says yes, its their right as a human to reproduce, part of me says no, because i sure as hell dont want to pay for someone else's kid when i have my own to take care of.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[PaxTech]

Your examples are way out of the mainstream. Mine aren't.

You must be new here. Radical environmentalism and communism/socialism are far more mainstream religions with the /. crowd than any traditional religion is. Try making some critial comments about each topic and then count which generates more flames, you'll see how "out of the mainstream" they are.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[starm_]

That's ridiculous within slashdot and even more so in the general american population. between: "Communism is stupid and doesn't work" "Jesus is a figment of nonexistant god's imagination" The second one will offend more. I'll eat Bush's brown stained holy underpants if you can show there are more communists than christians on /.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[starm_]

I assume you mean the Kurd slaughterings. You speak as if the US hadn't sanctioned the use of chemical weapons while ignoring the fact that it was used on Iraqis by Saddam in 1983 just before, and I'm sure you have seen the picture, Rumsfeld and Saddam shook hands. "The U.S.[...]had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Unless of course you are suggesting that after its done with Iraq the US should attacks itself for being an accomplice of Saddam.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[True Grit]

Alito explains his position better than I can

It still doesn't help. Alito's dissent ignores the "real-world" problems of spousal notification demonstrated to the court in testimony, that the court's majority goes into in detail above your link. Perhaps you would help yourself understand the other side by reading that court opinion from the top.

Alito completely ignores the real-world situations this law would create, and goes to on to oppose it based on legal technicalities, and a deliberate reading of Justice OConner's previous work very differently from how the majority in this case (2 other judges) read it (see their response to Alito's dissent in the earlier section).

To me, deliberately ignoring the real-world consequences of your actions is the mark of a fundamentalist. Alito apparently his no more use for the "reality-based community" than Bush Jr. does.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[kbielefe]

Dissent does not imply ignorance. I have read the full text of that decision (twice, if you count just now), the Supreme Court appeal, the cited precedents, and about a dozen other judicial opinions brought to my attention by both Alito's supporters and detractors. I also watched or read the transcript for every word of the confirmation hearing. Trust me, I understand both sides of the argument. An ad hominem attack won't hold water in my case.

The fact that Alito interpreted Justice O'Connor's precedent differently than the other two judges doesn't prove anything either way about the validity of his argument. The majority of the Pennsylvania legislature, and 4 Supreme Court justices, happened to agree with Judge Alito on that point. Granted, the justices weren't in the majority, but a 5-4 decision is strong evidence that neither interpretation of the law was the clear and obvious choice. And don't forget that Judge Alito's interpretation agreed with the entire court except Blackmun on four out of five points under consideration in that case. And keep in mind that Alito decided every other abortion case he heard in favor of abortion rights.

I thank you for proving my original point, though. My intent wasn't to debate if Alito decided Casey correctly or not, but only to illustrate the extreme polarizing effect of his moderately conservative judicial record on abortion.

I challenge you to describe a moderate conservative on abortion if you still think Alito isn't one. Disagreeing with O'Connor on 1/5 of one case in a 15 year career does not describe a fundamentalist. Assuming that anyone who doesn't share your position on abortion would agree with you, if they weren't deliberately ignoring reality, does describe a fundamentalist.

Re:Acknowledge the other side

[FromellaSlob]

Completely missed the point of my post. I'm not interested in discussing the particular controversies over Iraq, I'm making a point about the validity of the "Greater good" argument and whether it constitutes moral relativism.

In Roman times ...

[eldavojohn]

Used to be in Roman times that the greatest senators of the republic were those who were the most stoic.

Now, it seems the most desired senators are those most likely to be on Jerry Springer.

My how the burning of Alexandria set us back much further than we could have thought.

Re:In Roman times ...

[s20451]

What if Jerry Springer was the senator?

He abandoned the senate race shortly thereafter. But Wikipedia reports that he has had quite the political career: 1968, campaign aide to RFK; 1970, ran for congress and lost; 1971, elected to Cincinnati city council; 1977, elected mayor of Cincinnati; 1982, lost the Dem primary for Ohio governor; 2004, member of the Ohio delegation to the DNC.

Problems with Politics

[PlayCleverFully]

There are a few problems with politics, the main one of being forced to use such a everything this way.. I am an independent and that is how I vote.

However, "democrats" could never vote for a "republican" based on the fact that they are "republican" alone.

Hopefully there will be a change in how the U.S.A. citizens vote, but I do not see that happening in the forseeable future.

Re:Problems with Politics

[LordKazan]

I disagree with your assertion that "democrats" could never vote for a "republican" simply because they're a republican. I am a registered democrat, and I often think some of the things my party does are moronic [most of their attempts at gun control are not only ineffective they're just plain stupid is a prime example]. I could vote for a republican if said republican showed respect for the constitution, minorities (racial and religious), had a well thought out platform, etc. A republican i could vote for would be viciously attacked by their own party for being "RINO" as said republican would also have to be pro-choice, respectful of the 1st and 4th ammendments, put good economics ahead of loyalty to reaganomics [aka "trickle down"/"supply side" - a proven failure], etc.

-----------------------

I do not doubt that the study is valid for certain segments of all politicial persuations - however i point out that this studies scope is much more limited than people are trying to apply it to - they were shown videobites that contradicted each other and measured reaction to that, they didn't give us numbers on what proportion of each group did this because it is certainly not 100%, they did not test this in relation to things other than candidate-reaction. This study has a much more limited scope that peolpe are trying to give it.

Re:Problems with Politics

[operagost]

I could vote for a republican if said republican showed respect for the constitution, minorities (racial and religious)

Please cite an example of racism in the Republican party.

Remember that it was Republicans who freed the slaves, pushed the Civil Rights Act, and put more minorities in the Cabinet. As for the Democrats; well, we have Robert "KKK" Byrd and the blatant explotation of the black vote. What do I mean by that? Well, consider the social platforms of the Democratic party-- namely staunch defense of abortion, the push for homosexual marriages*, and opposition to religious expression-- and consider how those points conflict with the very spiritual base of African-Americans.

put good economics ahead of loyalty to reaganomics [aka "trickle down"/"supply side" - a proven failure],

All the people who reelected Reagan in 1984 would probably disagree with you. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

* I happen to think that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, which is a religious institution, and should instead offer "social partnership" licenses to basically any pair of cohabiting adults for tax and social purposes.

Re:Problems with Politics

[operagost]

I just realized I goofed and the "Reagan question" was from the 1980 campaign. Of course, Reagan answered his own question in 1984 when he pointed out that the prime rate had dropped from an astounding 21% (basically locking most families out of buying a home) to 13% and the real earnings of workers had risen every year after falling steadily throughout the Carter White House.

Re:Problems with Politics

[LordKazan]

Please cite an example of racism in the Republican party.
Stromm Thurmond, an UNREPENTANT racist. Robert Byrd left the KKK long ago and has since stopped being a racist.

A) How is staunch defense of a woman's bodily sovereignty and therefore abortion "exploitation of the black vote"
B) How is supporting EQUAL RIGHTS for homosexuals "exploitation of the black vote"
C) Democrats are not against "religious expression", they're against mingling government and religion, which is expressly forbidden by the First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Now watch out - you may learn that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc have been lying to you:

I, and no othe democrat who is taken seriously by other democrats, think you shouldn't be allowed to go worship whatever deit(y/ies) you want to on your own time and your own dollar. However it is expressly forbidden for government to promot religion A over religion B, religion over non-religion, non-religion over religion, etc. Government must remain neutral.

That means a teacher cannot lead students in prayer "no school prayer", however if a student wishes to spontaneously pray on their own they can do so in school if they are not disruptive (ie loud) - and we democrats will defend their right to do so agaisnt certain principles who go to far into being the PC-police.

That means you cannot have the Ten Commandments posted on government property (a myriad of postings from different religions in one spot doesn't help this - how do you represent non-religious people who therefore have no document)

That means laws cannot be passed just for religious reasons.

That means the government cannot give money to religious groups (it is impossible to do so equally even if the humans involved in allocating the funds weren't inherently biased individuals)

That mans "Intelligent Design" doesn't belong in science class since it isn't science - it belongs in study of world religions, and that "study of world religions" class cannot be a sham that is only teaching ID (like that one school in california tried to pull)

As for the success of reagan's economic policies i need only present the following
http://www.democrats08.com/media/us_deficit0.gif

I happen to think that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, which is a religious institution, and should instead offer "social partnership" licenses to basically any pair of cohabiting adults for tax and social purposes.

couldn't agree more

Re:Problems with Politics

[masklinn]

Remember that it was Republicans who freed the slaves, pushed the Civil Rights Act, and put more minorities in the Cabinet. As for the Democrats; well, we have Robert "KKK" Byrd and the blatant explotation of the black vote.

Remember that while they do use the same name, they are not the same people, don't have the same goals nor the same views on the world.

The Republican party was once standing at the left of the United States political scene. This is no longer the case, and there is no way in hell you can assimilate the current neo-con republican party with the humanitarian progressive republican party of the 19th century.

Re:Problems with Politics

[operagost]

Where did I mention intelligent design or the ten comandments? And are you so ignorant that you don't realize most black people are practicing Christians who are against abortion and homosexuality? I made no statements on my own stand in this issue.

So your proof that Reaganomics didn't help the economy is based on a single indicator-- the national deficit. I'll play along. I looked on your chart and I noticed that the budget deficit was higher when Reagan left office. However, it was growing immensely when he came in at the same time interest rates were shicklingly high. It became a surplus when Clinton came into office. That was a laudable feat, but that fact that our defense and national security were gutted during that time span makes it suspect. In any case, it doesn't prove that supply-side economics doesn't work-- it proves that Clinton adopted those policies for his own, under a different name.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/ reagtxct.htm

Following this paper, Clinton enacted tax cuts and the economy skyrocketed. At least, until the Internet Bubble burst in 1999-2000. Notice the steep dropoff during the last year of his presidency. Oh wait, that's supposed to be Bush's fault! My bad.

Re:Problems with Politics

[LordKazan]

And are you so ignorant that you don't realize most black people are practicing Christians who are against abortion and homosexuality?

Being "against" them and being "against someone's right to have one/be one" are two completely seperate things in the minds of MANY MANY people. There are many democrats who support choice but don't personally support abortion. I personally support choice fully and think it's the only responsible option in certain situations; but i believe that we should to a better job in preventing those situations through comprehensive sex education.

Our national defense and national security forces were not "gutted" under clinton as you assert - they were drawn down from wartime (gulf war I) levels and cold war levels to more piece time levels. MANY [if not most] of the cuts were made at the request of the pentagon because they were receiving funds they weren't spending. Furthermore the "the more money we give to defense the better it'll be" attitude is simply wrong. Our defense spending is woefully uneffecient to the point of almost being criminal. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex and it's ability to bilk the public coffers and to manipulate public opinion and we IGNORED HIM. Defense spending needs to be made VASTLY VASTLY more efficient and then we can reduce it.

My brother served in the army under Clinton. He had no complaints. Oh and there was this entire bombing of the World Trade Center in clintons first year, what happen to those peopel? oh right.. .they're in JAIL because we CAUGHT THEM.

The assertion that Clinton "gutted" the military is PURE BS.

Re:Problems with Politics

[starwed]

"Thought for the day: In 1863, the most extreme left-wing members of the Republican Party wanted civil rights to extend to Negroes. That still seems to be the case." -Steven Brust

Re:Problems with Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignoring what happened to the parties during and after the era of civil rights. Many of the most racist Democrats fled to the Republican party and the Democrat party lost their stand in the South, a fact which is still true today. The Republican party became, according to MLK Jr, "The White Man's Party". You don't believe MLK Jr?

It is very ironic considering the abolitionist origins of the Republican party.

Re:Problems with Politics

[Jim_Callahan]

It's not a complete transformation, though. The vestiges of historical perspective is there, some rejected explicitly, some modified, some kept. Ignoring the history of the party is to ignore the party identity. I know a lot of Democrat supporters don't like to acknowledge this because of being on the wrong side of the slavery thing a while back, but that doesn't make it any less true. (Aside-- I'm not usre why they're still sensitive about this. The correct response to 'oh, yeah, well you guys supported slavery two centuries ago' is not 'well, we've completely changed since then' but 'that issue is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Where'd you learn logic, Kansas?')

The republican party actually hasn't changed all that much, or at least it hasn't dropped a lot of significant issues from its platform, just added new ones as the old ones became nonissues.

One final note, the progressives had nothing to do with the Repubs, ever. They were their own party (based around protestant evangelism, amusingly) and then got absorbed into the Democrats. Nor were the Repubs ever particularly humanitarian, at least in the current sense of the word. They've almost always framed their arguments in terms of moral duty and Justice (i was going to say 'social justice', but then i realized that was redundant) rather than helping the poor, suffering baby kittens or whatever. You'll note that once the slaves were freed, the Republican party was greatly concerned about their ability to vote and function as citizens, but really didn't give a rat's ass wether they were starving or not.

So yeah, you're both right and not right, all at the same time. Blows my mind.

Re:Problems with Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Please cite an example of racism in the Republican party.

Jesse Helms? Strom Thurmond? The Southern Manifesto? Yeah, real upstanding bunch.

All the people who reelected Reagan in 1984 would probably disagree with you. "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Are you better off than you were 25 years ago? To the tune of $8.2 Trillion better off? No, not in the slightest. I've got a quote you might recognize... "To continue this long trend [deficit spending] is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals... government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

Oh, you don't remember that? Let me refresh your memory with the #1 and #2 google search results.... Oops!! I guess hearing that Ronald Reagan uttered the words "Government is the problem" just isn't politically correct any more. You'll have to check the other results for ronald reagan 1981 inaugural address because #1 & #2 have simply edited that little bit out. Hmmm, I wonder how long it will be before results 1-30 don't mention the actual words spoken. But hey, now we're way off topic.

Mind you, I'm not arguing for the Democrats. I'm simply pointing to evidence of the truth contained in the article we're supposed to be discussing. Did you even think before you typed out your post? It sounds like you retrieved duckspeak directly from memory to me.

Re:Problems with Politics

[version5]

Please cite an example of racism in the Republican party.

Hurricane Katrina. "Immigration reform." Conservatives have always said that racism isn't a problem, even since before the civil war. They were wrong then and they were wrong during the 60s when they switched to the Republican party. That's a pretty lousy track record if you ask me. Why should we believe them now?

Also, lots of white supremacists on Stormfront.org claim they aren't racists. I imagine they come to that conclusion through some convoluted word-parsing, like how some people insist that because Republicans helped black people 150 years ago, they are still committed to the cause, even though 90% of black voters mysteriously don't vote for them.

Exercise for the reader: one of stormfront.org's strategy for making white supremacist beliefs mainstream is to infiltrate right-leaning and Republican websites like FreeRepublic.com. Why is that? Why don't they go after left-wing and Democratic websites?

The Minuteman Project is a militia-type organization that patrols the border with Mexico looking for illegal immigrants. The head of the California chapter quit, charging that the organization had become racist and fascist and was working with the Nazi party. But they have been praised by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) went so far as to suggest they should be deputized, and they have been lauded by right-wing media figures and GOP supporters like Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin.

Well, consider the social platforms of the Democratic party... and consider how those points conflict with the very spiritual base of African-Americans.

Consider the administration's respones to Hurricane Katrina. How do you think that played with the African-American voter? What do you think that does for the Republican Party's chances with minorities? 90% of African-American voters favor Democrats, which means that abstract religious committments have less of a priority than practical matters, especially when the Party of God harbors strong anti-minority sentiments.

Re:Problems with Politics

[onemorechip]

So your proof that Reaganomics didn't help the economy is based on a single indicator-- the national deficit.

Way to miss the point! You can always help an economy out by pumping money into it, but that means you are pumping money out of somewhere else -- in this case, the U.S. Treasury. The deficit in that chart isn't serving as an indicator of economic health, any more than the bill you get from a doctor serves as an indicator of your health.

It's serving as a price tag.

Seen in brain scans of prayers too.

[Anonymous Coward]

With their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.

This is what happens in the brain of religious people when praying. They go into a semi-trancelike state when they get their "god-fix". Rambling incoherently in 'tongues' while writhing on the floor is not a sign of omnipotent intelligence.

Re:Seen in brain scans of prayers too.

[bunratty]

You can show me all the brain scans you want. I know you're wrong. I just know it. Yeah! Go God!

Re:Seen in brain scans of prayers too.

[ClaudeVMS]

You are confusing your response to faith with your rabid Godless hippie behaviour. The difference is that your brain is suffering from all the methane your metabolizing when your head is up your ass.

Re:Seen in brain scans of prayers too.

[bunratty]

You are confusing your response to faith with your rabid Godless hippie behaviour. The difference is that your brain is suffering from all the methane your metabolizing when your head is up your ass.

Excellent demonstration of using the emotional processing centers of your brain! Quick, can you show us more?

Re:Seen in brain scans of prayers too.

[psibrman]

How do you know it?

Re:Seen in brain scans of prayers too.

[AtariEric]

Oh, dear God, please, please don't encourage him...

Interesting to know

[saskboy]

It'd be interesting to know how many politicians are smokers, or how likely they are to be extremely addicted to smoking or other drugs, since those adictions also require a lapse of logic to take them up and continue them while they kill the addict.

Re:Interesting to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey fellas - this is fun! It's like off-topic Mad Libs!

It'd be interesting to know how many politicians are _______, or how likely they are to be extremely addicted to _______, since those adictions also require a lapse of logic to take them up and continue them while they kill the addict.

Right away, I can insert: eating fatty foods, drinking, cheating on their wives ...

Re:Interesting to know

[Balthisar]

Are you being ironic? Your statement invokes a complete lack of logic. What are your qualifications to express such sentiments about addiction? Logic and addiction have nothing to do with each other. Sheesh.

Okay, I'll take it a step further -- since you're a Godless athiest anyway, it's obvious that you're simply addicted to living, otherwise you'd recognize the pointlessness and lack of meaning in your own existance, and you'd stop worrying about other people willingly and knowingly contributing to their own demise. Logically, you should be committing genocide against the whole human race.

No, I'm not trolling, or I'd post anonymously.

Re:Interesting to know

[Surt]

In fairness to most members of congress, most of them are ancient enough that when they took up smoking, it wasn't yet common knowledge that smoking was dangerous, in fact it was generally seen as beneficial (as a stimulant improving the concentration ala caffeine today ... I'm just waiting for the starbucks lawsuit over the heart attacks their product causes).

Re:Interesting to know

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be interesting to know how many politicians are smokers, or how likely they are to be extremely addicted to smoking or other drugs, since those adictions also require a lapse of logic to take them up and continue them while they kill the addict.

Maybe political arguments are addictive themselves.

See http://davidbrin.com/addiction.html

From the desk of David Brin, Ph.D.
August 11, 2005

An Open Letter to Researchers of Addiction, Brain Chemistry and Social Psychology
 
...Only now, taking this into especially important new territory, please consider the related phenomenon known as self-righteous indignation.

We all know self-righteous people. (And, if we are honest, many of us will admit having wallowed in this state ourselves, either occasionally or in frequent rhythm.) It is a familiar and rather normal human condition, supported -- even promulgated -- by messages in mass media.

While there are many drawbacks, self-righteousness can also be heady, seductive, and even... well... addictive. Any truly honest person will admit that the state feels good. The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong.

Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again. Moreover, this trait crosses all boundaries of ideology. 2

Indeed, one could look at our present-day political landscape and argue that a relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism and an inability to negotiate pragmatic solutions to a myriad modern problems. It may be the propellant behind our "culture war."

If there is any underlying truth to such an assertion, then acquiring a deeper understanding of this one issue may help our civilization deal with countless others....

Of course, as most correct-thinking Slashdotters know, this probably only applies to viewers of Fox News, and not those who get their information from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, Time, Newsweek, Michael Moore, etc.

Re:Interesting to know

[spune]

Non-smokers develop lung cancer at a rate of about 7 people per 100000.
Smokers develop lung cancer at a rate of 24 people per 100000.

As you can see, smoking increasing one's chances of lung cancer by 350%. However, you would have to be an idiot to think that smoking should be avoided for that reason: 99.975% of all smokers never develop lung cancer. Additionally, the majority of smokers who develop lung cancer do not die prematurely.


Secondly, most drugs are completely safe when used responsibly, even hard drugs like coke and meth. Yes, people fuck themselves up with drugs, and they fuck themselves up terribly, even killing themselves on occasion. However, the vast, vast majority of drug users never have a problem. Tests of sewage systems in Prague have shown that actual coke use is more than three times greater than anti-drug 'authorities' estimate based upon the rehab population.
What's more, there are some illegal drugs that are completely harmless. Cannabis, for example. If you've listened to the government and think marijuana does nasty shit, look as the Netherlands, where cannabis is effectively legal. The Dutch have maintained their standing internationally, and cannabis use in Holland has decreased since legalization.
Aspirin kills 10,000 people a year; users develop painful, hemmoraging stomach ulcers and essentially shit their digested blood until they succomb. To compare, it's physically impossible to overdose on weed, and even toking multiple times daily has a negligible effect on one's health.


But I agree that politicians, as a impersonal whole, are a few clowns short a circus.

Re:Interesting to know

[saskboy]

"However, you would have to be an idiot to think that smoking should be avoided for that reason: 99.975% of all smokers never develop lung cancer."

OK, I was with you up to that point. The ones who don't get lung cancer still suffer from other problems, including lung problems that aren't cancerous. What is YOUR reason for not smoking, purely economics?

Re:Interesting to know

[spune]

Please note the "for that reason" clause.

Re:Interesting to know

[saskboy]

Note the: "I couldn't bear to read tripe", clause.

Delving further in:
"What's more, there are some illegal drugs that are completely harmless. Cannabis, for example."

If you smoke anything, you smoke damage your lungs, it's that simple. Smoke is an irritant that can eventually cause lung cancer among other things. That's not taking into accout the effect THC has on your brain chemistry and function, and who knows what other organs...
Home grown pot might not be as dangerous or deadly as tobacco, but why bother with something that will kill, or impede normal life anyway?

Facts

[Ford Prefect]

But yeah, you can prove anything with facts...

Re:Facts

[Surt]

http://results.about.com/simpsons/#1
"Pfft...You can use facts to prove anything that's even REMOTELY true!"

Re:Facts

[DocLandolt]

"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."
    - Sammie Clements

Re:Facts

[fbg111]

[channeling Mark Twain]

There are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and facts!

One of the evils of political parties...

[Omnifarious]

They allow you to join a club and make club membership more important in decision making than whether or not someone really represents you.

My biggest frustration with many republicans is the fact that they claim to be for small government, and this administration has been anything but small government.

My biggest frustration with democrats is that they claim to be all for civil liberties yet silently let pass things like Clinton's support of the clipper chip or Hilary's closed door meetings with insurance companies to hammer out a health care plan that benefitted them.

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[gcatullus]

Both parties have perverted what they had claimed to stand for.

But this maxim still does apply: The Democratic Party is the stupid party, the Republican Party is the selfish party. So if anything is bipartisan it must be both stupid and selfish.

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[Omnifarious]

I'm not a huge Ayn Rand fan, but I still prefer her designations... The crooks (Republicans) and the closet suicides (Democrats).

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[Hoplite3]

To me, the statement that drives this home the most is when a pundit says "we need to make this our issue."

It could be campaign reform, it could be anything, but the idea that one club has to own an issue is more like sports than good governance. If both sides agree on the importance, than something should happen. Instead, there's a squabble for credit. If both sides were truly different, there'd be no need to seize the issue. One side would support it and the other wouldn't.

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[AaronBS]

One of the evils of political parties...

It's important to note that, from what the article said, this study did not employ a control group of political moderates or apathetics. The partisans were asked to listen to Tom Hanks (as a sort-of control), but mixing treatment with non-treatment does not seem like the best execution of the scientific method.

We don't know how people who are not members of political parties would have reacted. Perhaps they use even more emotions that political stalwarts. Or perhaps they just tune everything out. This study doesn't tell us.

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[Anonymous Coward]

They allow you to join a club and make club membership more important in decision making than whether or not someone really represents you.

But this is one club where membership pays you.

Go to Washington flat broke, in 4 years you'll be a multi-millionaire - all on a hundred thousand dollars a year. I guess their spouses are very frugal with the butter and egg money.

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[SilverspurG]

s/selfish/evil/g

The maxim is stupid and evil. Republicans are evil: they are more than happy to use their political power to benefit themselves and their associates. Democrats are stupid: they live in a fantasy world where they can use their political power without being seduced by greed.

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[Hrodvitnir]

the idea that one club has to own an issue is more like sports than good governance

What gets me even more than that is the fact that you can even "take" an issue. If you have to consciously make a decision to "take" or "leave" a side on an issue, then you are merely pandering to the majority. Either the issue at hand aligns with your ideals or it does not. THAT is what is wrong with our political parties today.

Re:One of the evils of political parties...

[ChrisMaple]

Democrats tend to the extremes in intelligence. The stupid are attracted to the victim ideology, the bright are swayed by exposure to left-wing college professors.

To the extent that Republicans are capitalistic, they are selfish. (I'm an Objectivist; I regard this as a good thing.) Don't confuse selfish with short-sighted.

Alas, you are correct that much that is bipartisan is bad: it results from both sides discarding the good parts of their philosophies, with a result that is both stupid and short-sighted.

D'oh!

[adam.skinner]

{insert obligatory "This is your brain on politics" joke here}

Re:D'oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Science here was locating the brains!

Thankfully, we have swing voters.

[bigtallmofo]

I couldn't imagine the hell that America would be without swing voters. As much as the radicals from both sides think the world is coming to an end when "the other side" comes to power, they just need to realize the pendulum will eventually swing a little more in their direction.

I hated the way staunch conservatives acted during the Clinton years and I loathe the way mega liberals are acting now.

Re:Thankfully, we have swing voters.

[Cro Magnon]

I hated the way staunch conservatives acted during the Clinton years and I loathe the way mega liberals are acting now

Agreed! I also hate the way mega liberals overlooked Clinton's many flaws, and the way staunch conservatives worship the Shrub!

Re:Thankfully, we have swing voters.

[frankie]

...except that the vast majority of swing voters in America are uninformed consumers who pick whichever candidate has the better smile, slogan, and/or smear campaign. The number of voters who rationally compare the viewpoints of each candidate, and select the one most likely to help the country, is most likely smaller than the number of active posters on Slashdot.

Think about the disturbingly large percentage of "undecided" voters who thought that Bush supported gun control, or Kerry wanted lower taxes, or many many other examples.

If only we could bust them for that....

[nixkuroi]

"But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix."

I'd love to see a cops episode where they burst in on someone with their pants down then pan down to reveal a senator compromising himself for a hit of that sweet, sweet legislation.

Heh

[Moby Cock]

But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.

Instead of a War on Drugs, we have a War, on drugs.

Re:Heh

[voice_of_all_reason]

That's the best thing I ever heard

Re:Heh

[McGiraf]

oh. how a comma can change things, drug induced or not.

Re:Heh

[Zenmonkeycat]

"So yeah, we've got to, you know, like, kill drugs and stuff, man. I mean, drugs are like, so, like, wow. Drugs are a total bummer, since they, you know, do bad stuff. Hey, can you pass the nachos?"

Re:Heh

[Sir_Cockalot]

But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.

The true definition of a "Political Junky."

True in other arenas as well...

[xusr]

this sort of "turning off" of logic happens to all people, not just politicians. Start a conversation about religion, and you'll see what I mean. I don't just mean fundamentalist Christians, either; atheists, agnostics, muslims (mac users?) are just as likely to get defensive if you start criticizing something they hold to be true. The key here is to place more value on the person that you're talking to than on yourself. If the other person knows/feels that, your conversation has the potential to be the civil, enlightening discourse that we really want.

Re:True in other arenas as well...

[xusr]

I meant to add 'et cetera' to that list of religions; of course, all people are subject to that kind of defensive behavior. It's interesting, though, that the concept of giving preference to the other person is a central teaching of Jesus Christ. I wish more Christians (I myself as one) would live that out more often. Things would be different around here if that were the case.

Re:True in other arenas as well...

[dangitman]

I don't just mean fundamentalist Christians, either; atheists, agnostics, muslims (mac users?) are just as likely to get defensive if you start criticizing something they hold to be true.

What about slashdotters who reflexively name groups of people who are considered "irrational"? Aren't you just doing the same thing here?

Re:True in other arenas as well...

[xusr]

Only if you take that sentence out of context. If you read the whole post (as well as the follow-up) I hope you'll see that this wasn't what I meant at all. I was simply listing some groups that are often stereotyped, not saying that I support the labels that are often applied to them.

Re:True in other arenas as well...

[Namegduf Live]

I am an athiest, and it isn't really true in my case... I will listen to and participate in a sensible discussion of the evidence for a religion. If there was sufficient evidence to convince me on one, I could be converted. I don't believe that there is no god, I merely currently am not convinced by the evidence before me. I could be wrong, I could be right, I readily admit I cannot tell. I am, admittedly, not particularly happy if someone starts a conversation (or worse, monologue) taking the existance of their god as a given, not as something to be argued for. To be honest, I consider belief, as opposed to looking into the evidence and considering all possibilities (all you can consider, that is) to be deluding yourself that what you want to be true is true, as opposed to what is logically suggested by looking at the evidence is. Note that this is not a bash at believers, they merely have a different point of view to me. I have had a sister delude herself into believing what she saw on TV was true, merely because she wanted it, and have seen what I think (from the evidence I have seen) to be the core of belief. I am open to other opinions, I merely have yet to be convinced.

Re:True in other arenas as well...

[Valdrax]

What about slashdotters who reflexively name groups of people who are considered "irrational"? Aren't you just doing the same thing here?

As a Christian and a Mac user, I'd say, "No."

Seriously though, there are topics that are more likely to attract zealots than others. Sometimes it's a single group that starts attracting the zealots and people arguing against them harden into zealots in response. Mac users started out pretty zealous and soon the defensive instincts of people that didn't own Macs started to create a thriving community of PC zealots who probably wouldn't have given a damn if they hadn't constantly been told that they were foolish, servile to Microsoft, and complete tools because of their product choice.

Similarly, the partisan divide in American politics has hardened severely after the period of rest after the civil rights movement thanks to the rise of Republican zealots in positions of power and influence in the government and media. Religion attracts zealots because most religions tell people either that they need to get out there and convert people or that other people aren't God's worthy chosen. Being right or wrong is simply a matter of being on the only side that matters to religious people and people who aren't on that side are inferior in a very codified way. Sports also draws zealots because there are clear sides and because loyalty to one's team has traditionally been a part of pride in one's local community.

In essence, anything that has obvious "sides" to it and a sense of belonging draws zealots like flies, especially if there's a moral components (like religion, politics, open source, economics, etc.). Religion, politics, sports, and product loyalty are just the most notorious in our modern culture.

Re:True in other arenas as well...

[dangitman]

Mac users started out pretty zealous and soon the defensive instincts of people that didn't own Macs started to create a thriving community of PC zealots who probably wouldn't have given a damn if they hadn't constantly been told that they were foolish, servile to Microsoft, and complete tools because of their product choice.

I think you have it backwards. The PC zealots were the first to be aggressive. What's more, aggression was driven by powerful companies in the industry. Microsoft and others would spread FUD about Apple, funded by vast cash reserves.

Meanwhile, most Mac users were just doing their Desktop Publishing thing and exploring Photoshop. It was the years of attacks on voiceless Mac users that caused the zealotry of the 90s. And you'll find that in the post-2000 era, Mac users are much less zealous, and more secure.

You can see a similar thing with Linux. Linux users have become much more zealous over the years - perhaps as a result of the FUD from Microsoft - just as Microsoft was less vicious towards Apple, they made Linux the new enemy.

Re:True in other arenas as well...

[nasch]

I like my Zealots with Leg Enhancements and fully-upgraded energy blades. "I long for combat!"

You needed an EEG to figure that out?

[caffeineboy]

Doesn't the content of their argument more surely show that the arguments of zealots are emotional?

When people present obvious results like this, do they really feel that it is moving their field forward?

I have to wonder...

Re:You needed an EEG to figure that out?

[BorgCopyeditor]

When people present obvious results like this, do they really feel that it is moving their field forward?

Certain people would say, "But now we know." For them, looking at lights on a computer screen probably is the only way they can know. So, epistemically, things have in fact improved for them. The rest of us, who already knew the limits of partisans' cognitive style, can just yawn.

What I think would be interesting to know is what benefit there might be to thinking in that way.

Re:You needed an EEG to figure that out?

[Hittite Creosote]

It hadn't been scientifically shown. That's what science is about, actually measuring things rather than just saying "well, we know it's true so we don't need to bother".

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish that the folks in Congress would act intelligent. Seriously. I don't care what party you support, when you have two judges up for election to the supreme court and every single democrat on the election committe says something to the effect of "He's a loser and will not be a good judge" who are we kidding? Is this really the sad state of politics in America? This just examplifies what all political situations are like in Congress. And I'd say the same thing if it were a democratic backed nomination and all the republicans called the guy a loser. Most of the nominations have been on the bench for years doing a great job and continuously were re-elected (remember, only the United States Supreme Court is for life) so give me a break.

So why do politicans turn off their brains when they talk? I think it all comes down to asskissing. If Senator A of Party X agrees in some way with Senator B of Party Y, then all the other guys in Party X won't scratch A's back when it comes time for Senator A to promote his program. Blah, I could rant for hours about this. And don't even get me started on how pissed off I am about the perks Congressmen/women are given in return for political favors.

Re: Well

[Black Parrot]

> I don't care what party you support, when you have two judges up for election to the supreme court and every single democrat on the election committe says something to the effect of "He's a loser and will not be a good judge" who are we kidding? Is this really the sad state of politics in America?

Yes. It's a sign that abortion has become the touchstone of American politics, and that the Supreme Court has come to be seen as a "higher legislature" that will vote your way if you can seat a majority.

Re:Well

[Dhalka226]

Most of the nominations have been on the bench for years doing a great job and continuously were re-elected (remember, only the United States Supreme Court is for life) so give me a break.

ALL federal judgeships are for life. State governments decide what happens with their judges according to their own constitutions.

I don't care what party you support, when you have two judges up for election to the supreme court and every single democrat on the election committe says something to the effect of "He's a loser and will not be a good judge" who are we kidding?

They don't say he's a loser or that he will not be a judge. They say he is "too radical" to represent mainstream America. "Too radical" translates roughly into "supports abortion rights" or "doesn't support abortion rights," depending on who nominated them and who is doing the complaining.

It's somewhat sad that our judiciary has been reduced to that level, but it's clearly an important issue to many Americans. It's one of the things people vote for their representatives based on, after all.

Re: Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I noticed the harping about abortion from the Democrats died off when they figured out Alito was for an executive branch that could dictate legislation and judgements. But, instead of making a stink about that, they decided to go on about his being in a potentially racist organization.

This isn't limited to politics

[Nugget]

This is certainly worth keeping in mind the next time we have to endure another "Linux versus Microsoft" argument here on Slashdot, too. Why should our own dogma be any different? Personally, I knew this years ago. The only way a person could seriously advocate MySQL would be if their brain was turned off. It's perfectly obvious!

Re:This isn't limited to politics

[BunnyClaws]

Well said. You see so much of that here. Someone could develop a cure for cancer but if it turned out the researcher used Microsoft software in the process half the people in this place would bitch.

Re:This isn't limited to politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should our own dogma be any different? Personally, I knew this years ago.

That was my first thought, too. I'd even say that selective perception isn't limited to humans. It's rather like the brain's implementation of a spam filter.

Re:This isn't limited to politics

[Kirth]

Yes, but I got a free MySQL-T-Shirt at the LinuxTag (Really! It says "whats your uptime?"), so I'm advocating MySQL.

Re:This isn't limited to politics

[marcosdumay]

But on the Linux x Microsoft debate, I already know the facts! Really. Microsoft told me them.

WTF, science journalism?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Why is it that science journalism is always confirming what we already know and reinforcing common sense? Does science never reveal anything new, unknown, and counter-intuitive? According to journalism, apparently not.

My question is: Why? I think some investigation would reveal some juicy info on the true purpose of mainstream science journalism.

I expect this hunch to be proven within the next 24 months by a scientific story that gets covered by the AP or Reuters.

Re:WTF, science journalism?

[ctilmes]

Why is it that science journalism is always confirming what we already know and reinforcing common sense?

Well, that's pretty much the definition of science... You make a hypothesis of what you think is true, then perform and experiment. That either upholds the hypothesis or disproves it.

Who on Earth would want to be a Politician?

[digitaldc]

they shun logic and use emotional processing centers to justify their candidate's contradictory statements.

Wow, people's brains must be working overtime in today's sorry state of politics. The hypocritical statements I have been reading lately about everything from domestic spying, voting recounts by unaccountable electronic voting machines to SCOTUS nominations, it just makes your brain short circuit. The country is more divided than ever and logic rarely gets used in the decisionmaking.

Any other Slashdotters feel that politics today is just for the highest bidders and the most convincing liars? What happens when you are in a permanent state of picking the lesser of two evils in a political race? Is it now the time for meaningful political reform?

Re: Who on Earth would want to be a Politician?

[Black Parrot]

> Any other Slashdotters feel that politics today is just for the highest bidders and the most convincing liars

Yes, though I don't know why you specify 'today'.

Just Like Junior High

[millahtime]

One of the newest members of congress and the youngest man in congress recently said that congress is like Junior High. What would you do if you were picked by the people to have a high paying job with a bunch of authority? (talk about ego) Then, on top of that, now that you are picked by a bunch of people for this you have all of these lobbying parties trying to buy you off by offering you all the stuff your heart desires. How would any of us react? I am not a good enough man to say I could fight that off. Then, because of the system, even the most well intended person doesn't get anywhere. But, they want to keep the power, popularity and especially all the perks. So, they, like a drug addict, will do what ever it takes to keep their fix. I don't think I would be any better. George Washington said a 2 party system would be bad. Could he have been right? Could it not be that one party is worse than the other but this is just a product of 2 parties? Could a 3rd powerful party help remedy this situation?

Re:Just Like Junior High

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it not be that one party is worse than the other but this is just a product of 2 parties? Could a 3rd powerful party help remedy this situation?

The problem is that our electoral system as structured will always end up being a two party system, no matter how many you start out with.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[durkster]

If an amendment was passed to allow the voting in of a house made up of members based on party vote %, then this may enable three or more parties to get busy.

You would need to reduce the number of local house seats and award the balance of the seats to the party percentage % with a minimum threshold of say 5% before you get a single representative.

I think putting some restrictive limits on the campaign spend would also be in the nations interest as it would allow self financed candidates to enter and campaign and get a chance to their policies out to the voters without breaking the bank.

Set some decent term limits for the house and senate so as to prevent 'camping'.

Clear out the deadwood !

Re:Just Like Junior High

[millahtime]

Why do you say that?

Parties have changed a lot over time with new ones springing up and old ones dieing. An example is the democratic party. If you look at the one from the past and the one today they are not the same party. What they share is the name.

Another interesting thing of note is Lincoln was a republican and that party was the one against slavery.

The electoral system is for presidents. What about senators and house reps? Or govenors? Or mayors? And the list can continue.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[Tom]

Could a 3rd powerful party help remedy this situation?

I don't think anyone can really answer that. Do we have any western democracies with 3 (or more) powerful parties? In most countries where multiple parties work, you still have two strong parties, each flanked by a number of coalition partners, or you have lots of fragmentation, see Italy which is a total mess.

The problem appears to be that the whole minority voice, blabla thing doesn't work out. Parties soon realize that "market share" means power and it is profitable to compromise ones core position if it means getting more votes. So parties don't really represent all that much anymore, except for various groups trying to get as large a share as possible.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[Bob9113]

George Washington said a 2 party system would be bad. Could he have been right? Could it not be that one party is worse than the other but this is just a product of 2 parties? Could a 3rd powerful party help remedy this situation?

I fear that the solution lies not in the structure of the party system, but in educating the populace. I think that it is not practical to change the party structure, and even if it was, there would still be two dominant parties (though perhaps they would be less apparent).

Educating the populace will be hard. Very hard. But it starts with distributing this article as widely as you can. Email everyone you know. Then look for the publication of Drew Westen's study, find out how to redistribute copies, and do it.

I will be doing so. You all should too. The study will be presented at a conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology this weekend, and will hopefully appear in their newsletters.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[EvilNebby]

Much of this could be solved by Instant Runoff Voting. The rest could be solved by the complete re-engineering of human nature to vote for what they see gives them the greatest short term benefits.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[Jerf]

The problem appears to be that the whole minority voice, blabla thing doesn't work out.

For a long time I echoed the "Two parties are bad" party line. But the more I think about it, the more it actually doesn't seem half-bad.

Our system tends to actively split down the middle. It's not coincidence, it's structural. While the minority party (today the Democrats) may be largely disenfranchised, by the very way our system works they will extremely rarely be in a huge minority. In the Senate, for instance, it's currently 55/44/1 (R/D/I), which means that only 6 seats have to change to change the controlling party, something that can definately happen. Due to Democratic structural failures (IMHO, and note that I am strictly speaking of the organizational structure of the party, not anything else), that's actually higher than it probably should be, it's often even closer.

This leaves the Democrats overall in a better position than they would be if it were 70/29/1, and because of the way our two party system tends to work, it's extremely unlikely to come to that disparity, as any such disparity would prompt the Democrats to co-opt the triggering issues out of self-preservation. (At least for more than one election in a row.)

The system isn't half-bad. Minorities of course are still minorities and by definiton can't expect parity with the majority, but our system tends to keep them much better balanced than many other systems. The Democrats still have a significant voice in our system, even in the minority. It's not the Republican's fault they haven't been able to use it well lately.

I've changed my mind about the two-party system. It's actually pretty good. Most of the problems laid at the feet of the two-party system would not be solved by any other system, since most of them come from the people themselves. (And of course there's a lot of wishful thinking when people imagine other systems... of course if there was a strong third party it would be the People-That-Agree-With-You party that will magically set everything right. In reality, no such party is likely to arise, and you may well end up with the People-That-Largely-Disagree-With-You party. Everybody assumes they are the true majority and it's The System keeping them down, but, frankly, the evidence is that the minority is the minority, and no amount of fiddling with the election system can change that.)

Re:Just Like Junior High

[SilverspurG]

The real solution has little to do with how many parties we have.

The real solution is to require the politicians to stick to the rules that bind them. It doesn't matter if we have one, two, three, or ten parties. Our politicians continually convince themselves that a Congressional interpretation or law--backed by a ruling passed by judges with obvious socio, political, and economic assocations--carries authority over the document which empowers them in the first place.

If you could rewrite the rules of Monopoly on the fly to suit your needs would it be possible not to win?

Re:Just Like Junior High

[Jeremi]

Proportional representation could also be very helpful. That way each party would receive a percentage of the seats in the legislature that is the same as the percentage of votes it received in the election. Contrast that with the current system, where (in the worst case scenario) a party that receives 49% of the vote in every candidate's race would receive zero seats in the legislature, and thus nearly half of the voters are disenfranchised.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[beeplet]

Canada has a strong multi-party system. Look at the results from Monday's election: Conservatives won 124 seats, Librals 103, Bloc Quebecois 51, New Democratic Party 29, with the Green party not winning any seats but getting nearly 5% of the vote. Granted, only the Conservatives and Librals have actually won an election, but the other parties form a very strong opposition, especially when the winning party does not actually have a majority.

There is also more variation between these parties than between the US Democrats and Republicans, even discounting the Bloc, which is essentially a separatist party. I think the multi-party system encourages more variation, because if two parties become too similar in their agendas, other parties are there to fill in the void.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[EvilNebby]

Proportianal elections tend to lead to party solidification. Whether virtually by party affiliations for certain bills/issues, or actual merges over time to secure power. The result of which it seems, would be once again a very small set of parties with much chaos in between.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[Anonymous Coward]

Could a 3rd powerful party help remedy this situation?

Or, more to the point, could it make this situation worse?

Re:Just Like Junior High

[blaksaga]

I think we should outlaw party affiliations completely; kind of like how some countries outlaw religion. Fuck the bias that comes with political parties. We should make people have to WRITE IN the name of who they want to vote for (no names on the ballot) so that people actually have to know SOMETHING about a candidate in order to vote and all candidates get an EQUAL shake come election day.

Re:Just Like Junior High

[flooey]

One of the newest members of congress and the youngest man in congress recently said that congress is like Junior High.

Yeah, but he's a 6th grader, and those guys are such losers.

Amen, brother!

[scolby]

The swing voters did such an awesome job making sure the last election turned out correctly.

Oh, wait a minute...

Parties are entities of word, not deed.

[bigtallmofo]

You often witnesses a party acting more like their "opponent" because a very effective tactic of late has been to steal your opponent's position. There are dozens of very recent examples, but two glaring ones are Clinton's welfare reform and Bush's Medicare prescription drug coverage. This really helps swing voters to think that you're not an idealogue for one side or the other. Of course, it does nothing to sway radicals but then nothing would sway them.

The sorry fact though is that this has gone on long enough that there aren't very many differences between the two parties today.

Re:Parties are entities of word, not deed.

[JWW]

I think it does nothing to sway radicals because the radical elements of both parties see "their" guy doing things they don't like, but they realize (or rationalize) that if it were the "other" guy, it would be worse. So for Bush's perscription drug example true conservatives just look at the plan agast, but say to themselves "well the democrats would have come up with a MORE expensive plan", nevermind that most true conserviative think the perscription drug plan is a horrible big government entitlement.

With respect to Clinton, liberals agast at seeing welfare reform take away the handout they feel the underprivalged absolutely need to survive. But, "they" just say that a Republican would have really decimated the welfare program, and at least "their" guy kept some of it intact.

No I consider myself conservative/libertarian and if you look at these two items, _I_ am actually more happy with Clinton and his welfare reform than with Bush's perscription drug plan.

Of course, the funny thing it that the base for both men still wholeheartedly supported them while they do things that the people who _didn't_ vote for them want. In my opinion Clinton did this well and it was effecitive in gaining him some support from moderates. Of course we all know that he didn't get the Republicans in congress to support for him at all. Bush faces the aftermath of this and has given the liberals a few of their big programs, but of course gets no real support from democrats anyway, and I also believe that he had a large amount of support from moderates already, but will never get Democrats to support him, no matter how many new entitlements he creates.

We have created a political system thats basically a sporting event now, but its one where you root for a team you hate the most to lose and not for your team to win, because you know they're going to let the other side have a few easy scores just to try and get their fans to root for them. Of course that analogy doesn't make much sense, but then neither does modern politics.

Re:Parties are entities of word, not deed.

[poot_rootbeer]

The sorry fact though is that this has gone on long enough that there aren't very many differences between the two parties today.

This wouldn't be a bad thing, if the result was a moderate stance on most issues. Instead, though, we seem to get a fairly-extreme-left stance on some issues, and a fairly-extreme-right stance on other issues. And nobody ends up happy, because for everything the government does that one approves of, there's also something that one disapproves of.

Re:Parties are entities of word, not deed.

[Raven_Stark]

Of course, it does nothing to sway radicals but then nothing would sway them.

I would say that I was a radical Republican until about midway through George II's reign. Now I'd say I'm basically a libertarian who is pessimistic about them ever winning anything due to the large proportion of nuts in the ranks. My current plan is to vote Democrat for every office unless there is a viable libertarian in the running. I feel very strongly that a Republican majority in control is seriously detrimental to America's future. At least the kind of America I wish to live in. I'd rather see things split between both major parties so they spend more time attacking each other than us and other countries.

Anyway, up to George II, when I'd see a Democrat on TV they'd almost always strike me as sniveling little wimps with geeky pretensions. Republicans didn't necessarily thrill me either, but I didn't dislike them on first impression. Now the Democrats don't seem so wimpy and whiny. Although with most politicians, I think there is a strong chance they are lying when their lips are moving. But what is most interesting to me, is the degree of loathing I feel at the sight of George the Second and anyone associated with him. At one point during the hurricane Katrina incident, I got so mad, I jumped off the couch and yelled at the TV and barely stopped myself from throwing a shoe at his image. That's very unlike me. It doesn't surprise me that politics turns off logic and turns on emotion in the human brain.

I think further study should be done to see if people can purposely turn on their logic centers while in debate.

Re:Parties are entities of word, not deed.

[Anonymous Coward]

there aren't very many differences between the two parties today.

There aren't any differences between the two major political parties. They're both as evil as the Republicans.

Re:Parties are entities of word, not deed.

[nutshell42]

My current plan is to vote Democrat for every office unless there is a viable libertarian in the running. I feel very strongly that a Republican majority in control is seriously detrimental to America's future...

...at the moment.

W is a disaster and Congress needs a change of majorities but that doesn't mean that it won't be the other way around in a few years. IMHO in Europe much more is controlled by career bureaucrats, a system which is less efficient but also less affected if one party is in power for more than 8 years. America needs shifting majorities (still imho) which makes all that gerrymandering (enthusiastically implemented by both parties where they are in power and opposed where they aren't) very, very dangerous.

Bah.

[Black Parrot]

How do we know this conclusion is based on facts rather than the researchers' emotional responses?

Re:Bah.

[bunratty]

This is why to be scientifically credible, results of studies must be reproducible.

Re:Bah.

[TubeSteak]

I think they should go on to study if having someone disagree with you causes headaches.

I bet this mechanism they've discovered would be the cause.

For fun, pick the loudest politico handy and start disagreeing with them. Use facts, but disagree. Watch the headache form, then step back as their head aspl0des.

Results are guaranteed to be reproducible.

Both Parties Ignore the Constitution

[Feneric]

I've always personally said that the two big parties differ only in which portions of the Constitution they choose to ignore. For some fun examples, try talking about the independence of Church and State to a staunch Republican or the right to bear arms to a staunch Democrat...

Re:Both Parties Ignore the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "seperation of church and state" in the constitution, perhaps you are referring to this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Democrats would have this interpreted that you cannot mention God on public property.

Republicans would have this interpreted that the government cannot force you to go to The American Catholic Church and deduct 10% in tithes of your wages pre-tax from your paycheck.

Sometimes, it is about interpretation and original intent, not ignoring "facts".

Ah ha!

[Dr. Eggman]

But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix.

Ah, so it's an addiction, kind of like video games (note: sarcasm) is it?

We must setup clinics to help these people! We can call them Reeducation Centers!

Re:Ah ha!

[Dr. Eggman]

We can get Jack Thompson in the express line...

This goes for religion too...

[Pao|o]

This isnt just isolated to politics as religious people suffer from this as well. Why else would people insist on Intelligent Design & creationism when all facts & logic point to something else?

Re:This goes for religion too...

[LeeTax0r]

I'm not getting into some religious debate, but last I checked there's huge holes in scientific theory about the orign of the universe. Believe what you want to believe, but either belief takes a little faith.

Albert Einstein said, "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

Re:This goes for religion too...

[CrazyDuke]

The problem is that science is based in doubt and is obliged to explore those holes and repeditively researching to find new ones as they are extremely irritating if let be. Religion tends to ignore the holes by glossing over it with a broad "because [insert deity] made it that way" band-aid. You know, the whole faith thing. Attempting to probe a religion for new knowledge is difficult and often frowned upon as heresy and blasphemy. In science it is a requirement.

I realize it's not that simple, but this is the basic paradigm.

In addition, there is another: Philosephy

Philosephies attempt to explain the way things operate based on unproven assertions and subjective observations. They are often open to new information to explain holes in them as well.

One word

[bahwi]

Duh

Finally!

[mwvdlee]

Now that science has finally proven this beyond a doubt, partisans can no longer ignore these facts and... wait... uhm...

Vote for Tom Hanks?

[RuiFerreira]

Well, I guess Tom Hanks is better actor than "The Governator"... But, Chaplin was also better actor than Regan and that didn't make him President.

As Bill Hicks would say...

[kinkadius]

"Here's politics in america: 'i like the puppet on the left' 'well i think the puppet on the right is suits more to my needs...' hey! they're both coming from the same person! 'GO BACK TO SLEEP AMERICA YOUR GOVERNMENT IS UNDER CONTROL'"
-Bill Hicks

Died in 1994, still speaks truth today.

Re:As Bill Hicks would say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on. Bill Hicks' comment perfectly explains why I don't discuss politics. Despite who gets the press, all the decisions are made by the same group of people.

In Other News...

[ChristianNerds.com]

Another study was done by a group of Republicans, and it seems that this particular study had been mistaken. Their findings were that only Democrats ignore facts, while Republicans do actually use the logic parts of their brains.

Surprise?

[3CRanch]

Does this come as a surprise?

Personally I'm embarrassed at how ineffective our government has become. Sure they all tout that they act in a bi-partisan manner, but that is nothing more than the politically correct verbiage buzz word that they pretty much have to use.

Truth is that if you check just about any vote that has occurred over the last several years, you'll see that the votes are broken straight down the party lines -- except for a few that probably hit the wrong key during the vote.

Perfect example is the vote that happened yesterday for the new proposed Supreme Court Justice Alito. The vote was divided 100% down the party lines.

These people should be ashamed. We elected them to represent the beliefs of the state in which they represent, but it seems to always turn out that they cannot think for themselves. Rather they just follow their party's guidance.

Pathetic...

Re:Surprise?

[Surt]

On the other hand, consider yesterday's vote for Alito. If you were elected as a Democrat, you're pretty much assured that Alito would act to undermine values that your constituents hold dear. There's no way you could reasonably justify voting him into a position of such power, to do so would be morally abhorrent. So voting against Alito is the expected correct course of action. Now reverse the positions and view from the perspective of a Republican Senator.

Now consider that John Roberts confirmation was 78-22 with half of the Democrats voting for confirmation: a less polarizing figure, a less polarizing vote.

If anything, I'd say these two votes show that our Senators are doing their jobs as expected. It's just unfortunate that the president chose such a severely polarizing figure for a position as important as the Supreme Court. I think our system of government would be much better off if pretty much everything required a 2/3rd or 3/4 vote to pass.

Re:Surprise?

[3CRanch]

I hate to say it, but if that were the case, we'd never have anything pass.

What would have been best, in the example you gave, is if every elected Senator voted on Alito based on how the people they represent would react to his answers to their questions.

Re:Surprise?

[Surt]

Yes, having very little government pass was exactly my idea. I tend to think we only need government when the people pretty much agree that we need it.

And don't you think that is pretty much how every senator did in fact vote? I know mine did. Alito was a polarizing figure for the people as well as the senators.

Re:Surprise?

[mooingyak]

I hate to say it, but if that were the case, we'd never have anything pass.

Actually, I thought that was the goal.

Re:Surprise?

[Keebler71]

The politicization of the approval of judicial appointments is a new phenomena. The Democrats' arguments against Alito center on two points:

• First, that he is too conservative / out of the mainstream
• Second, that he was nominated to replace O'connor, who the Democrats claim to be a moderate, and as such would "tip the balance of the court".

The vote in committee was right down party lines and I think everyone assumes that the full Senate vote will be very similar.

Let's compare this with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation vote. She was confirmed 96 to 3 (1 not present). That is right, almost every Republican voted for her. This despite her being every bit as liberal as Alito is conservative. Moreover, she was a replacement for Byron White who was significantly more conservative that Ginsburg (he dissented in Miranda vs. Arizona, Roe vs. Wade, and supported an anti-sodomy law although he was more moderate on other issues such as civil rights and the death penalty). So much for the notion that replacements need to be similar idealogically to those they succeed.

Re:Surprise?

[vmcto]

I have a problem with your post...

- It is based on facts
- It isn't colored by an ideological bent
- It is reasonable

We're all talking about American politics and here you come and spoil it for everybody... Shame on you, you resonable sounding, non-dogmatic, fact spewer...

Re:Surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

ooo...ooo...ooo...Can I join the circle jerk, too?

Should I point out Ginsburg was a Republican nominee that they recommended to Clinton in 1993 after blocking his other nominees? Naw, if it didn't sink in the first time, it's probably not going to now.

Really?

[l3prador]

Really? You don't say.

Maybe it's because they're the same party. They make such a big deal over their commitments, but when it comes down to it, they all vote together. Patriot Act? REAL ID? To me the issues barely matter. Just don't be corrupt and make serving the people more important than your political career or the special favors lobbies want to do for you and I don't really care what your stance is on ridiculous issues you will have no control over. Just do the right thing. Everything else pales in comparison.

Memo to self:

[cyberbian]

Who are you?

and what have you done with my brain?

signed, GWB.

It's ideology

[Quiet_Desperation]

I've been saying for years now that ideology is a mental illness. Sadly, it afflicts 99% of the population.

BS!

[dangitman]

Republicans have brain activity? I don't think so.

Applies to sponsors

[Alien54]

Of course, each side says they are being totally logical, and the other insane. You also see this in distro flame wars, religious debates, and other arguments about folks that provoke strong emotions. (thinking of the profound visceral reaction certain religious groups provoke in certain forums)

This probably also applies to the corporate sponsors of bills like the proposed law regarding analog hole who seem to be employing curious tactics, which if you think of it is merely an effort to protect the intellectgual property. With typical bad results. And which will provoke a strong reaction in some quarters once it becomes well known.

I know we should try to be rational. Sometimes this is hard to do.

BOTH parties?

[Bogtha]

That's probably the worst thing about USA politics. There's this fantasy that there are only two parties to choose from. Since they agree on so many things, the voters who believe this fantasy get absolutely no say whatsoever on many topics. Because the people who realise the truth are vastly outnumbered by the people in fantasy land, they don't get any say in many topics.

So basically, the voting public have no control over anything the Democrats and the Republicans agree on. That's not how democracies are supposed to work. Stop voting for Kodos!

Re:BOTH parties?

[Surt]

As an aside, when advocating for a truth that you claim most people to be ignorant of, it can be helpful to expound upon it.

Re:BOTH parties?

[Bogtha]

List of political parties in the USA.

Re:BOTH parties?

[Surt]

Sorry if I was unclear, I was curious about what position you specifically were advocating.

Re:BOTH parties?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your point? ALL parties work just the same. If you really think that some third party can get enough support to make a dent, that party would be any different from D's or R's, you're delusional.

Re:BOTH parties?

[Bogtha]

Merely that people should vote for who represents them best, instead of the lesser of two evils. Ideally, the voting system should be changed to use something like the Condorcet method, which removes the motivation for voting for the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, the two major political parties are hardly likely to want to enact these changes when it is likely to reduce their power significantly.

Re:BOTH parties?

[Surt]

Ahh, that was definitely what I was after. More noise about Condorcet voting is a good thing (though I tend to agree that it is unlikely we'll see it til after our current government collapses)!

Re:BOTH parties?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stop voting for Kodos!"

Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.
- Homer Simpson

Re:BOTH parties?

[clamatius]

Douglas Adams summed this up quite well.

'On [the robot's] world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.'"
'Odd,' said Arthur, 'I thought you said it was a democracy.'
'I did,' said Ford, 'It is.'
'So,' said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, 'why don't the people get rid of the lizards?'
'It honestly doesn't occur to them,' said Ford. 'They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.'
'You mean they actually vote for the lizards?'
'Oh yes,' said Ford with a shrug, 'of course.'
'But,' said Arthur, going for the big one again, 'why?'
'Because if they didn't vote for a lizard,' said Ford, 'the wrong lizard might get in'"

Re:BOTH parties?

[Abcd1234]

or, put more succinctly by The Simpsons: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. :)

Fox

[M-G]

So Fox News acts like a drug to the right-wingers. Crafty way to get ratings.

To quote Bill Hicks...

[Channard]

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!' 'Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons.'"

How else do you justify the similarity?

[MikeRT]

Both parties appeal to their voters based on emotion, not logic. Take the Republicans for example, they have yet to make any serious attempts to:

1) Restore the RTKB to its 2nd amendment definition
2) Overturn Roe v. Wade by appointing justices to the SCOTUS that care more about the US Constitution than precedent
3) Provide viable reforms to the tax code
4) Tangibly reduce the regulation on business, especially small business, at the federal level which often strangles business in its infancy
5) Defend our country. Sorry country club boys, but it ain't just Mexicans coming across the border so either you hire legal grounds keepers and nannies, or you deal with a Muslim terrorist carrying a backpack nuke into your cushy suburb thanks to our lax border security. It's impossible to call them tough on national defense given the state of our immigration policy which shows no signs of being influenced by national security issues

Yet they still get voters based on:
1) A fear that gays will get married if they're not in control of the body politic
2) A fear that the hippies will take over ""
3) A fear that our kids will be corrupted by drugs || sex || alcohol ""
4) A few more terrorists will blow up a building or two "" (ironic in light of #5)
5) The democrats will win and make us Super Duper MegaBolshevik Uber-Communist (Bush's domestic spending is rather socialist when compared to a real conservative platform)

The democrats:
1) Appeal to their female base on fear: your right to abortion WILL go away and you'll be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen for life if we aren't totally in control of the body politic.
2) Appeal to their minority base on racism fears
3) Appeal to their homosexual base on anti-homosexual fears
4) Appeal to their white middle class base on white guilt issues

So in short, if the politics of fear don't appeal to you, vote 3rd party. Any one of them will do.

Re:How else do you justify the similarity?

[Surt]

The real problem with the 3rd parties is how crazy they are. I don't want those people getting into a position of any power. What i'd love to see would be a republican-lite party, without any of the religious issues (ditch all of the abortion, gay, and hippy worries). Just business/tax emphasis. Frankly, I'd vote republican (for limited government) were it not for the risk that i'd get Christianity assigned as my religion the day after. So I vote Democrat, as they are the least objectionable of the remaining parties.

Pseudoscience hogwash

[sam_handelman]

People find similar results when studying brain activity of people playing chess - when considering a good move vs. considering a bad move. Does this mean that people ignore reason when playing chess?

  We don't understand the brain, we don't understand how people reason and we don't understand how people make decisions. Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot, a fraud or both. It is an interesting finding that certain particular areas of the brain "light up" when this particular sample of people are shown a particular sort of information in a particular way - but you can conclude nothing from this.

  For myself, the part of my brain that handles emotional responses to complete bullshit is lit up like a XMas tree. Am I, as I type, ignoring reason?

Re:Pseudoscience hogwash

[Jaysyn]

Do you have any sources for this or are you just making shit up cause you realize that you've been guilty of this behavior before?

Jaysyn

Re:Pseudoscience hogwash

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, you liberal pussy.

Re:Pseudoscience hogwash

[Jaysyn]

BWAHAHAHAH!

Not quite, moron.

Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuh-uh!

Vote Libertarian

[cyber_rigger]

There are other choices. http://lp.org/

Re:Vote Libertarian

[typical]

Yes, but said choice has some pretty wonky proposals (item II.2 on their party platform):

Taxation
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights.

You want to try running a country with no funding? Good luck.

II.6 on said platform:

Monopolies
Government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. We advocate a strict separation of business and State.

Oh, nonsense. Goverment might be able to produce monpolies, but if the Libertarian Party simply disbelieves that natural monopolies exist, I can't wait for *their* enlightening explanation. Hell, a lot of the time the state grants monopolies, it's because it's a situation where you have a natural monopoly *already* and we'd rather have a regulated monopoly than an unregulated one. Power distribution is going to be a monopoly, because *nobody* is going to run a second set of lines to your house, and lines are owned in per-line increments. Given that you have a monopoly, you can at least regulate it to keep it from doing some of the nasty things it can do.

Just because free markets are a powerful tool doesn't mean that they are the answer to every problem in a system.

I like some things that libertarians push -- voting reform for one, because the current scheme seems to achieve stability with two parties, which I don't think is good. I like the idea of less military aggression -- I think that most of the time, if you have a lot of pissed off people who have finally come to blows, sending lots of other people in with guns and killing off some more people generally isn't a very effective long-term solution. I wish that a lot of America was a lot more socially liberal too, because I think that they'd be a lot happier.

But, ultimately, a hell of a lot of libertarianism seems to come down to one of a couple points:

1) Someone's discovered that free markets are a really cool tool, and decides that maximally applying them everywhere is the best possible way to make society function better.

2) Someone notices that most of the things that the federal government does are unconsitutional, and decides that the best way to resolve the mentally-irritating difference is to drastically cut back the powers of the federal government.

3) Someone gets fed up over corruption or some other difficult-to-solve problem, can't come up with a convincing fix, and decides that the best way to solve the problem is just to erase the current political structures (D & R) and start over, hoping that this time, the social ill will just not appear.

Now, granted, I'm sure that people have latched onto D or R for reasons that I'd find just as uncompelling...

I wonder which radical side you belong to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you just prove his point?

Politics 101

[David Greene]

Look, here's the first thing to understand. In a political debate, facts don't matter. Read that again. Facts don't matter. This has been shown over and over again. People respond to values, not facts. Progressives lose because they argue the facts. They argue about the facts of global climate change. They wax wonkish on the merits of instant runoff voting.

Nobody cares.

As the right-wing Republicans have demonstrated so clearly, the way to political power is through values. Instead of citing world temparature statistics, ask people what they value. Do they value fresh air, abundant foliage, clean cities? Or do they value pollution, subsidies for big oil and murky rivers?

Look at the values of society today. They can be summarized by fear, isolation and scarcity. Everything we hear out of the far right can be reduced down to this. We're told to be afraid of terrorists, of immigrants, of gays and lesbians. We're told to lock our doors and make sure we keep as much of "our" money as we can, because we certainly don't have enough wealth in this country to go around. We're told to work as hard as we can to get our own, because no one's got our back. Hyper-individualism is the rule of the day.

If there's going to be change in this country, it's going to have to come as a result of a change in the conversation. We need to be talking about how we actually have abundance in this country and there is enough to build the kind of community we want to live in. There's enough to go around when we accept that each of us has a responsibility to contribute to the common good. There's enough to go around when we realize that we live in a connected community, not in isolated cabins on the frontier. There's enough to go around when we stop living in fear and start living in hope; when we realize that we support each other and we don't have to make it on our own.

This is the kind of political power that progressives need. Unfortunately, they're too damn busy being geeks, wonks and nerds to get it.

Re:Politics 101

[Vavu2001]

You are actually proving their point. Both sides of any debate believe in their heart of hearts that they (and only they)are arguing the facts, while the other person is just dealing with emotions. Interestingly enough, both sides are indeed dealing with facts.....selected facts that bolster their particular case. Any contrary evidence is ignored. An emotionally charged mind is very good at filtering reality.

Re:Politics 101

[Anonymous Coward]

In the leadup to the Canadian election that was held on Monday, the Liberal party accused the Conservative party of not sharing the values of Canadians. The Conservatives still won the election (albeit with a minority).

I think the values may play a pivotal role, but some values have more weight. For example, the value of a non-corrupt government offered by the Conservative party outweighed the fact that the same party is against Kyoto. People have priorities, and they change at each election. It might be corruption this time around, a healthy economy the next, and gay marriage the time after that.

The winner is simply the one who presents the values that weigh the most.

Re:Politics 101

[David Greene]

You are actually proving their point.

Well of course I'm proving their point. That's how our brains work. Our brains respond primarily to the values we hold, not to the facts.

Both sides of any debate believe in their heart of hearts that they (and only they)are arguing the facts

That's true only of the politically naive, which the Democratic party seems to be full of these days. The political rhetoric we hear is that the facts are being debated. But make no mistake, when Karl Rove develops a political strategy, he is not thinking about the facts. He's thinking about values and what will hit people in their guts.

Why do you think there was a rash of state constitutional amendments to bad gay marraige in 2004. Do you think it's because people actually care about gay marriage? Think again. What do you think is behind the current attack on immigrants?

A good politician very consciously frames the debate around values. That's why the Democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot. They misinterpret the polls to mean that people care about the issues. They don't.This is not a "bad" or "evil" thing. It's just the way it is. It's how we function as human beings.

Re:Politics 101

[David Greene]

The winner is simply the one who presents the values that weigh the most.

Exactly right. Therefore, the path to political power requires that you help people connect deeply with the values you share. The last thing you do is debate the other side on their issues against their values, because it only reinforces the idea that the values put forth by the other side are the most important values. Yes, the issue must be addressed, but it must be addressed in a way that connects with a different set of values. Your values.

Read George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant! for a good introduction to value politics.

Re:Politics 101

[Bucc5062]

I wish I still had mod points to mod you up through the roof. You hit upon the heart of the struggle within this country today. I also feel that today America is having a set of values spun around us that center on those themes of fear, isolation, individualism, and release of control. Alas, it is done so well; it is done in a way that like the frog in the pot analogy, by the time we feel the heat, it is to late to get out. I do feel that as those values are being defined, stated to the public there needs to be facts following that support or bolster the values. If we talk about the abundance in this country and how it can be used to help; we then need to back that statement up by showing where that abundance lies. When we talk about how valuing the environment and usign that value to set goals we also need to show what happens when we don't support a positive value. That is done with facts. I was upset with NPR the other day because during an interview with Alberto Gonzalez he defended the warrant-less NSA actions by saying "we spoke with Congress", "We did this to protect *you*". never did NPR response with questions like "Who did you talk to in Congress?", How has this protected us. the AG spun a value, but NPR needed to dig to determine if the value had truth, or was a fabrication. I am all for values first, but I feel a need to back those values up with facts, with truths that give credence to the values. Still in all, a great statement!

Re:Politics 101

[BiggerBoat]

"...rash of state constitutional amendments to bad gay marraige in 2004."

Dr. Freud! Dr. Freud! Paging Dr. Freud!

;)

Re:Politics 101

[David Greene]

You make an important point. Facts can be used as a supplement, but should never, ever be the focus of the debate. People don't connect with facts. Facts can be useful in the context of a values discussion to expose contradictions by the other side. But to rely on that technique is to commit political suicide. First and foremost, a politician must understand the values of her constituents and colleagues and shape the discussion around those values.

Re:Politics 101

[Vavu2001]

Sorry, but this sounds like the "we're losing because they are meaner than we are" argument. I have heard it from both sides, and it seems to me that both sides are pretending to be the only virgins left in the whore house. Yes, politicians can be very calculating when it comes to projecting 'outrage'. Yes, they may not really believe the arguments they are making in any given debate. But there are men (and women) of good will on both sides of most debates who honestly believe what they (the men and women of good will) are saying. They really think that the facts they are citing are the only facts that matter in the issue, and that the other side is just full of sh*t.

one more description to add

[JohnnyDoesLinux]

to fat, stupid, lazy, corrupt, ugly, repugnant, self indulgant.

Now not only do they not listen, but they make up emotional responses to questions and issues not actually raised.

Politicians need to find new careers, period.

Who else gets to make up all the rules, and raise their own salaries, and get to keep their jobs despite being found with a live child, or a dead woman (Ted Kennedy - at least the dead woman part).

AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!

Re:and this is why

[smchris]

Of course, but liberals can be guilty of the behavior the article discusses. The Neocons, for example, are not Nazis, they're fascists. Nazis were members of a 20th century German political party. Fascism is a government structure. One label is namecalling. The other can be rationally discussed. Confusing the two blunts liberal response.

the only thing

[akhomerun]

the only thing I don't like about partisan politics is party line voting (which is basically the same as what everyone else has been saying).

Representatives need to either vote for what their local constituants want, or vote for what they believe is right, not what their party says.

It's probably the entire reason why George Washington didn't want parties.

I think if libs and conservs just acknowledged that the others weren't complete idiots, as most talk shows do, it would be better for all of us. There are a very select few talk shows who actually look at facts and try not to bash the other people personally.

Re:the only thing

[AlterTick]

I think if libs and conservs just acknowledged that the others weren't complete idiots, as most talk shows do, it would be better for all of us.

Problem is, they are both right. The occupants of the far ends of both wings are complete idiots. That's what makes the talk shows "entertainment". They pit opposing, inflexible extremists against each other and watch the sparks fly. Honest, rational thinkers would be boring. They'd concede about half their points to one another, and the remaining they'd conclude are purely opinion based on personal ideology that they'll never agree on, so they agree to disagree.

Re:the only thing

[DavidTC]

The problem is that the people at the far end of the right are given radio shows, and the people at the far end of the left are not.

Of course, when the radio show people go so far it upsets even normal people on the right, than the right can just go 'Oh, those are extremists, we don't believe that'. Yet they go and listen to them and quote them all the time.

To see what's going on, read Al Franken's 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'. Something like 15 million people listen to him a week, and he can stand there and promote the most outragious views of the right, and they repeat them. He can lie, and they repeat it.

But when he gets too out there..well, it's not like he's officially speaking for the right. He's not actually a journalist, despite the fact that he brags (and it is apparently true) that many people get their news solely from him. It's just a talk show.

Likewise Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They get airtime. When, as is often, they go too far, well, they aren't officially speaking for anyone, except apparently God. The right wing politicans ignores them 90% of the time, condemns them 5% of the time, and appears on their show the remaining 5%. of the time

Don't get me wrong, the left has people as equally far out there. They do not, however, have radio shows. The famous-for-other-things people might get blasted when they go to far to the left, but they don't get to promote 'almost too far' concepts(1) and misinformation every day of the week to millions of people.

No, not even Michael Moore. Even if you want to place him equal in wackiness to Limbaugh, which he really isn't...he's produced something like fifteen hours of political stuff total. Limbaugh does that in a week.

1) By 'almost too far', I don't mean they should be banned. I mean, basically stuff at the point that would get a random American upset, like Rush's comment: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." If he just comes out and says that, he gets called on it...but he can come damn close, and repeat it over and over and over and over...

Re:the only thing

[AlterTick]

To see what's going on, read Al Franken's 'Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'. Something like 15 million people listen to him a week, and he can stand there and promote the most outragious views of the right, and they repeat them. He can lie, and they repeat it.

See, I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who cites as an authority on that windbag liar Limbaugh, the one lefty who's an even bigger windbag liar, Al Franken.

Re:the only thing

[DavidTC]

Wll, as you didn't bother to point out any of his lies, and I was bored, I searched for any of his 'lies', and I found a list. So let's start looking at it.

1 is the claim that Clinton had nothing to do with foiling the plot on the pope's life. However, Franken is more than likely quoted out of context there, considering how they've mysteriously decided to chop up his quote, and the two attacks have mysteriously turned into 'them all' at the end of the quote. It's more than likely he was quoting a huge list of things, saying they happened under Clinton's watch, and one of this events happened with the help of an ally of ours and not us specifically. (Although as no one is asserting that Clinton ran around arresting people, I'm not exactly sure what the point was. The FBI wanted those people, and thus when the Phillipine police ran across them they turned them over. It's true the pope plot was mainly foiled by their own stupidity at blowing up their home, but if the US hadn't been paying attention they might have managed to pull off the 'blow up fifteen airplanes' plan they had later on.)

2a is about the absurdly racist flyers that said gave the wrong date for the election, and were equally likely to have been done by a misguided idiot who's a Democrat than a misguided idiot who's a Republican. However, here we have absolutely no information except that 'Franken decried the flier as an effort to prevent people (blacks) from coming out to vote'. Well, he did? Why didn't you quote him doing so, then?

2b is...a cite trying to assert the fictional oreo-throwing incident was an example of his 'lying'.

Not only would that not be a lie, as Franken didn't say that didn't happen, or has ever said anything about it at all, but it didn't happen. It is itself a lie. (And what the hell kind of stupid numbering is this? 2a and 2b aren't related! Is this like street addresses or exit ramps, where they already assigned numbers and had to fit extra ones in?)

3 is a claim that he said Ailes produced the Willie Horton ad (Although, of course, they again refrain from in any way actually quoting this.), when it fact it was produced by the 'third-party' National Security Political Action Committee. This is a very surreal example and it only works for anyone who doesn't know anything about that. (And I presume he talks about this in the book, so ignorance doesn't work here.)

Rodgers Ailies was, in fact, linked to the NSPAC. People who used to work for him started it up and produced the ad. The campaign was under investigation for years about that specific ad, and the Republicans stonewalled the investigation and let it die. It, indeed, was the original 'Swift Boats', where you have a 'third-party' run ads saying untrue things, and implying other things, that you yourself couldn't get away with, and then you run your campaign in such a way that acts like those ads are true, without ever explicitly mentioning them or stating the information in the ads. (E.g., the ads claim candidate X was a child molester, and you start talking about the 'moral questions about candidate X'.)

About this point I stopped reading. Of these four lies, exactly one quote was given, and it was chopped to pieces. One of them admittedly had nothing to do with Franken at all!

Having read some of Franken's books, I know damn well he quotes people. What's more, he likes to quote them more than once, to demonstrate they actually meant what it sounded like they meant.

Neither you, nor anyone else claiming he lies, seem to be able to pull the trick off of actually quoting his 'lies'. You'd think it would be easier, as quoting a line from a book is easier than quoting it from radio.

Well...

[Chowderbags]

Obviously the story is biased.



____________________
(It's a joke for those who are slow)

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians get high when

* listening to themselves talk
* "preaching to the choir"
* they convince themselves they are right, regardless of the facts.

This is news? :-)

Make them read the legislation they sign!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so simple:

http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

Everyone ignores facts

[oneiros27]

It's nothing new ... my grandfather has written a few books on the human thought processes, and I typically cite his 'The Eight Common Errors in the Thinking Process' (pdf).

The quick summary (from the intro)

1. Your brain uncritically accepts the first information it gets in any new subject area as correct, whether it is or not.
2. Subsequent information that is in keeping with the information already present in your brain is uncritically accepted as correct, whether it is or not.
3. A new item that is contradictory to the information present in your brain is automatically rejected as incorrect, whether it is or not.
4. Your brain considers every item that is compatible with the majority of its information in a given subject area to be correct and every item that is contradictory to its information to be incorrect. As a result, the brain has no internal way to know which items of its information are correct representations of the real world and which are not.
5. Your brain has no way to know whether or not it has all the information required to respond appropriately to a given stimulus.
6. Unless your brain has additional information to the contrary, it interprets similar items as being identical.
7. Your brain cannot measure anything directly. All measurements must be made by comparison against an appropriate standard, which is often done incorrectly.
8. Your brain continues to interpret the external world as it was when the last sensory signal about a given subject area was received. As a result, the brain is not aware that some of its formerly correct information is now incorrect.

All this new research has done is support #2-4.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[brpr]

Before modding this guy interesting, you might like to consider the fact that the article he links to is full of unjustified assertions, pop pseudo-pyschology and other varieties of what might kindly be termed "crap". For example, take this rather incredible statement, presented as an obvious truth:

When your senses detect a set of stimuli, your brain assembles all the information it has about the source of those stimuli and how to deal with them.

This raises all sorts of difficult issues which the author ignores completely. For example, is it really plausible that the brain assembles all the information relevant to the stimulus and how you might deal with it? That is probably an infinite amount of information. In any given situation, anything whatsoever that you know is potentially useful information. The trick is (we really have no idea how the mind does this) to filter out a tiny fraction of your knowledge using a reasonably fast heurisitic, so that you have a manageable subset of your knowledge to process in any given situation.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[bcoff12]

I accept that all this is true. First I've heard of it.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[DarkSarin]

Who is your grandfather, and why should we care what he has written?

As a psychologist, I need to have a name. Citation is more important. His name means nothing to me (I've read a fair bit of psychology-related research, too), so I am going to need some information.

Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but as a sibling poster pointed out, this doesn't exactly jive with what I know to be currently accepted theory about information processing in the human mind.

One thing the human brain does VERY well is pattern matching as pattern discrimination. Consider the idea of facial recognition. This is computationally intensive. Humans do it almost instantly in most cases. It is also capable of discriminating between two similar patterns in a fraction of a second (sorting tasks have demonstrated this quite conclusively).

Very little is actually known about how we process information because we can't get a handle on it all. MRI's are helping, but haven't solved a lot of the problems that we face.

I would therefore appreciate some more information about how these conclusions were reached and what the research supporting them is like.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[DarkSarin]

As a follow up, I read the 18 page brief. I am still unsatisfied with his conclusions. He paints a very simple picture. It ain't that easy (it never is when dealing with nueral networks).

I don't mean to flame or be rude, but I would like more information.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[Anonymous Coward]

I call shenanigans on your 8 points.

As a child, they attempted to indoctrinate me with all kinds of religious nonsense. I was able figure out on my own (in violation of all 8 of your points) that I was being fed a whole lot of nonsense.

I am living proof that your 8 points are faulty. Notice how I was able to independently figure that out, even though this was the first time I had encountered those ideas.

Your 8 points are essentially trying to "prove" (bogusly) that independent critical thinking cannot exist. But I'm happy to report that critical thinking is alive and flourishing.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[CokeBear]

You are the exception that proves the rule.

Unfortunately for society, the vast majority (95%+) of people who are indoctrinated with religious nonsense at an early age continue to believe it all through their lives.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[TallMatthew]

Your brain uncritically accepts the first information it gets in any new subject area as correct, whether it is or not.

If this is true, it is to the extent that a person hasn't matured past childhood when we accept everything taught to us simply because we don't have enough acquired information to think critically. In childhood, we find someone we trust and let them do the thinking for us which means we are ripe to believe in things which aren't necessarily true. Thus Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Jesus.

Most of us grow out of this stage. The rest vote conservative.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[boule75]

The same is true with all nonsense, this does not need to be religious ("need a big car, big TV, best processors, nice ties everyday...").

But I presume the keyword in your sentence is _indoctrinated_.

I for once received a catholic education in Descarte's land. I do not feel indoctrinated nor do I blinly agree with whatever comes out of the Vatican.

Logic and honesty are key to usefull discussions, and one has to try to understand someone else point of view (again, honestly). This requires time, humility and dedication, and few debates allow that, whatever the media, or even between friends.
And the world has become very complicated too, and evolves very quickly. On economic matters, who has a global picture? Strange times.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[Mark_in_Brazil]

I found this post really interesting.

All this new research has done is support #2-4.

I see all the points reflected in recent politics in the USA.

1. Your brain uncritically accepts the first information it gets in any new subject area as correct, whether it is or not.

I'd say Fox News understood this. On the night of the 2000 election, all the news channels received new data from Florida. There was no way Fox or anybody else could possibly have processed those data and come to any kind of a conclusion, but Fox went ahead and declared George W. Bush the victor (the person who actually made the call was a cousin of Bush). The other networks, not wanting to be last, followed suit and declared Bush the victor. The facts at that point could not support declaring either candidate the winner in Florida. But since Fox called the state for Bush and the other networks irresponsibly followed suit, the impression was created in the minds of the public that Bush had won. When the Gore campaign asked for a recount, it was seen as Gore trying to overturn a Bush victory when in fact no winner should have been declared by that point. The eventual analysis of the disputed ballots showed that if the Gore campaign had asked for and gotten a full recount, Gore would have won Florida. However, the Supreme Court stopped recounts, and one of the more delicious bits of irony in recent history is that the Democrats had only requested some weird partial recounts they had a better chance of winning, but they actually would have lost even if the Supreme Court had allowed them to continue. Only a full recount would have given a Gore victory, independent of the criterion used for counting ballots (most restrictive, most "liberal", or even allowing each county to apply its own established criteria). Further, the Gore campaign focused on undervotes, the famous "dimples" and "hanging chads," and ignored overvotes. Recent analysis has shown that there were tens of thousands of overvotes, largely from African-American districts, that would have gone for Gore. In those cases, the voter had both marked or punched to indicate a vote for Gore and written in Gore in the write-in space. Since the voter had "voted for two candidates" (even though the ballots were just marked two ways for the same candidate), those ballots were discarded. IF the Gore campaign had called for re-checking of overvotes, and depending on the criteria for accepting overvote ballots, Gore could have won Florida by tens of thousands of votes. I find something very funny in the fact that the Dems tried to get the partial recounts they thought would be most favorable for themselves, and in fact ignored much richer potential ways of winning, including the truly democratic full recount.
Instead, Bush was seen as being the rightful winner, and Gore as being a sore loser. The recounts were seen as the desperate acts of a losing campaign, when in fact there was no way, short of careful analysis of all the ballots, of knowing who had won. The first "unanimous" declaration of a winner in Florida was for Bush, and voters largely accepted that as fact and ignored further arguments about the validity of the declared result.
Fox later apologized for making that call so prematurely, but the damage was done, and there was no way to make it right.

5. Your brain has no way to know whether or not it has all the information required to respond appropriately to a given stimulus.

As a result, many people look to their "neighbors" when unsure. Since there were a lot of people saying Bush was the rightful winner and Gore was just a sore loser, and since the first "offficial" information the people had received was a Bush victory, a majority didn't want to hear anything about questioning the result, even though nobody had enough information at that time to determine who had "really" won.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[Dephex Twin]

Not to mention the fact that the poster, and anyone who just accepts these 8 assertions, is doing what these 8 points are supposedly warning against...

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[CausticPuppy]

1. Your brain uncritically accepts the first information it gets in any new subject area as correct, whether it is or not.

So how do I know whether this statement is itself correct??

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[oneiros27]

You're right -- I should have provided more information.

The author was Carl R. Pacifico. The document has not been peer reviewed, and the full paper, 'The Human Thinking Process - A Hypothesis in Evolutionary Neuropsychology' (pdf) has only been published on the internet through Drexel Univeristy's Carl. R. Pacifico Professorship of Neuropsychology, which he funded, so can't be considered an unbiased peer review.

As he died last month, he won't have a chance to conduct further research to prove or disprove his hypothesis.

I'm not in the field, myself, so I can't make a judgement if any of his research is sound

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[feagle814]

Even at that, you are assuming the brain can't process all of its information at once. What if the brain actually can do so? What is a memory lookup other than going through all memories to see what matches?

The way I've looked at memory is that the brain is currently "activating" the pathway associated with some subject, and all memories which concern the subject are linked with some strength to that pathway - memories which concern the subject but are not linked with that pathway are considered forgotten.

I suppose you could say the subset that you use to make a decision are those which have the strongest association with the pathway - but who knows?

Did I mention brainal psychology involves pulling a lot of things out of the ass?

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[Jtheletter]

As a psychologist, I need to have a name. Citation is more important. His name means nothing to me (I've read a fair bit of psychology-related research, too), so I am going to need some information.

Being a psychologist you should be familiar with the concept of RESEARCH. Given that you might have tried - oh hell, I dunno, let me come up with something crazy - maybe clicking on the link to the PDF that the original poster gave? From that you would have very quickly discovered the author's name is Carl Pacifico.

I would therefore appreciate some more information about how these conclusions were reached and what the research supporting them is like.

I know this might sound foreign but I bet real money if you read the linked document it might just answer those exact questions, or maybe a google search on the author. Holy god, who could have thought of that? It would take someone with a degree in brain science... perhaps a psychologist even?

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[Control-Z]

That's just a complicated way of saying "Keep an open mind and don't jump to conclusions."

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[DarkSarin]

Oh you're just brilliant, huh?

I read the PDF. The name by itself means nothing to me. I've never heard of the guy, and I'm not in neuropsych.

Google isn't really the best search engine for asking a question like "is this guy well-respected within the scientific community in which he operates?" If it was, I would do it. I don't feel like loggin into psycInfo to look him up, especially when I had no idea until the poster replied what field the guy was in.

Furthermore, until the poster told me of the university affiliation, I couldn't be certain that a google search would point me to the correct person.

Point in fact, the article (which I read), does not address a lot of questions I would like to see answered.

Now that I know who the guy is, I actually imagine that he knew a good deal about the human brain, but since, as the poster now informs us, he is dead, there is a great deal of research that has been done since the book the paper references was published--and he can't even do more research.

So yeah, you're brilliant. I asked some valid questions having made some assumptions about paucity of information. Turns out that the information, although available, was somewhat ambiguous without additional information.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[brpr]

I'm not talking about memory I'm talking about knowledge. It's difficult to process knowledge in parallel because its an interconnected system. You have to combine different parts of your knowledge to do anything useful with it, and there's an infinite number of different ways you can do that (yes, even though the brain itself is finite).

The way I've looked at memory is that the brain is currently "activating" the pathway associated with some subject, and all memories which concern the subject are linked with some strength to that pathway - memories which concern the subject but are not linked with that pathway are considered forgotten. I suppose you could say the subset that you use to make a decision are those which have the strongest association with the pathway - but who knows?

Well, I'm not really very sympathetic to that sort of associationistic/connectionist model of the mind. In this particular case I don't think that would work as a heuristic. It's unlikely that you have any strong associations between, say, tigers and trees in your mind, but climbing a tree might be a good idea if there's a tiger nearby (ok, ok, assume tigers can't climb trees ;)) I think that the ability to have those sorts of ideas (i.e. "i'd better climb a tree because there's a tiger nearby" etc.) is pretty incredible, and we really can't explain it right now.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[19061969]

My recommendation is to read "Eye and Brain" by Richard Gregory. He's one of the foremost psychophysicists, a fellow of the Royal Society, has presented some Christmas lectures, and knows an awful lot about visual processing.

He's also very readable. It's a great book.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[gg3po]

As a psychologist, I need to have a name. Citation is more important. His name means nothing to me

Why do you think you need a name? The source of the information is irrelevant. Why aren't you capable of discussing something on its' own merits? What, you can't entertain an idea that doesn't have some slick BrandName® To back it up? Maybe you have a need to associate unfamiliar ideas with some individual that you can easily demonize, thus permitting you to sleep better after rejecting them? Changing the subject to a demonization of the messenger is a tactic taught in debate classes -- something practiced by those that are more concerned with "winning" an argument than getting to the truth of a matter. Discounting some information out of hand because it came from someone or something that doesn't fall 100% in-line with your personal idealogy is both foolish and dangerous. Psycologist? Please.

Re:Everyone ignores facts

[typical]

1. Your brain uncritically accepts the first information it gets in any new subject area as correct, whether it is or not.
2. Subsequent information that is in keeping with the information already present in your brain is uncritically accepted as correct, whether it is or not.
3. A new item that is contradictory to the information present in your brain is automatically rejected as incorrect, whether it is or not.
4. Your brain considers every item that is compatible with the majority of its information in a given subject area to be correct and every item that is contradictory to its information to be incorrect. As a result, the brain has no internal way to know which items of its information are correct representations of the real world and which are not.

I'd say that 1-4 can be condensed and put much more accurately as the following: knowledge is accepted based on how well it fits with other knowledge.

Take a kid, take him to church and keep shoveling him full of stories about invisible beings who hate gays and how he should be responsible and give money to his church, and at every point from then on, he has to manage to build up enough conflicting information to completely overturn his previous worldview. Tell him that he needs to study the Bible and attend church regularly to guarantee continuous input supporting the view you are trying to impart, and you have a very stable system established. Tell him how he should teach *his* kids the same thing, and you get to utilize the trust that children learn to have in their parents when they learn that their parents know more than they do early on.

Scientology and Jim Jones' cult both used the technique of isolating a victim and trying to bombard them with messages supporting their claims.

5 Your brain has no way to know whether or not it has all the information required to respond appropriately to a given stimulus.
6 Unless your brain has additional information to the contrary, it interprets similar items as being identical.
7 Your brain cannot measure anything directly. All measurements must be made by comparison against an appropriate standard, which is often done incorrectly.
8 Your brain continues to interpret the external world as it was when the last sensory signal about a given subject area was received. As a result, the brain is not aware that some of its formerly correct information is now incorrect.

I dunno about the value of 5-8. 5 seems obvious, 6 overly-strong (the mind does fuzzy matching...is that what this is trying to say?), and 7 and 8 not very useful -- yes, if you have no information that would lead you to know X, then you probably aren't going to know X.

It's not about emotions

[GroeFaZ]

Meet The Monkey Sphere

In short, the Monkey Sphere is the very reason why they take it from the people they don't know, instead of who they know and care about.

Partisan

[Antony-Kyre]

Concering the federal level, it would probably be best to make it non-partisan. One, it would force voters to really research their candidates instead of checking the boxes on their ballots that says Democrat or Republican. Sure, parties can still support candidates and candidates can be part of parties, just leave the party name off the ticket. Require a certain number of signatures to be placed onto the ballot.

They really should stick to the federal constitution. States, which are nations onto themselves, should be doing a lot of the stuff the federal government is doing.

Nice to see proven what should be common knowledge

[SmallFurryCreature]

The most dangerous thing in the world is finding someone you agree with. If say a TV station news is saying exactly what you think is right BE BEWARE! You are very likely only reinforcing your believes and not being supplied with new information. A newssource that says the exact opposite of what you believe to be true will cause you to either outright deny it (bad) or search for the real truth.

Con men always work with this, they tell you what you want to hear so that you will end up trusting them and then they can scam you.

Linux fans, don't trust claims by say IBM on linux performance blindly, Mac fans doubt every single thing Steve Jobs tells you and MS fans.... well there is no helping some people.

That people like to have their ideas reinforced is pretty clear with the current world events involving armed conflicts between various factions. Why do I not say "war" or something like that? Because even that means taking sides. Call it war on terror and it becomes clear that america is the one fighting terrorists. I am pretty sure the other side claims however that it is america who is the one dealing in terror.

Some americans who are against their goverments actions happily claim that european media, the BBC especially is so much more un-biased then their own networks. Is it? Or does the BBC simply say what they want to hear? Same of course the other way around. Is all the european press simply anti-american or are they only guilty of saying something you don't want to hear?

Not to long ago I had an argument with an american about the race riots in france and the american claimed that in the US such things could not happen because immigrants were integrated into society better. Any recent immigrants in america want to reply on this? Apparently the riots in LA were not related to race.

It is intresting to see this article take on it. I hadn't suspected it ran so deeply. Then again it may be related to how we defend any decision we made wich later turns out to be bad. Wether we find out that the car we bought is considered bad by everyone else or the partner we choose turns out to be abusive. People like to stick with their decisions because we hate to admit we were wrong.

Linux zealots, mac slaves and MS apologists, all firmly believe their own myths and deny the enemies truths. Doesn't help at all when 99% of the time your in fact right. It makes it all the easier to think that 1 truth is a lie as well.

In dutch politics we had a few years a go a new person on the political scene who really upset the current balance as he was neither left nor right wing. The left claimed he was extreme right and the right claimed he was to left. He was for instance against continued immigration (far right) but also wanted to stop buying american fighter aircraft (far left). He was killed and dutch politics went back to the total crap it has always been but perhaps that is the only way forward. A party that is neither left nor right but simply does what is best for the country without being hunted by dogmatic views from some political ideologie.

A sort of enlighten socialism. Oh and before I get all the americans over me, remember that america is a socialist country as well. A true capatalist nation would have NO social security whatsoever. As long as tax money from the rich goes to those who are poor you are socialist. Take that you bunch of pinkos.

If you agree with what I said, BE AWARE! Am I only saying what you wanna hear? If you disagree, are you just in denial ignoring the facts?

In a way, all the responses to this article should be unmodded. Modding is after all only a way to reward those who say what you wanta hear and punish those who do not. If you don't believe me spend some real time meta-moderating.

The polititians....

[Gadgycough]

I don't know about where you guys are from but in my country they are mostly all GOOD people who strive to do the right thing, even though they have an uphill struggle. That's something to be proud of when you take a look at what is happening in some parts of this World.

Be on notice commenters in Canada and Europe...

[jo7hs2]

...Before the string of comments suggesting that this is indicative of the stupidity of the American people is allowed to take hold, remind yourselves that this would no doubt be true of all strongly ideological individuals, in all nations, including your own.

Re:Be on notice commenters in Canada and Europe...

[frenchbedroom]

I'd agree with that, but my emotional processing centers are telling me to ignore your remark.

I just love my brain :)

</smartasseuropeancommenter>

What did you expect?

[MrSoundAndVision]

I expect nothing less from the supporters of the two parties of big business.

Cognitive confirmation bias

[19061969]

This is a surprisingly pervasive thing and not restricted just to emotive issues such as politics. I've personally found it in information search experiments: people will focus on what confirms what they want to see rather than what is there; it often leads to disappointment and resentment. Think about the last time you were conned by a misleading spam email title.

I've even heard (sorry no reference for this) that it can happen in everyday motor tasks - some drivers even "wish" pedestrian's away and end up driving dangerously because of something like a confirmation bias in their desire to get where they are going. It's strange how the mind can fool itself. You'd think evolution would have removed it ("I want a drink of water but that tiger by the lake is stopping me - hey! If I ignore the tiger, I can have a drink!?!")

This has been known about (empirically) since the 1960's under cognitive confirmation bias, but I guess it's nice to see an activation study just to confirm what psychologists have known for decades (and that everyone else has known about for millenia).

Re:Cognitive confirmation bias

[typical]

I've personally found it in information search experiments: people will focus on what confirms what they want to see rather than what is there; it often leads to disappointment and resentment.

I think that it's more that people will believe what fits better with what they already believe.

This is exactly why...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I do not even want to know which political parties our network news anchors are affiliated with. As long as they can give the news and at least "appear" to be unbiased, then that's all that matters. Obviously it is impossible to be unbiased completely, since we all have our own opinions.

I also do not want to know the party affiliations of non-political people, such as actors, musicians, artists, etc. unless of course they are running for office.

both parties are against the working people

[Cryofan]

the facts don't lie. Since 1970, wages for the bottom half have significantly declined. Both dems and GOP have been in control in those years.

What we need is to apply to our government the same darwinistic principles that theoretically underlie capitalism. For example, we need to apply "creative destruction" to our government. Trash it all and start again. Within the confines of the legal system of course.

But Madison, Hamilton and the other founding fathers designed the government and constitution so as to prevent innovation in government, the better to preserve the status quo, thereby "protecting" the "opulent minority" from the "majority" (Madison' words).

The LEAST able of American citizens to help us change our govt are the so-called "political activists" and "poltically aware" Americans. These people, ardent voters, most of them, and supposedly aware of the issues, are actually sort of brainwashed with elite propaganda. If you hear someone talking about GOP or Dem political "talking points" and "issues,: you should recognize that this person is a domesticated creature owned by those at the top.

Re:both parties are against the working people

[isotope23]

the facts don't lie. Since 1970, wages for the bottom half have significantly declined. Both dems and GOP have been in control in those years.

It's true that neither party really gives a crap about the working poor. They try to buy votes with federal money. If either party really cared about the poor you would hear them talk about the evils of inflation.

When the country was on the gold standard the value of a dollar stayed fairly consistent, allowing people to SAVE money and still have the same value for it years down the road. Compare that to the situation today with institutionalized inflation:

If we assume 2.5% percent inflation, 100.00 loses half its value in 29 years. at 3.5% its 21 years, at 5% its 15, and at 7% its 11 years. So why is inflation and its effect never mentioned? I would estimate that inflation is running somewhere around 7% BTW. As the baby boomers retire, this situation will become dire. The powers that be have spent so much future wealth buying votes that noone has the political will necessary to do what needs to be done.

That last presidential election was a case in point for how far out of whack we are. Both Kerry and Bush presented "budgets" which had roughly 440 billion dollar deficits. Neither said anything about a balanced budget. Its gotten so bad that when the republicans "cut" the budget what they are really doing is just decreasing the amount increase of federal spending. E.G. "instead of increasing spending by 5% we'll only increase it by 2.5%"

To me, the funniest part is when people like greenspan lament the low or negative personal savings rate of the country. If you were to put money in a savings account, you would end up losing purchasing power after the effects of inflation are calculated in.

Re:both parties are against the working people

[pigwiggle]

"the facts don't lie."

And just where do you get these 'facts'? According to the Congressional Budget Office and Census Bureau, inflation adjusted wages have risen (1973-2003) for all income deciles; even the lowest 10%. When you look at overall income the picture only gets better. The bottom quintile of US workers in 2003 was making 28% more (in inflation adjusted purchasing parity) than they did in 1967. Perhaps they could be better off with wiser economic policy, but the poor are certainly not getting poorer.

I don't know why this meme is so pervasive; probably just the lack of any real perspective. For example, my mother and her four siblings were raised in a home smaller than the one I share with just my wife, and her parents were considered solidly middle-class. I own a home that was built in 1947. It was originally ~1000 sq ft, almost exactly the median size for homes built in ~1950. In 2003 the median new home was over 2200 sq ft. The cost hasn't risen much either; about 3% per sq ft. Folks are making more disposable income and blowing it on bigger homes.

Re:both parties are against the working people

[isotope23]

And just where do you get these 'facts'? According to the Congressional Budget Office and Census Bureau, inflation adjusted wages have risen (1973-2003) for all income deciles; even the lowest 10%. When you look at overall income the picture only gets better. The bottom quintile of US workers in 2003 was making 28% more (in inflation adjusted purchasing parity) than they did in 1967

PLEASE! with the amount of contortions they have gone through to rework
the CPI so an acceptable figure results any kind of comparison is suspect.
I love the fact that they no longer include food and energy in the CPI.

Simple - Cognitive Dissonance

[ChePibe]

Go ahead and make all of the tests based on politics you want. This is a well-understood phenomena called cognitive dissonance. When someone has two conflicting pieces of information in their head, they must decide which is more reliable and go with that one. Their judgement on which is more reliable often has to deal with value systems, previous experience, and personal preference.

It applies well to politics - true partisans believe their party can do no wrong. When they hear of something bad that happens to their party - which is inevitable - they reject it and, often, blame it on others.

It also applies to purchasing decisions. Someone who buys only American cars for whatever reason may find it more difficult to believe that foreign cars are superior. So-called "fan boys" believe Apple, Microsoft, and Linus can do no wrong and minimize anything they do in their mind or dismiss it.

This also played a role in the intelligence against Iraq (let's not turn this into politics - this is just an observation). Many intelligence analysysts had reported for years - correctly - that the previous Iraqi regime had developed WMD. When conflicting information began to come in, some stating that they were no longer producing WMD, some saying they were continuing to produce it, cognitive dissonance very-likely kicked in and tilted their estimates towards their preconceptions. (I don't want this to be a conspiracy theorist thread - the above is a theory)

This is merely an application of a well-understood theory. A very interesting application, mind you, but noting particularly new.

Enough with these studies

[jerald_hams]

We know that partisan debate is based on negative emotions and the addictive desire to defeat the other party. We know that emotions arise from biological activity in the brain, and roughly where that activity occurs. This study, while impressive-sounding, teaches us nothing new.

Ignoring facts

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue of both parties ignoring the facts .. I think that is why even "christians" who supposedly follow the same book ..can have diametrically opposing views.

Social conservatives think they are "moral" and that especially they like to think they are christian and follow the bible. Yet most of them actually do exactly the opposite of what the bible says.

Yet, on any given issue ... the "Social conservatives" don't follow the bible.

For one thing, social conservatives oppose immigration/immigrants .. when the Bible is extremely clear on this topic. They also want to build a wall on the southern border (bible says "if you build a high gate, you invite destruction") .. all of histories' walls are tourist attractions today (Great Wall, Hadrian's wall etc.)

http://www.churchworldservice.org/Immigration/bibl e-as-handbook.html

Yet most social conservatives would call for a halt to immigration (or at least non european immigration).

At one time a majority of them would have opposed interracial marriage .. yet the bible is clear on this question as well .. http://www.carm.org/questions/interracial_marriage .htm http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g003.htm l and http://www.tbm.org/whatinterrac.htm

Very strangely the Numbers 12:1 reference used to be quoted (out of context) as a reason not to have interracial marriages.

So, when Jesus was tempted by the devil who was quoting scriptures ..Jesus used objective logic against it. Maybe that's what people need to use .. objective logic versus blind "adherence" to scripture.

Re:Ignoring facts

[nosaj72]

I've never met a "Social Conservative" who opposes immigration, no matter what country it is from. I've met plenty of them who opposed ILLEGAL immigration. Is it anti-biblical to expect the rules to followed?

Re:Ignoring facts

[osgeek]

It's anti-Christ to create laws that would keep the poor and unfortunate out of your house and lands. Christ was quite clear in his instructions regarding giving everything you had to the poor and to others. He was quite emphatic about inviting the poor into your home to help them, rather than having parties with your friends.

Social conservatives ignore Christ's directions if they advocate any type of "border control", legally based or not. Read TFA again to understand why you may have trouble understanding what I'm saying.

The funny things to note here are that: 1) I'm an atheist, so don't really feel a need to follow Christ's advice (assuming he said those words and that he existed at all). and 2) I'm all for very strong border control. We should have land mines from Corpus Cristi to San Diego at all non-checkpoint locations.

Re:Ignoring facts

[starm_]

Hehe that's because the bible such an inconsistant book. It says one thing and then in the next paragraph it says the opposite.

Re:Ignoring facts

[nosaj72]

There are reasons for border control other that keeping poor people out. You can not successfully protect your population from crime, disease, and (republicans favorite word) terrorism without controlling in some way who can come in and out of your country. Also, border protection does not in anyway preclude helping poor people in other countries. Since Christ never specifically addressed anything like this, I don't see how you can make such and an authoritarin statement about what He would think.

Re:Ignoring facts

[deejer]

"all of histories' walls are tourist attractions today (Great Wall, Hadrian's wall etc.)"

Good point. Never thought of that before.

Re:Ignoring facts

[osgeek]

Christ did not place a bunch of caveats around the need to give up everything you had to others who are needy. He didn't say, "give money to the poor as long as you can make sure your kids go to college", or "let others into your home, only if you can do so in a very orderly way according to the rules, ensuring that no one will hurt you.". He basically said, "Screw the consequences to yourself, do everything you can for your fellow man no matter what it does to you personally. In the end, God will reward you for your sacrifices and devotion to his other children."

You're providing a perfect example of someone who tries to rationalize what Christ said so that you still get to keep your SUV, your college funds, your "establishment", your borders, and your money. TFA has that whole mind-set pegged of ignoring troubling facts that get in the way of your overall belief structure.

Face it. Christ would have had a lot more in common with the peace-loving hippy walking the streets of LA in 1968 than he would with the average Christian yuppie surfing the Internet, poster to Slashdot, or Christian evangelist.

It's not just "that crazy atheist" who believes that was Christ's position. There are numerous Christian sects that have tried to follow Christ's teachings to the letter. Their members give up all wordly possessions and preach Christ's message to any who will listen.

Re:Ignoring facts

[nosaj72]

I would agree that Jesus would be more akin the peace loving hippy (minus the drugs, probably), American Christians are to possesion oriented, and that most of them don't have a good grasp about the true nature of Christianity, but I STILL don't see how border protection is antichristian. Anyway, to quote Homer Simpson, if I'm wrong, I'll recant on my deathbed.

Re:Ignoring facts

[Anonymous Coward]

In this specific case, it's anti-Christian because the illegals are coming here looking for a better life. If we were truly concerned about terrorist threats (instead of just being overrun by brown people who are poor and speak little English) the measures taken at the Canadian borders and at international airports would be as strict as they are at the Mexican border.

Re:Ignoring facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and the liberal christian types completely ignore all biblical precident about morality, justice, and punishment. Christ preached a doctrine of forgiveness and redemption, not a doctrine that denies a person's actions are sins in the first place. Christ preached spiritual liberty through himself not worldly libertinism. If you want examples of Christ talking about that read the the letters to the churches in Revelations. Remember Christ himself said not one line would disappear from the Law because of his coming.

Also your statements about Christ's position on materialism are pretty skewed. Christ told the rich man to sell his possessions because they were getting between him and God. Christ criticized people for being selfish and miserly. He said that riches brought powerful temptations. Christian doctrine is not that you cannot be rich and you cannot provide for your children. Christ complimented those sorts of people as wise. Christian doctrine is that you cannot allow money to get between yourself and God. Do not make an idol of it.

Christ also doesn't forbid judgement. He only says not to jump to conclusions but to judge wisely when you have all the evidence. There is a reason why the "don't throw pearls before swine" verse follows the "do not judge" verse in the Sermon on the Mount.

The truth is that neither the conservatives nor the liberals have it all correct. But that doesn't give either side an excuse for ignoring the other.

Re:Ignoring facts

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue of both parties ignoring the facts .. I think that is why even "jews" who supposedly follow the same book ..can have diametrically opposing views.

Social liberals think they are "moral" and that especially they like to think they are jewish and follow the torah. Yet most of them actually do exactly the opposite of what the torah says.

Yet, on any given issue ... the "Social liberals" don't follow the torah.

For one thing, social liberals encourage immigration/immigrants .. when the torah is extremely clear on this topic. They also want to build a wall on the west bank (torah says "if you build a high gate, you invite destruction") .. all of histories' walls are tourist attractions today (Great Wall, Hadrian's wall etc.)

http://www.synagogueworldservice.org/Immigration/t orah e-as-handbook.html

Yet most social liberals would call for an increase to immigration (or at least non european immigration).

At one time a majority of them would have opposed interracial marriage .. yet the torah is clear on this question as well .. http://www.jew.org/questions/interracial_marriage .htm http://www.jewishanswers.net/q-sum/sum-g003.htm l and http://www.jew.org/whatinterrac.htm

Re:Ignoring facts

[Original Replica]

Christ was also born in a barn, traveled mostly by foot, occassionally slept outside, wore the most basic of clothing, ate very simply, etc. The unfortunate fact is he never addressed this modern situation. Needy in Jesus time meant naked,homeless and starving to death. Everyone agrees we should help those people. What we have here is people who have some and want more.

Re:Ignoring facts

[Anonymous Coward]

For an atheist you sure know alot about what Jesus believed.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Ignoring facts

[MntlChaos]

all of histories' \w+ are tourist attractions today.

Re:Ignoring facts

[Nikkos]

talk about ignoring things...

There is no call to end immigration, there is a call to end ILLEGAL immigration. European or otherwise.

There are many ways for people to immigrate legally, but since 2000, 3.7 people have immigrated ILLEGALLY. And while most are from south of the US border, about 1 million are from European/Asian/Middle Eastern countries.

These are people living under the radar without identification, working for less than the minimum wage, not paying taxes (can't trace cash)

The rate of education is similar overall in Immigrants compared to Native-born citizens, but the education of ILLEGAL immigrants is much less than their legal counterparts. A lack of education, along with the inability to work for a proper income is why a large percentage of Illegals live in poverty.

End illegal immigration, but increase support for legal immigrants.

Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[Secrity]

Many people consider the Libertarian Party to be dead, at least at the state and national level. The Libertarian Party came in fourth in popular votes in the 2004 presidential election. Three candidates received electoral votes in 2004, the Libertarian candidate was not one of them. Of the Libertarians holding public office, not one was elected at either the State or National level.

Re:Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[JavaLord]

Three candidates received electoral votes in 2004,

Did I miss something? No electoral votes went to anyone other than Bush/Kerry. Voting for a third party is a good idea even if they don't win, if they break a certain percentage of the vote (I think it's 3%?) they get federal funding in the next election cycle.

Re:Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[Secrity]

The vote wasn't for a third party. One Minnesota electoral vote was cast for John Edwards for President. None of the MN delgates has identified themselves as voting for John Edwards for President.

Re:Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[d_54321]

You know guys, Secrity is right. Let's just throw in the towel and call it a day. No way are we ever gonna get anywhere with this whole "limited govt thing." Deep down, all people really like Big Brother. Ours is a lost cause:'(

Re:Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[Secrity]

I would love to see a viable third party that has a chance in hell of winning. Two reasons I didn't vote for a third party candidate in 2004: 1. I did not want to "throw away my vote" by voting for somebody who didn't have a chance in hell to win. This has been a critical factor lately because the US is split about 50/50 between the top two parties. 2. I stongly disliked one of the top two candidates.

In theory it might be interesting to have a Libertarian president. One of the major nagging problems that I have with the Libertarian Party is that they do not have any sort of track record in national politics. I also wonder if a Libertarian president would give corporations all of the liberties that they need to turn vast numbers of the US population into semi-impoverished slaves working with no health insurance and without health or safety protection. I am also concerned about bigotry and discrimination becoming even more prevelant under a Libertarian administration than they are now.

Re:Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[CrazyDuke]

I like the Libertarian party. However, there is a faction that claims to be libertarian, but is best described by the later part of this quote:

"Authoritarian regimes may or may not have a rule of law -- in the former case, laws and procedures exist and are applied, though they may seem intrusive, unjust or excessive; in the latter case, laws do not exist, or are routinely ignored, and the actions of the government are at the whim of the leadership."

If letting "The Party" do whatever the hell it wants is "Libertarian", screw that.

Re:Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[ChristTrekker]

The problem is the voting system. Plurality voting leads to Duverger's Law, i.e. a two-party system. Implement Condorcet voting and you end the Duopoly. The problem is, the Repubs and Dems aren't going to be interested in changing the system, because they realize that it contributes to keeping them in power. Therefore, we have to get at least a few third-party voices in using the current system in order to get the issue in the eye of the public. Someone's got to be the first to agitate for change, or it will never happen.

On the issue of voting reform, don't be misled by the smokescreen that is Instant Runoff. Read up on different voting systems. You'll find that IRV is even worse than plurality voting. It's simple, yes, but it has grievous errors that yield bad results. Worst of all, IMO, is it gives the impression that minor parties are getting a fair shake - so they'd stop advocating for fairer voting systems. A few nations have implemented IRV, but they are still essentially two-party governments. I find it hard to believe that, given a real choice, people would still align themselves into a mere two camps when there are obviously a multitude of issues with a multitude of opinions to choose from. If the math weren't enough to prove IRV is bad, that should be.

On the issue of "throwing your vote away" - that's what you do when you don't vote for what you really believe. If you don't vote your conscience, who's really losing out? I won't sacrifice that just to have the lesser of two evils in office for a couple years. Stand behind your ideals.

Re:Libertarian party came in fourth place in 2004

[Secrity]

"On the issue of "throwing your vote away" - that's what you do when you don't vote for what you really believe. If you don't vote your conscience, who's really losing out? I won't sacrifice that just to have the lesser of two evils in office for a couple years. Stand behind your ideals."
 
I see it as voting against the worst of the two. The way I saw 2004: There are two candidates that had a chance of winning and there were four third party candidates that didn't have a chance (also known as "spoiler" or "none of the above" candidates). I voted against the candidate that I feel is pure evil. I voted for the candidate that I didn't think is evil and had a chance of winning .

There have been elections where the two candidates were a crap toss-up, in those cases I voted for a none of the above candidate. I was one of those who voted for Perot.

Thanks again!

[everphilski]

Yup. And screw over the democrats. Thanks again!

Love,
-the republican party.

Choices...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other choices. http://lp.org/

Exactly! Or Scottish Nationalist, for example.

The *Real* Issue

[Bob9113]

I think we're missing the more important issue this article brings up.

A new study monitored brain activity of partisans;

This indicates an extraoridinary advance in EEG technology. This ability to detect near flatline brain activity should make it far easier in the future to distinguish between dead people and people in deep comas.

Libertarians

[typical]

Oh, but libertarians are perfectly open-minded and don't simply hold to an ideological mantra at all. ;-)

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

As ideological mantras go, "leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone" seems like a pretty good one to me.

Re:Libertarians

[The Good Reverend]

Unfortunately, many also believe something that blindingly easy is relevant and possible in a country of almost 300 million.

Re:Libertarians

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Far too often, though, libertarians interpret "leave you alone" as "do nothing of importance at all".

That's the problem with libertarians: unlike the other parties, when they say that they are for small government, they mean it - in a very extreme sense.

Do we want the government to run an air-traffic-control system? To test drugs and medical devices? To fund the development and production of influenza vaccines? To enforce environmental standards?

If the government doesn't do it, who will? Clearly, market forces can work in some cases - UL helps ensure the safety of many devices without government intervention; new drugs are developed with minimal government assistance. But even private development of drugs relies on the protection of the government - patent law. And few are foolish enough to believe that most companies give a damn about the environment; we have 50+ years of history that show that.

Where does the government belong? It's a difficult question to answer. But few people believe that it should be as limited as libertarians believe.

Re:Libertarians

[RobinH]

How does "leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone" eventually mean "privatized sidewalks"? After all, I already paid for the damned things through my taxes... why should I have to pay for them again?

Re:Libertarians

[CreationLtd]

As ideological mantras go, "leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone" seems like a pretty good one to me.

Until of course you're hanging by your fingernails off the side of a cliff.

There is no Spooney love

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we want the government to run an air-traffic-control system?

Amend the constitution.

To test drugs and medical devices?

Amend the constitution.

To fund the development and production of influenza vaccines?

Amend the constitution.

To enforce environmental standards?

Amend the constitution.

This libertarian doesn't believe the government should do nothing. This libertarian believes the federal government was given a certain set of enumerated powers. The founders didn't pull these powers out of their ass. They were thoughtful and based on the bad experiences under monocracies and theocracies they had escaped from. The rest of the powers are left the states or the people themselves. If we wish the federal government to have more powers we go through the rather onerous process to amend the constitution. In that process we consider the powers we are giving up, with the burden to convince being on those that want the new power granted.

What we have now, with unlimited government, I only need have a special-interest group convince congress they need be involved in my home, school, personal decisions, medical decisions, what I ingest, smoke, and soon what I eat. They go everywhere and they always have some group and some justification to go there.

Rather than let the mob rule, this libertarian would rather that the law would rule. The constitution is to protect us from the people and set the barriers high when giving the feds new powers.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, many also believe something that blindingly easy is relevant and possible in a country of almost 300 million.

You've hit upon part of the problem -- if it's decided that 300 million people will be micro-managed by one government, it's already game over. But it's not an all or nothing proposition, we have multiple levels of government.

This country began as a union of equal states, each governing locally as they thought best, and answerable to their citizens, with the feds performing a tightly circumscribed and carefully considered set of functions. Now, Big Brother tells the states that a guy smoking marijuana in his basement affects interstate commerce, and therefore falls under federal purview.

Be careful what you wish for.

Re:Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly works well for trees.

Re:Libertarians

[dancpsu]

It's kind of funny, I wonder if libertarians would even support an elastic clause. Probably not in its current form in the constitution. Most people have no idea how limiting of the government the constitution is supposed to be. When studying it, its hard to reconcile the federal government we have today with what is written in the constitution. I would also argue that the Federal Reserve needs to be in the constitution, as well as the FDA, EPA, FAA, and CDC. I think the real problem is the elastic clause, which should have had some upper limit on what congress regulates. The founders knew that whatever leeway was given to congress would be taken, but they hoped for the checks and balances to work. Unfortunately checks and balances only work when one branch is trying to get more power. When the whole of the federal government is growing, checks and balances do nothing. I am personally in favor of an anti-legislature that would only have the power to remove law that was over a certain age. I think it would allow for a certain release valve to the current state of laws.

Re:Libertarians

[crimson30]

As ideological mantras go, "leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone" seems like a pretty good one to me.

Until of course you're hanging by your fingernails off the side of a cliff.

And I'm supposed to have sympathy for the dumbass who's hanging over a cliff?

Re:Libertarians

[FleaPlus]

Do we want the government to run an air-traffic-control system? To test drugs and medical devices? To fund the development and production of influenza vaccines? To enforce environmental standards?

If the government doesn't do it, who will?

A libertarian or anarcho-capitalist would likely answer that the things you mentioned should be dealt with by assurance contracts, not government coercion.

Re:Libertarians

[ChristTrekker]

Privatized sidewalks means that you wouldn't have the sidewalks if you hadn't built them yourself, because you wouldn't have been taxed for them. And then since they are yours, and on your property, you could probably charge people for passage.

Re:Libertarians

[RobinH]

Yeah, that's just a friggin Utopia right there. Look, I'm saying I paid through my taxes for all the sidewalks in the city, not just the ones in front of my house. I agree that if you started back at uninhabited forested land, and had no public services, everything would be quite different, but transitioning to no public services now by privatizing the existing public services is assinine.

What you're preaching is just as idealistic as communism, and just as flawed because neither work in the real world.

Re:and this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because we live in a culture enslaved by raw emotion and impulse.

A nation gets the leaders that it deserves.

The Pleasure of Revenge

[handy_vandal]

We know that partisan debate is based on negative emotions and the addictive desire to defeat the other party. We know that emotions arise from biological activity in the brain, and roughly where that activity occurs.

Recent studies show that revenge, too, fires up the brain's pleasure center: link

The history of politics is one long, sorry saga of pleasure-addled victors and revenge-addled losers ....

-kgj

Politics has been about emotions for a while...

[harrigan]

Read Neil Postmans "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

The ultimate enemy ...

[Syncerus]

is always ignorance and stupidity. Using politics to validate your existence is no more useful than using religion to validate your existence. Or using the brand of your cigarette to validate your existence.

Until we find a way to improve the native intelligence of the general population through genetic modification nothing will change. The only other alternative is restricting the franchise to those of demonstrable intellectual competency, a policy explicitly forbidden by the Supreme Court in the early 1970's.

All of this was a long-winded way of saying that nothing will change in the immediate future.

Syncerus

Re:The ultimate enemy ...

[bhima]

While that is a very tempting attitude to have, lately I've come to the conclusion that it's not correct.

Highly intelligent people are subject to the same human failings and can be even more difficult to convince of it (after all they are smarter than everyone else).

Oh and by the way... What makes you think that CNN has an overarching goal to turn America into a socialist nation... not watching it and only sometimes reading their web page I must be missing something.

Reagan put it best.

[sulli]

"Facts are stupid things."

Which you prefer ?

[kilimangaro]

Lies that kills peoples or lies that dont hurts anyone ?

Quickly!

[PrescriptionWarning]

turn on CNN, I need my fix!!!

Who is a 'partisan'?

[lawpoop]

How did this study decide who was partisan? The article didn't say. Did they pick people out of rallies or fundraisers, or just people off the street who self-identified with a party?

Bush don't lies

[kilimangaro]

He truly beleave that he's the choosen one.

Livescience "journalism"

[tooloftheoligarchy]

Ya' know, this study is really interesting, but the so-called "journalism" practiced by the folks at Livescience is highly, highly suspect. This article is poorly written, and has implicit conclusions built into the "facts" it reports on -- it makes the whole thing hard to trust. Of course, it's not like this is a heck of a lot better...

The article is wrong!

[SnuffySmith]

I don't have to listen to this crap! I don't even have to read the article to know it's wrong!

Geez. You people willl believe anything.

VOTE!!!

[everphilski]

(ignoring the flamebait)

Be Democrat locally. Be Republican locally. Join communities that accept your views and were you can truly vote with your feet if you disagree -- maybe moving a few miles. When you bring your authoritarian mandates to the federal government, you force your will on people who don't accept your authority.

VOTE!!! If enough people share your views then you will get your libertarian/green/free trade/whatever people into office. There is nothing that stops them from running. The fact is that many of us are happy with the [democrat|republican] party line (I'm the latter). Obviously. Look at the election polls. I will grant you there are many dumb voters. I will grant you that half the nation (roughly) doesn't turn out to vote. If they don't give a f*ck and give up their rights, that sucks but that's their right to do as well. It sucks and I'd love to see 100% turnout. But the fact is when an option presents itself - Pat Buchannan, Ralph Nader, David Cobb, etc - people just don't buy into. Bame marketing, blame not enough money to advertize, blame the fact that "republican" and "democrat" are so engrained in our minds its impossible to think of a third option - OK, whatever, but I'd like to think we are smarter than that. If you really hate the 2 parties, vote for the third option instead of not voting. Its not that hard. I don't see the point in moving everything to the community. What happens when I relocate a few years from now - now I have to re-mold another community into my image. Great. No thanks. This great country is the way it is and there are enough of us who like it. Authoritarian mandates? What authoritarian mandates? If you don't there are other countries with political systems you might enjoy - but I bet you might have to give up a few of the freedoms you enjoy here right now.

Re:VOTE!!!

[rjstanford]

I will grant you that half the nation (roughly) doesn't turn out to vote. If they don't give a f*ck and give up their rights, that sucks but that's their right to do as well. It sucks and I'd love to see 100% turnout.

I like the system - I'm going to say that its Australian, but I could be wrong (and it doesn't much matter and if it does, someone will factcheck to prove me wrong, which is cool) - anyway, part of your duties as a Citizen is to show up to vote. You have to, and if you don't, you're punished in some way (IIRC its a misdemeanor similar to a traffic ticket). You don't have to vote for anyone - you're allowed to show up, get checked in, and leave - but you have to participate and can't just sit on your arse all week.

Not a bad trade off, IMO. I think that one thing this nation could have really used was a bill of responsibilities to go along with the bill of rights.

Re:VOTE!!!

[poot_rootbeer]

I don't see the point in moving everything to the community. What happens when I relocate a few years from now - now I have to re-mold another community into my image. Great. No thanks.

If you're planning on relocating every few years, yeah, don't bother trying to influence your community. If you're not a part if it, then it's not really "yours". Most people, though, once they start a family and/or get a mortgage, plan to live in the same place for a long time, and stand to gain much from influencing the community they live in.

The fact is, alternative parties will never get a foothold in national politics unless they can gain footholds in state, county, and city politics first. Voters want reassurance that the candidate they vote for is capable of doing the job -- every Democrat or GOP candidate for president since Eisenhower has previously served in Congress or as a governor (and Ike was a War Hero, which 50 years ago was the third way to gain presidential legitimacy).

If a Green (for instance) candidate can get elected to city council, maybe one can get elected as mayor. If one can get elected as mayor, maybe one can be elected to state assembly. If one can get elected to state assembly, maybe one can get elected governor. If one can get elected governor, THEN maybe the party can get someone elected to federal government.

There are no shortcuts (unless you have name recognition).

Re:VOTE!!!

[Red Flayer]

"There is nothing that stops them from running."

True, but there are laws in place to keep them off the ballot. Good luck with that write-in campaign.

One problem is that you need a critical mass to get on the ballot; without being on the ballot, it's very difficult to get that critical mass.

Another problem is the money; there is no way a third party can compete with the billions that the GOP/Dems have in their warchests. On a personal level, sure, people can and will give. But the corporate financing of political capaigns is totally predicated on chance of success. No Megacorp is going to drop cash onto a Party that (1) opposes their politics or (2) has no chance of actually beintg elected, and therefore being able to affect legislation.

So, just like getting on the ballot, you can't get financing for a party unless you're already in a position to compete; and you can't get into a position to compete without the financing.

Just voting is not the answer. Educating others about the issues is part of the answer; exposing either or both of the main parties is part of the answer; transparent and limited financing is part of the answer; grassroots organization is most of the answer.

Re:VOTE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a large detractor from people voting for a third party is the popular sentiment that if you aren't voting for Dems or Reps you are throwing your vote away. I voted libertarian. I avoid admitting that in general conversation, because I've encountered actual anger at the thought of "throwing my vote away", nevermind my political leanings.

Re:VOTE!!!

[everphilski]

(virtually) everyone knows who Pat Buchannan is. (virtually) everyone has heard about the Green party. (virtually) everyone has heard about the Libertarian movement. And yet any one of them cannot command more than 1-3% of any given vote, barring a rare exception against horribly crappy alternatives. The fact of the matter is the general populace likes the system [democrat|republican] that are in place. There are enough educated people in America that could turn a vote more than 1-3%. They choose not to.

Re:VOTE!!!

[That's Unpossible!]

VOTE!!! If enough people share your views then you will get your libertarian/green/free trade/whatever people into office. There is nothing that stops them from running.

Wow, your thinking here is so off-base I don't even know where to begin.

1. Yes, there are things that make it hard for 3rd party candidates to run, or at least, to get on the ballots, which is really the same thing. Ask Ralph Nader, for example.

2. The media is entrenched in the two-party system, and does not give fair and equal coverage to third party candidates. Why? Because they feel they can't win. Why? Problem #3:

3. People think they are wasting their vote if they vote for a 3rd party candidate? Why? Because they know most other people feel the same way, and therefore it's nearly impossible to break the cycle.

4. People in fact ARE "wasting" their vote by voting for a third party, thanks to our horrible election process. Move to a fairer, better (mathematically) voting system, such as Instant Run-off Voting or the Approval Method. Either would be better than what we have now. This would let people vote for their first choice, which could be a third party, yet still not "wasting" their vote since they can vote for their 2nd and 3rd choices. (BTW, I vote for 3rd party candidates... I feel my vote is wasted contributing to either of the 2 big party candidates.)

5. Due to the above, many people don't even bother to vote. Many of these people would likely vote for a third party candidate if it was feasible for them to win.

Those are the big 5 reasons why we are currently entrenched in a 2-party system. It has nothing to do with most people agreeing with the Republicans and Democrats, as you imply. It is all about 3rd parties not being viable in our current voting scenario.

Re:VOTE!!!

[Undertaker43017]

"The fact of the matter is the general populace likes the system [democrat|republican] that are in place"

I disagree. If you look at the polling data from the last presidential election, more than half of the people that voted for either candidate voted for that candidate to keep the other one out.

Most people aren't voting FOR a candidate they are voting for them because the don't like the other candidate! Ultimately that says they don't like either choice, they just happen to dislike the person they voted for less. This also means they would never vote for someone they might actually like, aka a third party candidate, because that would mean the guy they REALLY hate might be elected, because thier vote wasn't cast for the strongest, opposition, candidate.

My impression is that people hate the current situation, but are so polarized and wrapped up in it that they can't see another way, which is exactly the way the RepubliCrats want it to stay.

Re:VOTE!!!

[Jtheletter]

Re the bit about voting for third parties. It's pretty useless as things stand right now, I think a large majority of Americans literally do not know there are more than just the two major parties, really, it's a scary concept but I've run into folks who stare at me like I blurted gibberish when I mention the words "green party". Personally in the last election I voted green, but not even because I totally agreed with their stance (although to be fair I agreed with more with them than with dems or repubs). I voted for a 3rd party, any 3rd would do since our screwed up system requires a party to capture so much of the popular vote to be automatically included in the national process, such as the debates. Understandably the bar has to be set somewhere, it would be chaos if every person who wanted to run for pres got equal time, but what's amazing is how hard it is to get just the minimum required number to be nationally recognized.

Bit off my topic there, anyway, I'm in Massachusetts, so we're a blue stae through and through. I didn't expect it to go any other way and I wasn't let down. Unfortunately my vote really didn't matter, yet again, because not only did MA still go blue (as anticipated) but there weren't even enough 3rd party votes to get them recognized. Most of the people I talked to about this revealed that they (like me) voted for whatever party for one or two very particular reasons, to the exclusion of all others. As long as one of the two major parties have an opinion that matches the key issues for a particular voter they seem satisfied. One person voted republican because it meant lower taxes for them, but they were completely ambivalent to my points that the republicans were going to continue the war, were already besmirching America in international politics, and were very likely going to devalue the dollar further by continuing massive deficits. The person didn't even argue for or against these points, they just didn't matter. He cared that republicans were for lowering his taxes, so that's all he needed to know. Others reasons fell along the same lines. People pick what's important to them and vote on that, very few seem to do their homework and find out what other party opinions and policies they will be voting for along with that one key interest for them. An informed voting public i think would quickly find that national major-party politicians do not match with a majority of a person's opinions. And that is why the parent stressed the idea of localizing political opinions and building from there. It's much easier to congregate a community of like-minded individuals and generate politicians to represent them from that smaller base than it is to expect a national candidate put up by the national party to have any sort of relation to the needs of a particular community. Just my two cents.

Re:VOTE!!!

[everphilski]

If you look at the polling data from the last presidential election, more than half of the people that voted for either candidate voted for that candidate to keep the other one out

Interesting, but how do you come up with this theory? Exit polls?

Re:VOTE!!!

[Red Flayer]

Well, why can't they command more of the vote? It's not because people don't like them -- there are a ton of reasons, some of which are:

(1) The feeling of 'throwing away your vote' -- every vote for, say, Ralph Nader in the last election was a vote cast for GWB. This is fed directly by the winner-take-all system we've got.
(2) Publicity/marketing -- there is no way the Greens or other third party can compete in this area. They don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on television, radio, and newspaper ads.
(3) Incumbency -- this counts for a lot, people vote against change if they feel OK with the current situation. The JGE (just good enough) vote. It's hard enough for a candidate of the opposition party to beat an incumbent, it;s impossible for a third-party cadidate.

"They choose not to."

Just laying it at the feet of the individual voter doesn't solve anything, since we know how well that's turned out. The question is, how can our election systems be improved so that it's not impossible for a third party to have a viable candidate?

Re:VOTE!!!

[Undertaker43017]

Yes, CNN had an exit poll that showed exactly this, I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember that in both cases more than 50% of the votes for either candidate were because "he was the other guy".

Haven't you ever heard anyone say "I voted for the lesser of two evils"? Sadly most people I talk to confirm this statistic, rarely do I find someone that actually voted FOR a particular candidate, but against the other candidate.

Concerning third parties, I have found this to not be true. Largely people that vote third party tend to actually be voting for that candidate. Not that it actually helps much, since most voters can't break out of the cycle of "voting for the lessor of TWO evils".

Neuron activity

[slowbad]

brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions

Religious dogma kills more brain cells than CH3CH2OH.

Delusion is a tool for living

[foniksonik]

What this describes is the commonplace delusion. People do it all the time. They do it mainly to make life easier on themselves.

What is easier... going through life having made a decision about something and sticking to it... or constantly questioning your views and decisions and actions right up to the moment you have to commit to them?

We train our brains to think within constant boundaries. This helps us decide on a course of action much more quickly and keeps us from being overwhelmed and shutting down completely. We also do this to fit in with our community and gain their trust when making group decisions about communal objectives.

The problem with this methodology is that we decide to never re-evaluate our position. The reason we do this is that society judges us based on past expressions of opinion and labels us hypocrite if we decide to change.

The solution is to change society so that it becomes okay to change position. The barrier is how to set a standard of proof that the individual really has changed their opinion and can be counted on to stick by that opinion.

Anything less than what I've outlined here is an incomplete analysis of how views (religion, politics, preference, etc.) affect individuals within societal relationships.

A comparitive study would be to test the same brain activity within a group of social animals when a leading figure within the group that has majority support goes off and does something unacceptable... I suspect that the rest of the group will ignore the action (brain activity will show a similar response as in theis study) initially in order to maintain the social hierarchy and promote stability within the group... until it happens again and again, at which point they would stage a coup and 'elect' a new leader. We do the same, only on a much grander scale.

Re:Delusion is a tool for living

[Anonymous Coward]

A comparitive study would be to test the same brain activity within a group of social animals when a leading figure within the group that has majority support goes off and does something unacceptable... I suspect that the rest of the group will ignore the action (brain activity will show a similar response as in theis study) initially in order to maintain the social hierarchy and promote stability within the group... until it happens again and again, at which point they would stage a coup and 'elect' a new leader.

Well, depends on the group. Depends on the level of emotional buy in of the members of that group.

Look. the 700 Club is still there. No matter how many idiocies Pat Robertson pulls.

But if that were 100% true..

[Burb]

... surely no one would ever change their mind, on any subject?

Re:But if that were 100% true..

[swillden]

That's why those are errors in the thinking process.

Case in point: Rather-gate (or Memo-gate)

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole CBS controversy just prior to the election of 2004 is a classic example of this. Had Dan Rather (and others under him) bothered to check the facts first, he might have still had his job. Don't let your political views get in the way of reporting!

I am so happy to see a study like this done....

[rubberbando]

For years, I have been trying to explain this phenomenon to family members (republicans) and friends (mostly democrats). Yet, none of them believed me and would usually just ignore the facts themselves. I haven't liked a presidential candidate in decades. I think of myself as a independent thinker and yet the republicans in my life call me a liberal and the democrats in my life call me a closet republican. This may get me modded flamebait but I think both major parties are one in the same....a bunch of lying crooks. Unfortunately, most idie candidates are similar or just want to be on a soapbox looking for fame and aren't a serious contender. *Sigh*

Here comes the science

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

But yeah, you can prove anything with facts...

Since you're talking about it: Reading about stories like this one, I get the feeling that modern brain science has singled out three areas of the brain that are not busy with boring stuff like moving limbs, vision or vegetative control: One for "Logic", one for "feeling good" (as in "reward") and one for "feeling bad (as in "anger"). Now the guys go about, shoving random groups of people into functional NMR scanners and pointing out obvious correlations: "When this guy hears his personal political role model talk, he feels good." Huh! And: "People who disagree strongly with what $candidate$ says feel anger when listening to him". Now, of course these statements don't quite sound like brain science, so you simply spice them up a bit with fun facts like "activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix." Note that this does not the least mean that all political activists are crackpots, but it makes for guaranteed media success.

well, DUH!

[louden obscure]

try listening to rush limbaugh for five minutes. and i spose try listening to ted kennedy (i don't have a better example off the top of my head, sorry) for five minutes. they're both pathetic assholes. both of em may make a good point somewhere but jeeze, there's so much crap to filter out it becomes a chore.
i have libertarian leanings, but i am also somewhat of a realist. i am a registered republican cuz where i live that's who's in charge locally (ther's no point in primary voting as a dem, there's usually only one dem candidate per post in local elections) but i vote on both sides in general elections. i feel more like a demographic skew than anything else.
i am also ant-war (i don't think killing our children is ever a good idea)but have nieces and nephews in the armed forces (one currently in the middle east) so i support our troops, just not how they are deployed at the current time.
maybe fighting terrorism is a noble cause, but, uh, not in effin iraq. and cetainly not ever by doing an end run around the constitution.

It's all lip-service and emotional appeal...

[Lijemo]

The Republicans pay lip service to small government, fiscal responsibility, and strong family, but often act in ways conter to these ideals.

The Democrats pay lip service to civil liberties, social justice, and defending the "little guy", but often act in ways counter to these ideals.

The Libertarians pay lip service to freedom, but work for a society that is essentially a neo-fuedalism: the amont of power and rights you have is based on how much land you own and wealth you have. If you're not born to land, weath, and oppertunity-- well, sucks to be you, because there's no one to protect your freedom from those that have these forms of power.

The Greens pay lip service to enviornmental protection and social justice, but care more about ideological purity than the actual results of their actions. Thus, their actions often have results that are clearly counter to their aims, but because they're right dammit they do them anyway. They care more about being ideologically correct than about making a real difference for good.

Choosing a political party is just a matter of deciding who's lies are prettier and more appealing.

I would love a party that was fiscally responsible, beleived in personal freedom, social justice, enviornmental responsibility, supported small buisiness, supported real family values (i.e. NOT including "hatred" and "intolerance" and "close-mindedness"), was anti-corruption in government and business and supported government that did what was absolutely neccesary for a strong society, but no more than that. I doubt I will ever see such an animal. (well, one may come along that pays lip service to all these things, but more than that? Not bloody likely.)

Re:It's all lip-service and emotional appeal...

[Cryofan]

good post!
parties are not the answer. The answer lies in changing the way we understand the world and our culture and mankind.

We need to base our politcal awareness on more fundamental issues and ideas, and not the superficial issues and talking points disseminated by the media.

We need to understand the societal forces in play--dominance hierarchies, and behavioral/social/evolutionary psyschology. This should be the real meat of politics, not abortion, right to bear arms, religion, etc.

Also, we need to understand the REAL American history. We understand history as interpreted from the elite viewpoint and from the viewpoint of minorities. But we now need to understand american history from the viewpoint of the white working lower class person, as this is the largest bloc in America. Unless the white lower class history is understood, we cannot proceed.

Re:It's all lip-service and emotional appeal...

[Lord Omlette]

I would love a party that was fiscally responsible, beleived in personal freedom, social justice, enviornmental responsibility, supported small buisiness, supported real family values (i.e. NOT including "hatred" and "intolerance" and "close-mindedness"), was anti-corruption in government and business and supported government that did what was absolutely neccesary for a strong society, but no more than that.

Lemme know when you find such a party, I'll be right there w/ you.

Re:It's all lip-service and emotional appeal...

[JimBobJoe]

I would love a party...

I've always been a bit attracted to the Natural Law Party, which I used to sum as being so entirely clever that they were little chance that they could get elected.

It might be the closest thing to what you're looking for.

Otherwise, I consider myself a Progressive Libertarian (essentially, a person who is fundamentally Libertarian, but, at the same time, admitting the idea that contracts are not always made in perfect circumstances, and therefore can't be always considered legitimate. That might go some way to assuage your neo-feudalism concerns (which I partially agree and partially disagree with.)

Re:It's all lip-service and emotional appeal...

[Blackhalo]

How about an "Open/Slashdot Party" or something like it, where polical platforms would be decided via polls and the issues debated in these very articles. The opportunities for the internet to form a real democracies are out there, and one day I think it will eventually happen. All it would take it to get just two or three congressmen or a senator, and that party would have incredible polical power as the deciding vote on many of the closely divided issues. If something similar to a Flashcrowd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Crowd happend in a election, the world would wake up and take notice.

The hard part would be coming up with a platform and a candidate that would be neutral enough to be accepable by a large enough group of voters who just might be doing it for a "Fuck it, why not." motivation. Or if enough disaffected voters were willing to relocate to a congressional district before it was gerrymandered into irrelevance. With the polarization of the Dems and Repubs, it should be possible for a moderate to slip in and pull a Jessie Ventura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessie_Ventura.

We have seen relativly suddien changes with E-Bey, Google, Craig's List, and My Space affecting the way the world communictes with each other why not politics.

Re:It's all lip-service and emotional appeal...

[Blackhalo]

Bad form, but I meant to reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob

Real-world congruence

[Tony]

4. Your brain considers every item that is compatible with the majority of its information in a given subject area to be correct and every item that is contradictory to its information to be incorrect. As a result, the brain has no internal way to know which items of its information are correct representations of the real world and which are not.

Yes, we do have an internal way to know which items are correct representations of the real world. It's an epistomological philosophy called science, and though it is a slow process requiring rigor and mental discipline, it works quite well. In fact, I would say it is the only way to have any certainty in knowledge.

The fruits of science are still fairly limited. We jave a fairly large pool of knowledge concerning chemistry and physics; we know a little less about biology; and we know almost nothing of sociology and psychology (outside of a few biological facts and a few statistics).

How do I know there is a large congruence between science and the real world? The results of that scientific knowledge are everywhere, in airplanes and longer life and jam and computers and interplanetary exploration and jam (more jam, perhaps) and big fuckoff buildings and psychological manipulation by politicians ("spin").

Granted, the fundamental basis of science is that scientific knowledge is subject to subtle or radical change as new evidence surfaces; but, we do have a fundamental tool for objectively gaining knowledge about our universe.

Re:Real-world congruence

[sandmaninator]

My guess is that this is your underlying point, but, you didn't mention it:
Very very very few people apply scientific methodology when they make descisions about who to vote for.

As an aside, I have noted this problem in my own brain while reading /.. I'll read one well-written post and agree with it and then read another well-written post and agreed with it too even though it is contradictory. It is very hard to come to an objective conclusion about an issue when there are a few folks making seemingly valid points in a well-written submission.

The "dept" under which this article was submitted was "big-surprise-here". I think the simple, "obvious" things like lack of objectivity in politics are most frequently the most useful to keep in mind but, unfortunately most easily forgotten. Human minds are not generally well adapted to scientific thinking. We're animals after all.

Re:Real-world congruence

[Stanislav_J]

Yes, we do have an internal way to know which items are correct representations of the real world. It's an epistomological philosophy called science, and though it is a slow process requiring rigor and mental discipline, it works quite well.

Except that most folks these days want instant gratification (forget any process that is "slow") and as for rigor and mental discipline.....well, insert your own sarcastic remark here.

People generally believe what they want to believe -- whatever gives them comfort or satisfaction. It's the old comforting falsehood vs. distressing truth problem. When you need to believe something is so for the sake of your mental and emotional well-being, all the facts in the world dangled in front of your face will not change your mind.

I have always believed that the truly intelligent person is one who both can analyze facts rationally and accept the conclusions that follow even if the result goes against what they "want" to be true. Reason should trump emotion. "My gut, my intuition, and all that I have been taught tell me this is not so. Yet because the facts tell me otherwise, I will embrace the truth, regardless of how much I wish it were not so."

If you are at least 30-40 years of age, and have not in the course of your adult life had at least one or two preciously held beliefs turned 180 degrees because you opened your mind to all the facts and listened to the arguments of both sides, then you are not an intelligent, thinking person, regardless of how many degrees may be hanging on your walls.

Re:Real-world congruence

[logicpaw]

Yes, we do have an internal way to know which items are correct representations of the real world. It's an epistomological philosophy called science, and though it is a slow process requiring rigor and mental discipline, it works quite well.

Except that the way that even science sometimes progresses is not by changing minds, but by waiting for the old guard to retire or die, and then training a new generation of scientists who never had the earlier preconceptions.

Re:Real-world congruence

[Tony]

As an aside, I have noted this problem in my own brain while reading /.. I'll read one well-written post and agree with it and then read another well-written post and agreed with it too even though it is contradictory.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

- Walt Whitman

As I think I hinted at, there is so much more in the world than that which is objectively true. I merely wanted to point out the one thing we could count on, however slow and methodical it might be.

We all have much more inside us than is objectively true. We can't be sure of much of it, but I am glad we have it nontheless.

Gee, that's swell. Now fix it.

[eltonito]

Now that we have some scientific basis for what we've all known for decades, how do we fix it? How does one shun their partisan idealism and accept reason and logic in exchange, without betraying their political convictions? Better yet, how would political parties benefit?

Without division and reality distortion the parties would not exist. They have everything to lose if their constituents suddenly starting applying reason and logic to politics.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

Re:So you actually believe we have swing voters.

[catahoula10]

"I couldn't imagine the hell that America would be without swing voters."

This statement is an idealistic view of modern "swing Voters".
Because the swing vote can usually (but not all the time of course) be traded via an closed door agreement for a vote that the swing voter needs for his/her own pet project in another bill.

Maybe what is needed is to look at term limits.

Supporting evidence of what I have always thought.

[olddotter]

I have always thought partisan politics showed an inability to think for one's self. I guess this supports that theory.

While there is no legal (or even moral basis) for it, I have long thought that "voting straight ticket" should mean your vote isn't counted. Perhaps if I worked for DieBold I could make that a reality!! :-)

Now my head hurts

[norminator]

I'd like to say I agree with all of that, but my brain doesn't know if it's already too biased to know if it's all true.

Engineers deal with this issue constantly

[Concern]

Anyone who'se ever done engineering in a group becomes rapidly familiar with the lack of a line between the social and objective dimensions of problem solving.

Someone makes a mistake, and they feel they need to defend it even though mistakes are an inevitable part of the process and everyone makes them, no matter how ingenious. Someone thinks of a plan, or their friend does, and they feel they need to defend it and advocate it even if they see a better plan, just because we are not only solving a problem, but constantly acting out our instinctive human drama in everything we do.

Political parties and movements and religions especially leverage this trait of human behavior extensively.

Orwell made his career writing about the phenomenon. Doublethink is a popular phrase these days, but many people are still surprised to learn the central concept underpinning it: that people can fervently believe something they know not to be true. They can actually do the work of cleaning up the broken glass while demanding you apologize for suggesting the window is broken... and they can earnestly believe it.

This leads to another great Orwell quote - a prediction of the future: "Imagine a boot stepping on a human face, forever."

Re:Engineers deal with this issue constantly

[Jeremi]

Doublethink is a popular phrase these days, but many people are still surprised to learn the central concept underpinning it: that people can fervently believe something they know not to be true.

FWIW, the 2005 word of the year is truthiness -- "the quality of stating concepts one
wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts".

Election money

[Tony]

I think putting some restrictive limits on the campaign spend would also be in the nations interest as it would allow self financed candidates to enter and campaign and get a chance to their policies out to the voters without breaking the bank.

I agree there needs to be campaign finance reform. Absolutely. This is a complex issue.

As there is a direct correlation between a successful election and the amount of money spent on a campaign, a self-financed election would allow the rich to get elected, while leaving the middle-class and poor out in the cold (figuratively and literaly). There needs to be a system that allows anyone with popular support to get elected.

Personally, I think the "party" system is broken. If we didn't label someone a "democrat" or "republican," they'd have to run on their ideas and ideals, and not on a built-in group of dupes, suckers, and sheep.

The only problem with that is, it would require the general public to think critically, and (as this article pointed out) that seems about impossible.

Re:Election money

[DeLanceS]

Alright folks say it with me, correlation is NOT causation. If we want better candidates then competive redistricting will be more effective than any campaign finance reform will ever be with out trampling anyones right to free speech.

Remember the FEC recently considered regulating what people on blogs can say all because of McCain/Feingold. While there are some astroturf blogs, the majority of bloggers are just individual citizens expressing their opinions. Bloggers are the modern day pamphleteers.

Finally, you are never going to get money out of politics. When state and federal governments have trillions of dollar to allocate each year it creates an incredible incentive for rent seekers.

Now I know unlike the rest of proletriat you There is always going to be a lot of money in politics because of the size of the government and the amount of

Re:Election money

[Anonymous Coward]

As there is a direct correlation between a successful election and the amount of money spent on a campaign

According to the book Freakonomics, that correlation doesn't really exist like people assume it does....

Re:Election money

[Anonymous Coward]

"direct correlation between a successful election and the amount of money spent"

Of course there is! The more people that support you, the more people that there are that are willing to give you money. If one candidate has many more people contribute to their campaign, then it's usually likely that they'll have many more voters.

But what about "traditional media"?

[Big Jojo]

It's not news that strong partisans are, well, partisan. The thing to notice here is that the article subject is repeating a meme that is a Republican talking point, getting used more and more desperately to hide rampant criminality. No, both parties do NOT run the K street project, and the last time there was a Democratic administration, the federal deficit SHRANK, and we were more or less at peace with the world.

The real problem is when organizations that have traditionally been neutral arbiters, holding people to truth in public discussions, are taking sides.

That's why little-d democracy in the US is in such serious trouble lately. It's virtually impossible to get out messages which highlight cases where the Republican talking points are flat-out lies ("nobody could have anticipated" New Orleans levee troubles, planes used as terror weapons, energy companies rigging markets, etc). Lies that are shaking the constitutional foundation of the country ... rather unlike anything that's attributable to the Democrats.

Partisanship isn't so much an issue. The problem is the extermination of honesty in traditionally non-partisan (not bipartisan) circles.

Re:But what about "traditional media"?

[Forbman]

No, both parties do NOT run the K street project, and the last time there was a Democratic administration, the federal deficit SHRANK, and we were more or less at peace with the world.

In the interest of fairness, for 6 of those 8 years, Congress (both houses) were controlled by fiscally conservative Republicans who were driving to push down the budget deficit, and did a rightfully good job at it. The President was just trying to coopt these guys, basically playing along with them to get some of his initiatives passed by them.

Re:But what about "traditional media"?

[Big Jojo]

There were plenty of fiscally conservative Democrats too, not to mention the tech boom.

Most of those "fiscally conservative Republicans" are still there, but this time they're more into looting that nice budget surplus, pocketing the bucks for their business buddies. The "Peace Dividend" is now unquestionably gone into already-fat corporate pockets.

The Terrible Truth About Lawyers

[scorp1us]

The Terrible Truth About Lawyers is a book I read recently. I was pubished in the 80s, but is still very accurate. What the book goes on to claim (and its written by a laywer turned buisnessman) is that Laywers are the only people trained to control information, not react to it in any intelligent way. This is most obvious throughthe rules of evidence and the whole "objection!" in the court room to prevent evidence from being entered into the record.

Every other profession int he world is about reatcing intelligently to the information at hand and not trying to control the situation.

Re:The Terrible Truth About Lawyers

[jo7hs2]

There is certainly some truth in that, however, until you have actually been in law school or a lawyer, it can be difficult to understand WHY this is the truth. Your post suggests a profound misunderstanding of the minds of lawyers, bordering on calling them unintelligent, based solely on popular opinion and a book read by a disallusioned lawyer who turned to a "profession" known for its lack of trust in lawyers who force them to play by the rules. Talk to one before you spread this prejudicial viewpoint, don't beleive everything you read. Try to remember that lawyers were forming governments when doctors where using leeches and putting pus on wounds, and if there is something being done, it is almost always for a reason.

Re:The Terrible Truth About Lawyers

[scorp1us]

I never called them unintelligent. I just said that they don't intelligently react to it. They obviously intelligently consider it, before objecting or allowing. :-)

Leeches have risen in popularity and are in widespread use throughout the U.K. today. Maggots are increasing as well. As long as the parasite is not infectious (i.e. sterile) there is nothing wrong with their use.

The "dissillusioned" lawyer is Mark H. McCormack.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY -
MARK H. McCORMACK was the founder of International Management Group, a multi-million-dollar, worldwide corporation. This corporation is the consultant to fifty Fortune 500 companies, a major producer of television programming, and is credited as the single most important influence in turning sports into big business.

I know why !!!

[jchuillier]

In US politics it's normal that neither side can acknowledge the "good" points of the other, they are so much alike, it's like the difference between Stalin and Lenin. In "socialist/liberal" Europe at least we have differences (although in Britain right now it's not that obvious) but in Spain, Aznar and Zapatero are NOT similar, in Italy Prodi and Berlusconi are REALLY different, in Germany Schroder and Merkel were not having the same ideas (and this great coalition sounds great !!!) and in France Chirac is definitely NOT the friend of Ségolène (I wonder how many /.ers know about Ségolène yet...) But in the US what are the differences between Bush and Kerry for example ? One is more pro choice than the other or maybe pro death-penalty, but besides that it seems that since Clinton US politics has moved from "centre right-right" to "right-full right"

Re:I know why !!!

[foQ]

In American politics there are rarely any "good" points made by either sides. Only "bad" points made by both sides. [/sarcasm]

I knew it! I knew it!

[catahoula10]

"'With their minds made up, brain activity ceased"

Well, this statement seems to sum up the political debate process in the world today quite nicely. Now if we can just get their reproductive processes to cease activity too.

Nuff Said. :-)

Re:I knew it! I knew it!

[foQ]

Just remember that the same goes for everyone. When you have made up your mind on something, you are much more likely to rationalize that decision in the face of conflicting facts than to change your mind. This has been "known" for a long time in Psychology. All in all, not a totally useless science as some people believe.

Poster child

[SuperKendall]

From the article summary:

A new study monitored brain activity of partisans; they shun logic and use emotional processing centers to justify their candidate's contradictory statements.

From your post:

Look, here's the first thing to understand. In a political debate, facts don't matter. Read that again. Facts don't matter. This has been shown over and over again. People respond to values, not facts. Progressives lose because they argue the facts.

I see; the problem with conservatves is they never use facts, dammit!

Does ANYONE else see some kind of connection here?

People are not as afraid or as disconnected as you think - especially so nowdays thanks to blogs. And that goes for both conservatives and liberals alike.

It is only when you admit both sides are capabile of rational thought and logical argumnets that you can start to make headway in some kind of realistic progress in unison.

Re:Poster child

[David Greene]

It is only when you admit both sides are capabile of rational thought and logical argumnets that you can start to make headway in some kind of realistic progress in unison.

No, no, no! The way to make progress is to help people understand that they do in fact share common values. Facts don't matter. If there's one thing to take away from this discussion, that's it. In politics, facts don't matter. The way to political compromise is to understand the values of the people you are dealing with and approach them in a way that connects with those values.

Re:Poster child

[bitrott]

Wait, you think people are INFORMED because of BLOGS? You think fear isn't THE motivating factor driving support for the war machine?

Yeah, alright.

Anarcho-capitalists can ignore facts too

[akepa]

History repeatedly shows that the more government tries to get involved, the worse things get.

So the environment was in better shape before passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts? Try doing some research on, say, the history of the Cuyahoga River in the 1960's.

Oh, and I guess you would like to go back to the good old days when young children could be put to work in dangerous industrial factories for 12+ hours a day.

Sure, government has its problems, but it also has its uses. One of the main reasons why government goes bad is because it gets taken over by zealots of any political persuasion, be they conservative, liberal, libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist.

What we need is a government run by pragmatic realists who choose solutions to recognized problems based on their effectiveness, rather than their conformance to some half-assed ideology. Unfortunately, such people usually have enough sense to not run for office, forcing us to choose between greedy power-hungry fanatics.

Re:Anarcho-capitalists can ignore facts too

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI - this is the "incrementalist approach" to polcy-making. Karl Popper wrote about this in his Open Society and its Enemies. The gist of this approach is to be skeptical about broad revolutionary ideas (all gov't is bad, all taxes are bad, all drugs are bad, all capitalism is great, all capitalists are bad, etc.). Instead, one should identify a specific problem and try to adjust policy to solve that particular problem. Incrementalism is a minimization problem: identify a problem that's causing misery and construct a policy that minimizes that partuclar misery. The goal is to minimize misery and to avoid the Law of Unintended Consequences by implementing sweeping changes.

well, good effort

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way a person could seriously advocate MySQL would be if their brain was turned off.

Hmmm. You now, both sides will accuse the other side of failing to use the brain. This statement you have made seems to be rooted in emotion, rather than logic. The fact that you are claiming to be using your rational mind doesn't meant that you are actually using it.

MySQL fits some needs, and has its problems, just like any other database system out there. One must simply select which combination of features and problems is the most workable for one's specific needs. Sometimes MySQL will fit the bill. Other times, Access will work better.

Re:well, good effort

[Bob9113]

heehee - that's the point he was making. It was a joke :)

Re:well, good effort

[Anonymous Coward]

/. needs a -1 "Over your head" moderation...

Why Limit This to Politics?

[foo fighter]

The results of the study are unsurprising because Democrats and Republicans are all human beings. We are evolved to react to how we feel more than what our reason tells us. That this carries over into politics is inevitable.

Religious dis-/belief

[SnuffySmith]

I think the response described in the article is essentially the same sort of response that people have to information or assertions that contradict their religious belief or lack thereof.

Some Christians, for example, might have a visceral reaction to the presentation of logical or scientific errors in the Bible; but at the same time, a non-believer would have a similar response to a believer's unshakable claim to a real spiritual presence in his or her life. In both cases the believer and non-believer are faced with information that threatens their ideas of the constitution of reality. But they're more than ideas. These beliefs are part of the fabric of each person's world -- they are the frame for experiencing and understanding space and time. Threats to faith (in God's existence or his absence) threaten one's sense of well-being.

Political beliefs, which may or may not be an extension of religious ones, are also a part of one's ideas about the structure of the world. For some, religious belief might tell them how they relate to God and the cosmos and the individuals they know in their lives. Political beliefs, though, tell them how institutions relate to one another and to individuals. Most likely, these political beliefs are an extension of religious ones, but they don't have to be. Threats to political beliefs like threats to political ones mess with people's core concepts of how the world is put together.

But this makes sense. A visceral reaction to contradictory information is a natural and even helpful response most of the time. You can't go around constantly re-evaluating what you believe and then changing your course of action -- that will make you completely ineffectual or crazy.

Re:Religious dis-/belief

[Electric Eye]

Great post.

What really sucks is that this partisanship has become incessant and is really creating problems in this country. What's worse is that the party leaders are exploiting this. All these useless debates about abortion, religion, etc. are, overall, irrelevant to our lives. These are PERSONAL issues that have no business being in government. But, since they are personal, they are highly emotional and cause people to take one side or the other. It's what gets a person to vote Republican, for example, if they disagree with abortion. Abortion has NO relation to how our country is governed. It affects a small minority of the population. Yet, politicians take advantage of the fact people will vote on that issue - regardless of the fact they will be horrible people in office.

Anyway, I'm a registered Independent and despise both parties (although the GOP disgusts me more than anythign else).

Re:Religious dis-/belief

[bmancini42]

Actually, if you are for abortion you view it as a personal issue ... but if you're against it, it's really the opposite.

Imagine, for instance, if it was legal to eat children. Sounds wierd, but I'm willing to bet there are some tribal cultures out there that would (not to mention the huge amount of parents in the third world selling their children into prostitution, which I'd imagine is just as bad).

If a parent decides that their child is more valuable as food than as a human being, and someone wants to buy it, why should the government get involved?

My answer is: some things are absolutely wrong, whether they affect the general population or not. Another example of people not seeing eye to eye, I guess?

Re:Religious dis-/belief

[Forbman]

So is eating horse meat an absolute wrong? Talk to a PETA person in the US, and it is. Talk to someone in Europe, and horse meat is better than cow meat. Which is too bad, because the horse breeding industry in the US is sort of dependent on that backdoor. Where do all the thoroughbred foals go after a couple of years reveals that they're not going to cut the mustard as race horses? Hmm...

Now, what do the alpaca farmers do with all their duds that they can't sell off? At least with llamas, there's enough meat there to eat. With an alpaca, you get to decide whether that $5000-20000 you dropped on that stupid creature that won't breed or throws bad crias is worth eating [sic].

I would bet there is more meat on a Shetland sheep than on an alpaca, and there isn't a lot of meat on a Shetland sheep.

Re:Religious dis-/belief

[typical]

Some Christians, for example, might have a visceral reaction to the presentation of logical or scientific errors in the Bible; but at the same time, a non-believer would have a similar response to a believer's unshakable claim to a real spiritual presence in his or her life. In both cases the believer and non-believer are faced with information that threatens their ideas of the constitution of reality. But they're more than ideas. These beliefs are part of the fabric of each person's world -- they are the frame for experiencing and understanding space and time. Threats to faith (in God's existence or his absence) threaten one's sense of well-being.

I don't think that this comparison is the same.

The existence of God (for the fraction of a percent of people who are really thinking about the question) is entirely a metaphysical question.

The fact that people don't like challenges to their way of thinking is an artifact of the way we evaluate truth -- we compare new statements to what we already know, and see how well they explain what we've seen.

If you indoctrinate someone in something for years and then feed them a new fact that conflicts with what they've learned, their brain is going to recoil (unless that new fact suddenly fits with their existing set of knowledge better than the entire set of nonsense that they've been fed up until this point). That new fact is going to be judged the conflicting item.

Re:Religious dis-/belief

[SnuffySmith]

The fact that people don't like challenges to their way of thinking is an artifact of the way we evaluate truth -- we compare new statements to what we already know, and see how well they explain what we've seen.

My comparison takes off from this point made in the article:

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

I think that, in the cases of politics and religion for most people in the U.S., we're not talking about opinions that develop through the application of reason to experience and evidence, but rather intellectual practices that reinforce opinion and opinions that reinforce those intellectual practices and so on. Typically, a well-developed religious or political point of view is the result of carefully selecting and digesting supporting evidence and opinions from like-minded people, books, magazines, broadcast media, etc.

What I had in mind was the phenomology of the response to contradictory information. For partisans, religionists of certain kinds (very often those who tend to be strongly scripture oriented), and many staunch non-believers, the effect of contradictory evidence is to generate a high level of discomfort, which is the exact opposite of the sort of comfort that is generated by practice of reinforcing beliefs.

Note that this has to do with partisans. There are many people for whom these issues are less important, but for political and religious partisans contradiction is more than "an artifact of the way we evaluate truth." Challenges to my political or religious beliefs (and I am fairly partisan) are considerably more upsetting than even a challenge to my opinion about a very close friend, which would quite upsetting. Politics and belief constitute a different grade of truth because for many people they are constitutive of our idea of ourselves.

What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely disagree! This is obviously a Republican study poised to strike at the Democratic Party's sense of humanity and caring!

woot

[DeadPrez]

So it is perfectly legit to call President Bush a cracked out junkie drunk with power constanly looking for his next high?

Thank you science.

The False Middle

[Catbeller]

"Partisan".

Republicans are the only people who use this word, they and newscasters. It's a lovely thing, because they only use it as a term for people who call them liars.

As for the "balanced" folk, the newscasters, the majority of Americans: the truth, reality, the right answers, call it what you will, is not determined by looking at the "left" and the "right" and finding with certitute that reality lies somewhere in the middle, with liars hedged all about it on "both" "sides".

There are two sides in today's reality, the rightists with Bush as their titular head, and everyone else in the world, which the rightists term the "left".

That's why the Democrats are such a mess. They're absolutely everyone else that isn't Bush. They aren't a side, they're the majority of us, the contrarians to Bush's view of reality.

The rightists are monomaniacs, magical thinkers, borderline psychopathic personalities. They can't change their minds; it's not a concept they can understand. They have the truth, and everyone else can go to hell. Evidence, science, exposure, error, nothing can reach them. They lack empathy and think it a strength.

Bush and his co-thinkers have been wrong on the environment, tax cuts, terrorism, civil rights, causus belli, voting machines, the Swift Boat and Murtha smears, privacy, education, regulation, disaster relief, military reform, anti-missle tech, reactivating nuke weapon building, the UN, diplomacy, the powers of the executive, secret prisons, torture flights, torture, kidnapping, lying about same, secret executions, unpersoning American citizens in secret, being wrong about damned near every terrorist arrest and imprisonment, having the JAG's turn against him, the CIA turn against him, finally the military turn against him, the destruction of our preparedness for war, hiding personal military misconduct, wilderness preservation, the FCC, the internet(s), the Clinton's stealing furniture (Bush at least admitted they were wrong aboutthat, but who heard the retraction?, redistricting out of turn, bribery, treason in outing CIA ops for revenge, destroying the budget through tax cuts, borrowing from everywhere, on and on and on. He recognizes no error, no mistakes. At the "Q&A" last Monday, a student asked him why he cut education and student loans. He look confused, and denied he did it. Magical thinking. He can lie and not think it lying. This is the worst kind of madness. He enjoys lying. He thinks it artful. He laughs out loud as he fabricates, badly, on the fly.

There is nothing like this list of crimes against sanity on the "other" side. The truth is not in the middle, and both "partisan" sides are not equal in mendacity. The war in Iraq will cost two trillion at the end.We're broke. He's lying. All the 'pubs, even McCain, are lying even to this minute. The "other side" still thinks that they are playing a gentleman's game, as I watched the Alito hearings. They just don't understand what they are up against.

It's easy to play the fallacy of the false middle. It makes one seem wise, and has the advantage of relieving one of the hard work of making judgements based on actual knowledge. Reporters of the new school use it constantly. Thusly:

"Bush said today that the sky is green. Some Democratic spokesmen have said that the President is not being straight with the American people. Here are three talking heads to tell you why they are wrong."

All reporting thereforward is based on the Green Sky world, with occasional fillips of quotes from "partisans" saying that he might not be right. Entire cable networks dedicate there time to Green Sky stories, and it becomes the truth, inextricable. Later, geniuses talk about how both the Blue Sky and Green Sky "proponents" have not told the truth, and that they are addicted to their positions and their combat.

But the sky is fucking BLUE. It's not blue-green.

Re:The False Middle

[Catbeller]

"Troll", hell. It's directly on point of this article. There is no "partisan". There is right, and there is wrong, and it should be possible to judge reality and state the truth without being labelled "partisan", and therefore out of the game. This article is trying to defuse sane debate by ejecting the debaters. It's nihilism.

Re:The False Middle

[Khomar]

I call troll.

Republicans are the only people who use this word, they and newscasters. It's a lovely thing, because they only use it as a term for people who call them liars.

Well, since recent polls have indicated that an overwhelming majority of newscasters claim to be democrats, that shoots your first assertion out of the water. This is of course, well, a lie (by which I suppose you will now call me partisan) since a quick search yielded up an example of democrats calling republicans partisan.

That's why the Democrats are such a mess. They're absolutely everyone else that isn't Bush. They aren't a side, they're the majority of us, the contrarians to Bush's view of reality.

Rubbish and non-sense. I know many who would either identify themselves as republicans or conservatives to DO NOT like Bush. While I agree with some of his moral stances (in regard to pro-life, pro-family, etc.), I do not agree with many of his policies from increased spending to an erosion of personal rights in the PATRIOT Act. Does this mean I am a Democrat? Absolutely not! I believe in a small federal government, the right of the unborn, and responsibility for our own actions -- all things that seem to be opposed by your "majority" party. There are millions of people in this country who disagree with Bush and the Democratic party. Anyone who follows anyone blindly is following a dangerous path -- you will never know where you will be led.

Bush and his co-thinkers have been wrong on the environment, tax cuts, terrorism, civil rights, causus belli, voting machines, the Swift Boat and Murtha smears, privacy, education, regulation, (repeat ad-nauseum)

Do you care to defend each and every one of these accusations? While many of your listed items may have valid arguments, I think it is safe to say that you snuck in more than a few issues that you cannot irrefutably defend. For just one example, tax cuts have given our economy the boost it needed to get back up and running again, and tax revenues are now actually higher than when Bush took office. For decades, fiscal conservatives and economists have shown that tax cuts actually help the economy since allowing individuals to invest in the economy is much more effecient than increasing government spending. Why again was Bush wrong on tax cuts? (Yes, this is a debatable opinion, but that is precisely my point!)

This post shows the very same single-minded, "borderline psychopathic" traits that you put on Bush -- if you are with him on anything (or is that, you are not in agreement with Catbeller?), you are evil. I will not and cannot defend all of the presidents actions, but just because Bush did it does not mean that the action is inherently evil or wrong. He, just like everyone else, is human. We all do some things that are good, we all do some things poorly, and we all do things that are deceitful and wrong (sadly, usually more of the latter). The first step to understanding and living with each other is to recognize this fact.

Re:The False Middle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Troll", hell.

As of now, your original post is scored:

70% Insightful
20% Underrated
10% Troll

So somebody rates your post a troll, and the rest of the Slashdot-hive-mind laps up what you say because you think that Bush/Republicans are evil and Clinton/Democrats are as pure as virgin snow.

And yet you have to whine about the minority who disagree with you.

Re:The False Middle

[Magius_AR]

Here, here. If I had mod points, you'd get them.

It's funny how ignorant the democrats can be to the same blind bias they bitch about the right.
Only on Slashdot would such a biased subjective troll be modded +4 Insightful and your own objective post left untouched.

Re:The False Middle

[onemorechip]

Well said. That is so on-target.

Re:The False Middle

[Khomar]

And you got a flamebait for agreeing with me (with a fairly insightful comment of your own). :-) Ah, Slashdot.

Thanks for your kind reply.

eh, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The crude ones have too much oil in there heads!

"OIL, whats that?" shouted the burning bush?

Good candidate

[dazedNconfuzed]

With Alito, you have a nominee who, when he admits to them, claims beliefs and attitudes that often are in opposition to his voting record. That means he's either lying to himself or to the Judiciary committee, and that provides a poor example for a Supreme Court nominee.

No, that's an excellent SCOTUS nominee: regardless of his beliefs and attitudes on a subject, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to determine what the LAW says on a subject. Umpires can't take sides, regardless of their personal beliefs & attitudes.

Re:Good candidate

[Politburo]

You're right, but what he thinks about the law also sucks. Unitary executive theory can blow me.

And goddamn get your own talking points. The baseball analogies have been played to death.

Re:Good candidate

[zCyl]

No, that's an excellent SCOTUS nominee: regardless of his beliefs and attitudes on a subject, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to determine what the LAW says on a subject.

If the law already contained the answers, we wouldn't need to be very concerned with who the justices are. The problem is, the justices are responsible for INTERPRETING the law, and applying a collection of more general legal principles to specific cases for which no specific law has been written. This is not a mechanistic process of reading the law, knowing what it says, and then regurgitating this. Any interpretation process must in fact bring a bit of personal beliefs into the process, and thus, the beliefs and opinions of the justice on how areas of the law should be interpreted are everything in determining what sort of justice a person will be.

He did not dodge questions because his personal opinions are unrelated to the process of judging, but simply because he was heavily coached to do this so that a controversy could be avoided and the confirmation could proceed by simple party majority without any substantial discussion or review of his actual interpretation of the law.

If you feel that an unthinking government drowning in rhetoric with no substantial debate is good for society, then I guess go ahead and support a process like that, but I for one have have problems with it.

Re:Good candidate

[Valdrax]

No, that's an excellent SCOTUS nominee: regardless of his beliefs and attitudes on a subject, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to determine what the LAW says on a subject.

Oh, our bad. We were holding him to those same standards for his position as a Federal Appelate Court Justice. If we'd only realized that he was free to be a complete partisan hack when in offices other than the Supreme Court, we wouldn't even be bringing up that record.

Re:Good candidate

[CAIMLAS]

Don't mind him. He'd be bitching that Alito doesn't make judgements based on law but on his own opinions if that were the case instead of saying it should be more that way. The key point here is that this person doesn't like how Alito votes, simply because this person doesn't like the Constitution in its current form, with all its liberties and freedoms for everyone other than himself.

deep thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

from the article, it seems that these brilliant "scientists" have discovered the individuals with strongly held positions will hold them strongly. i think brain imaging is neat, but it seems like much of it is just confirming what has been observed elsewhere. it's also annoying that they focus on headline-grabbing things like politics instead of looking more abstractly at what traits are of interest.

The ones in power _are_ the revolutionaries.

[C10H14N2]

...and have been at least since they took out The Contract.

Sports fans

[Morinaga]

Partisans operate like some sports fans. They have blind commitment to their favorites regardless of their performance.

I'm not sure who'll come out on top in the '08 presidential election. I'm sure I'll pick a side. However, when our president is elected I'll support them as I'm interested in my team (the USA) prospering, regardless of who the leader is.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the Red Wings suck.

Exact opposite opinion

[SuperKendall]

The problem is that in politics, facts matter very much. That's why the rise of blogs has had such an effect on politics, because you can't just make an emotional speech anymore without having it picked apart by a thousand fact checkers.

Emotion and value -based arguments are helpful tools but require a firm base of facts nowadays to have an effect on people's long-term opinion.

Re:Exact opposite opinion

[David Greene]

The problem is that in politics, facts matter very much. That's why the rise of blogs has had such an effect on politics, because you can't just make an emotional speech anymore without having it picked apart by a thousand fact checkers.

Nope. Blogs are very much overrated. How many blogs exist that have picked apart the president's arguments for the war in Iraq? How many are dedicated to the facts behind the outing of Valerie Plame? How many talk about the education funding situation, the increasing regressive nature of our taxes and the record of Sam Alito with respect to Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

Lots of blogs exist on both sides. The reason Dan Rather was forced to resign was not because of some memo he ran with. It was because there was a political effort to connect that event with values put forth by the far right. What were those values? Well, certainly honesty and integrity, which are broadly shared. But it went deeper than that.

The real value that connected with the conservative base and resulted in Rather's resignation is anti-intellectualism. The far right always talks about the "liberal elite" and the "media elite." Never mind that the conservative movement has many think tanks with many highly educated, well funded researchers. Never mind that Fox News is a mouthpiece for this group.

They connected to the innate fear in people that they don't know enough or aren't worthy enough to be taken seriously in politics. They've twisted that fear into a loathing of the highly educated, who are portrayed as "unelected bureaucrats" who really hold all the political power and make all the decision.

Sound familiar? The same rhetoric about "unelected judges" was used in the Schaivo case and is still used to get people thinking about "legislating from the bench" instead of judicial oversight.

The blogs provide the events in which to frame a debate around values. What facts they actually present is small potatoes.

Not always

[Fished]

Your brain uncritically accepts the first information it gets in any new subject area as correct, whether it is or not.

Absolutely. That's why I still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

Nietzsche said it best, more than 100 years ago...

[ruedesursulines]

"Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the freedom which proceed from intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power, manifest themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far enough, they do not see what is below them: whereas a man who would talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five hundred convictions beneath him--and behind him. . . . A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction belongs to strength, and to an independent point of view. . . That grand passion which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic's existence, and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself, drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain circumstances it does not begrudge him even convictions. Conviction as a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to them--it knows itself to be sovereign.--On the contrary, the need of faith, of some thing unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may be allowed the word, is a need of weakness. The man of faith, the "believer" of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man--such a man cannot posit himself as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself. The "believer" does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an end; he must be used up; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity. Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of self-estrangement. . . When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and "faith." To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly--these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man--of the truth. . . . The believer is not free to answer the question, "true" or "not true," according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon--these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses--fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons. . ."

A little bit more about neuro imaging

[tgv]

If you know a little bit more about neuro-imaging (I guess they were using fMRI, or PET or something similar), you would know that this kind of result proves *absolutely nothing*. The fact that areas "normally associated with reasoning" do not show more activity says more about the baseline they used for their study than about political reasoning. Good fMRI experiments are extremely hard to set up, and cannot be used for drawing conclusions at this level. As a matter of fact, it is not even known which areas are responsible for reasoning, let alone to what degree they should "light up" in the said experiment.

PS I do cognitive neuro-science for a living, including fMRI studies...

Re:A little bit more about neuro imaging

[Anonymous Coward]

"PS I do cognitive neuro-science for a living, including fMRI studies..."

No no no, you are wrong! wrong! wrong! I drive a bus and keep ferrets so I realy do know what I am talking about, your quote is a classic symptom of eating to much radiation with your cheese spread at break time!

Re:A little bit more about neuro imaging

[tgv]

Nope. If I hadn't written this, someone would have replied: what the hell do you know? Is "I hold a post-doc in the field" better?

Anyway, I fail to see your logic...

Re:A little bit more about neuro imaging

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes!
Thankyou.

Re:Partisan? or Politics?

[lynx_user_abroad]

Concering the federal level, it would probably be best to make it non-partisan.

One of the (lesser) definitions Websters has for politics is the total complex of relations between people living in society and involved not only speaking of things from one's own point-of-view (to ensure that your point-of-view is considered) but also allowing (demanding?) that others speak from their own point-of-view (to ensure you haven't missed something important).

Today, when we talk about politics we're almost always discussing it in it's partisan meaning; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government.

It's important to note that the former definition of politics is tied closely with democracy but that the latter definition is applicable to any form of government.

I'd view this as a sign that we, culturally, are distancing ourselves from democracy and instead employing a kind of common hubris wherein we believe that we are right and therefore our opponents must be wrong.

Unilateralism serves us well, but only so long as we are the ones in power. Shortsighted and dangerous, I'd call it.

We have seen these turns before in history, in the rise of authoritarian and sometimes totalitarian governments, and always to disasterous effect.

It almost seems as if we humans are incapable of understanding that sometimes we, ourselves, are not perfect, not omnipotent, and capable of seeing the correct long-term path only with the aid of others perspectives.

Perhaps we need self-doubt more than we might be willing to admit?

Not electoral system, voting system

[Jeff Molby]

It's not the electoral system, so much as the voting process. If you have only one vote and there are three candidates, you'll quickly decide that you need to vote for the person that most closely represents your ideals AND has the best chance of being elected.

This is why most people dismiss a 3rd party as a "wasted vote".

Now if it were possible to vote in a way that says "I approve of candidates A _and_ C, but not B", you can freely vote for other parties without diminishing the strength of major party. Under this process, a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party could build momentum over several elections rather than being a flash in the pan (like Nader & Perot).

Moral Politics

[dpilot]

I'm currently reading "Moral Politics," an interesting if repetitive book. It has been sufficiently repetitive that I've take a break and am reading the New Testament to square it against the author's points. I'm currently only mid-Luke, so my picture isn't re-complete. But I can state a few preliminary conclusions: (things in quotes are paraphrased extractions from memory)

Christ spoke out against immorality a few times, and most of those were within the context of marriage and divorce.
Christ was quite clearly against moral accounting by Man. "Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord", "Forgive seventy times seven"
Christ was against making rule for others' behavior. "point out the speck in his eye, ignoring the log in your own"
But it seems to me that most of Christ's criticism was reserved for the Pharisees and Sadducees, in other words, "the establishment," the wealthy self-righteous who looked down on "those sinners."

One can take this however you want. I wish merely to point out the irony that those who wrap themselves in the flag and set themselves upon the Bible as a pedestal are acting as the Pharisees and Sadducees did. This is IMHO a clearly inconsistent position.

Re:Moral Politics

[hackstraw]

That is all good and well, but remember that Jesus could kick some ass too.

http://bible.cc/matthew/21-12.htm

To me, most Christians falsely believe in being a passivist with stuff like "turn the other cheek", everything will be worked out in heaven when God who loves everybody so much will condemn those to eternal damnation. Yuck.

As far as I know, knowing Jesus or Christ is knowing oneself. That is it. If you want to be taken advantage of all the time, go ahead, but I live here and now on this planet, and I live life to the fullest.

Re:Moral Politics

[dancpsu]

to point out the irony that those who wrap themselves in the flag and set themselves upon the Bible as a pedestal are acting as the Pharisees and Sadducees did. This is IMHO a clearly inconsistent position.

It's important to remember that the Pharisees were not just mild moralists we see today, but extremely legalistic to the point that a modern American would consider a kook. Their domain was religion, not the state, but they used this position to enrich themselves and guilt people into giving them more power (Matt. 23). They even had their own currency to influence this, with money changing booths which Jesus objected to the point of throwing them out of the temple (Matt. 21:12). The point is that they cared more about their own hegemony at this point than of any authority of God. They had power over people when they could make them obey stricter laws, and their religion was Macheivellian to the point that they would pray loudly in the streets to show how spiritual they were (Matt. 6:5).

Remember that Jesus' teachings were about redemption, not morality. After teaching about moral issues, He said, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) An impossibility in itself which is why the crucifixion was needed.

It's also important to remember that the form of government was very different at this time, and the kinds of teachings you give to a citizenry under an emperor would be very different than to the citizens of a democracy. Mostly what Jesus taught was to lie low as far as the state was concerned. This is probably good in a country where you could be killed for saying something bad about the leader.

Ignoring the Facts

[grahamsz]

Unfortunately many criminals have poor impulse control and critical reasoning... it's doubtful that they would consider something like this when it would mean having to travel somewhere else and delay their crime.

Virtually no criminal expects to be caught, which removes many of the things that rational people would see as deterrants (ie the death penalty).

I'd make a crappy criminal.

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply untrue. I work within the criminal justice system and witness on a daily basis attitudes and statements which fully indicate the average criminal's expectation of punishment. Their behavior is driven not by an expectation that they will not be caught, but rather by a statistical recognition that the average criminal act remains unpunished or is merely lightly punished. Criminals essentially engage in a cost-benefit analysis of a given situation and determine their course of behavior based upon what they think is the risk they face. It is true that this is done at a very primitive level, but that does not render the observation nugatory. My dogs are capable of the same logic and obey both to gain reward and avoid punishment. To suggest as the modern liberal does that criminals are less capable of understanding this than my dogs really does show what they think of the average individual and his capacity for self governance. I would note there are exceptions to be found(the occasional crime of passion), but as a reasonable statistical generalization, the above is true.

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[rossifer]

Unfortunately many criminals have poor impulse control and critical reasoning... it's doubtful that they would consider something like this when it would mean having to travel somewhere else and delay their crime.

Except that when Florida passed it's concealed carry weapons law, muggings and robberies in Florida dropped while there was a coincident increase in muggings and robberies in the Georgia and Alabama counties closest to Florida. Criminologists are still debating the full significance of that data, but it appears that some fraction of criminals decided that it was too risky to face a legally owned gun when trying to take someone's wallet or cash register contents and moved to where that chance of encountering a gun was lower.

Another enterprising group of criminals in Florida discovered a way to make certain that their victims didn't have guns and started attacking people in rental cars (presumably tourists from out of state or out of country who couldn't possibly have a "resident only" CCW license). These attacks were specifically mentioned in the passage of laws in many states that prohibit rental cars from placing any distinguishing marks on the cars.

Still another datapoint is that when British criminals break into a home, it appears that they prefer to make certain the residents are in the home. In the US, criminals make substantial efforts to make certain that the residents have left before breaking and entering. This effect is further exaggerated in parts of the country where citizen gun ownership is prevalent (Texas). The conclusion I draw from this is that gun ownership rates do have an affect on criminal behavior, though I will concede that other factors may also be influencing these behavior.

While I agree with your basic assessment of average criminal intelligence, it appears that they do exhibit limited powers of rational decision making and risk awareness, specifically around the possibility of their victims being able to fight back.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[grahamsz]

The difference between your dogs and many criminals is that your dogs will bark at the mailman several times, and be punished several times before they learn that it's a bad idea.

Consider the burglar that's already broken into a dozen homes with no consequence. He'll experience positive reinforcement that he can indeed be above the law.

My wife has worked in the cj system and i've met some of the inmates she's worked with. Some people are in jail for having a dozen DUIs and honestly believe they were unlucky the last time, because they were "only driving 4 blocks" and somehow got caught.

My use of the word "caught" above may have been inappropriate. It would be better to stay that many criminals don't expect to be caught or if they are don't expect to really be punished.

The reality is that very few burglars are shot by homeowners. I really would not be surprised if the cost-benifit analysis of burglarizing a home in this town vs driving ten miles and burglarizing a home in a gun-free town would favor doing it now rather than driving (at least for someone with poor reasoning skills).

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[grahamsz]

These are certainly interesting points, but they rely on highly pulicized facts about the laws in an area. It's not hard to know that florida lets people have concealed weapons and georgia doesn't.

I find it hard to keep track of which towns nearby allow smoking in bars and which don't - there's a mish mash of different laws and regulations.

If gun control were implementated on a truly local basis then you'd need to actually research which places had the tightest controls and chose to carry out crime in those areas.

It's a reasonable short term solution as it displaces crime, however if everyone was allowed a concealed weapon then would crime just go away?

Also do you have the stats for that british figure. Anecdotally it would seem to be true, although i've never had a home in either country broken in to.

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[rossifer]

These are certainly interesting points, but they rely on highly pulicized facts about the laws in an area. It's not hard to know that florida lets people have concealed weapons and georgia doesn't.

You're right, and I was only commenting on the generalization that criminals don't do any risk assessment.

Also do you have the stats for that british figure.

I don't have any of my normal library with me right now (I just moved), so no. Would be good to have a link that I could substantiate my claim with, though, so I'll do some looking this afternoon.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[Thangodin]

Still another datapoint is that when British criminals break into a home, it appears that they prefer to make certain the residents are in the home.

You should cite the source for a claim like this--this is very hard to believe. Why would a burglar want to run the risk of additional charges of assault, kidnapping (which is what detaining someone from contacting the police is), and deliberately seek out witnesses to his crime? This increases the expected jail time by a factor of ten, and dramatically increases the chances of being caught and prosecuted. And if this is true, it contradicts everything in your post, proving that criminals are completely irrational.

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[nasch]

So the thing to do is live somewhere guns, including concealed ones, are freely available, but don't have one. That way you get the benefit of reduced crime without the increased risk of a gun accident. And don't try to tell me only stupid people have gun accidents. If there's a gun in your home, the risk of a gun accident goes from zero to non-zero.

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[giffnyc]

To suggest as the modern liberal does that criminals are less capable of understanding this than my dogs really does show what they think of the average individual and his capacity for self governance.

I'm a modern liberal and I don't suggest this at all, you insensitive clod. Seriously, there are a lot of people out there who don't want the federal government doing things like wiretapping citizens without warrents AND who don't want them taking our guns. To suggest that liberalism is equal to mushy thinking or that conservatism is equal to big business supplication is to succomb to the very peril that TFA is trying to describe. Quit flamebaiting by mixing your cogent arguments with hackneyed political jabs -- the country needs smart people to find consensus, not work to pad our parties with supporters won over by reactionary argument.

Re:Ignoring the Facts

[Hognoxious]

I agree - not only does it run counter to common sense, but I've never heard such a claim before.

Affiliation is the end of free thought

[freezin fat guy]

We are crippled by the whole "right wing / left wing" paradigm. As if there are only two ways of solving a problem and as if the range of challenges were so simple as to merit only one approach, all the time.

But this is what you get with partisan politics. What's worse is that affiliation ends free thought. It's not longer "what do _I_ think about that" but rather "what does the _party_ think about that?" What's worse is that problems are not studied on a case by case basis, rather simplistic, canned solutions are offered to all.

An anology from when I was a heavy duty mechanic:

It occured to me that most bolts/nuts are "right hand" threaded, i.e. turned clockwise to tighten. But some are "left hand" threaded. Can you imagine a partisan mechanic working on your machine? You bring your bulldozer in and I start turning loose bolts clockwise to tighten them. Turns out one or two are left hand threaded. At that point I have a choice to make: am I wise and humble enough to realize I've been making a mistake and start turning the other way, or do I stubbornly keep cranking the one and only way I believe in and let the whole machine fall apart?

Re:Affiliation is the end of free thought

[Gadgycough]

You go and read your service manual for the machine like you learned at college, if there is no manual you ask. If after that you break the bolts should you not be asking "should I you have choosen this line of work?"

Please Mod Parent UP

[ChePibe]

Rarely is a voice of reason heard on slashdot in response to some of the drivel (like the grandparent) that is posted.

Please mod parent up.

Voting process

[Jeff Molby]

The problem is that there is a justified fear that if someone votes for a minor party, it will sap strength from the major party that kinda represents their interest and they will end up with the party that represents their interest in the least. People may be willing to take this chance when there isn't much at stake, but when there are contentious issues (like the war) at stake, 3rd parties don't even get considered. Now if it were possible to vote in a way that says "I approve of candidates A _and_ C, but not B", you can freely vote for other parties without diminishing the strength of major party. Under this process, a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party could build momentum over several elections rather than being a flash in the pan (like Nader & Perot).

Re:Voting process

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could introduce a real democracy, with proportional representation and actually have more than two parties that get seats in the parliament.

Re:Voting process

[Anonymous Coward]

In a "real democracy" once any party gained power they would outlaw all other parties. We are already too close to a "real democracy". We need to increase our distance from a "real democracy", not get closer.

Relevant cartoon

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Outdoors. Man has target set up. Pistol case is open on the ground. His dog sits quietly beside him, looking up at him.

Man: "How do you expect to protect the house if you won't learn how to use this thing?!"

I'll try to pretend this is on topic by pointing out that a sense of humor is a potent defense against being lured into fanaticism.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[demachina]

"As long as tax money from the rich goes to those who are poor you are socialist."

The rich don't really subsidize social security or medicare or to an extent unemployment insurance in the U.S. Most of it is paid for out of payroll taxes which totally hammer the low and middle income. Counting the employer contribution social security and medicare are an unavoidable 12.5% out of your paycheck even if you are making minimum wage. The upper income pay it up to a cap, but then they are free of this burden. The really rich don't pay for it all if they get their income through investments. They pay other taxes unless they have a good accountant.

The payroll taxes used to be pretty low from 1930's-1970's or so, and most people didn't make it to 65 to reap the benefits. Starting in the '80's the taxes were jacked up to the current steep levels and people started living a lot longer. For the last 20 plus years these payroll taxes were generating large surpluses. This money wasn't put in a "lock box" to pay benefits in 10 and 20 years when the program will go in the red due to longer life spans and healthcare costs. It was squandered by the federal government on defense spending, offsetting tax cuts for the rich and lots and lots of pork. This means when the program goes in the red the benefits will either be cut, money will be borrowed or payroll tax rates will be jacked up again. Much of the money working people paid in to the system in the last 20 years has disappeared never to be seen again. At the moment America's payroll taxes are more a regressive tax to help pay for out of control Federal spending ESPECIALLY by the Republicans while they cut taxes for the wealthy. America's "greatest generation" now in retirement is making out like bandits because they paid very little in and are getting huge social security and medicare benefits out they didn't pay for. They are in effect cannibalizing the younger generations. When people working now get to retirement age chances are the programs will be decimated and they will have paid in vastly more than they will ever get out.

Now welfare and food stamps are more like what you are saying, since I think everyone pays for them in income taxes but welfare was scaled back a lot under the Clinton administration and as long as Republicans stay in power all of these social programs are slowly being eviscerated.

Bottomline is the U.S. kind of looks socialist in some respects but it is a pretty ugly implementation so it barely qualifies. It is mostly certain generations cannibalizing their children, and in 20-30 years I wager its a system that will have collapsed.

All in all I would be overjoyed if Uncle Sam would just give me back what I paid in to payroll taxes and I would have plenty of money to take care of myself, versus the likely scenario that when I get to retirement age the programs will be bankrupt and I'll get back a fraction of what I paid in. And of course if I die before retirement age someone else gets all my money.

And In Other News...

[trezor]

Studies show that where politics involve more than 2 sides, people must actually justify their arguments rather than bash and demonize the other side, as there is no simple "other side" to blame for everything wrong.

Ofcourse, this is utterly unimagineable for people living in the US, and I will be flamed into oblivion being named labeled both Neocon, Liberal and what not.

Since I'll probably get bashed however I put this, let me put it this way: There's no politics or democracy in the US, only corrupt government and manipulation of the public. There, I said it. I have karma to burn.

Re:And In Other News...

[guaigean]

Neocon! Liberal! What Not!

Re:And In Other News...

[vishbar]

Yeah, just look at Italy. They have a HUGE mix of political parties. That's a grade-A government right there.

It seems to me that most stable nations have a two-party system. I may be wrong, please correct me if I am.

Also, while the US government is corrupt, it's not as corrupt as some would make you think. When you compare the US to the vast majority of other governments, corruption is relatively rare. However, I'd bet that comparing it to other developed nations would yeild different results.

Re:And In Other News...

[Corvass]

You may indeed be wrong. Your name just one example, but you could as easily have chosen any of the democracies in North West Europe or Scandinavia -- off the top of my head, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway have multi-party democracies, and are all considered stable democracies.

This does of course not imply that two-party democracies can't be stable, or would be less stable, but I can imagine they might lead to the kind of polarisation that can be observed in the United States.

Re:And In Other News...

[JourneyExpertApe]

Since I'll probably get bashed however I put this, let me put it this way: There's no politics or democracy in the US, only corrupt government and manipulation of the public. There, I said it. I have karma to burn.

A recent study by the prestigious Research Institute of Me found that mentioning "karma" and some form of the verb "burn" in a post on /. will automatically get you an Insightful mod.

Re:And In Other News...

[bentcd]

It seems to me that most stable nations have a two-party system.
I could name some one-party nations that have been remarkably stable over long periods of time. They even have the benefit of not throwing the nation into regular wars of opinion every four or five years when it's time to vote.
Anyway, the whole notion of political parties is at its core a corruption of the democratic ideal. You should vote for people (i.e., representatives), not parties. An ideal democracy would be an n-party system where n is potentially equal to the number of citizens(*). Of course, this represents some administrative difficulties that are difficult to overcome other than by introducing political parties. That's not a reason to overdo it though.
(*) - that is, if everyone was prepared to run for office. In my country (Norway) you can't legally refuse to run for parliament if you get nominated, but I'm not sure if you have to actually show up should you win the seat.

This is why our government fails....

[Radcliffe_V]

Almost everyone who'll read this article will probably think to themselves "Pfffft, already knew that." But I've always found after years of following our government's political history that this single fact is the one core cause of every failure we as a people have had since the Civil War, yet no one does anything about it.

This sort of thought process hinders the ability for the people to choose good leaders, and in turn elects people who are incapable of the sort of even minded judicious decisions needed in all branches of the government, at all levels.

You don't have to go far to see how this has lead to a lot of the problems we have today. But if you look deeper you see were we've created a political culture that makes logical decisions of any manner of governance pretty much impossible. If you look around, no one is happy with our government, the word politics conjures negative emotions and images of people arguing. This isn't how a democracy should view itself.

To put it in blunt terms, our government really doesn't work anymore and hasn't functioned properly for decades if not more.

Think about it, our governmental structure was made so that it could:

a) Be a balanced and fair system that follows the voice of the people.

And....

b) Be capable to dynamically deal with the issues of an uncertain and every changing world.

Now you have to ask yourself, is this what you think, or even hear about when you discuss the state of the union?

No, why? Because people feel their voice is never heard and they have no say in their own democracy. The whole thing is ran by political party bosses and large companies. And what about our government ability to be dynamic? Again the answer is no, just read this news page about that. Why? Because we only have 2 phases of government, one on the left and right, and because we boil down today's complex issues into a D.C. version of Red vs. Blue, political leaders care little about the realities of any given topic and pass legislation in a way that subverts effectiveness of the system as a whole, by taking a side and trying to slug out the other side.

And none of this government infighting helps pass any legislation, nor does it aid in judicial review, or does it help discuss important social issues. In fact it does the opposite, it impairs all of that and muddles down our country in what I call a prolonged Civil War. Its effectively like Lincoln didn't do anything, and instead of battles next to rivers with guns we have battles on T.V. with bills. All that does is use up resources and destroys the integrity of the union. The issues are just different, and sometimes only slightly, and no one cares what the future impact of any given law has on our country, just if it undercuts the opposition on another key issue.

I think the only real solution isn't with another 3rd party, but by supporting various independent logic minded individuals that seek office, and the only real way to do that and make a dent in the choke hold parties have on the government is by hitting them with the only thing they don't know how deal with (in party by their own inability to be dynamic).... Technology.

I've always wanted to create a centralized place on the web, where politicians could come, register, and like a blogger allows them to post regularly in address and has a forum that anyone can ask questions or post comments, have polls ect.

It doesn't sound like much, but if it became the central place where people came and watched and interacted with their representatives, they would have to directly deal with their constituencies, actually answer questions and people could really see how someone measured up against what they said they would do and what that does. As apposed to where they just make one sided speeches and argue amongst each other on T.V. and the people feel pretty uninvolved and out of the loop.

Kind of like the theory behind Wikipedia being accurate and factual except for in government. Which is more or less how it should be, shouldn't it? You know, our voice being the driving force behind the nation.

Maybe those days have long passed.....

Classic Case

[banditski]

Seems like a classic case of people not letting the facts get in the way of the truth...

No Reasoning on Slashdot Either

[hchaput]

Did nobody bother to consider the other obvious conclusion? Maybe both sides are getting the facts right! Why would subjects need to engage in reason unless there was some logic problem presented to them? Clearly, the successful politician isn't going to go against the grain of agreed-upon truth (and what other kind of truth could we be talking about here, really?). Instead, she will select certain agreed-upon truths to bolster a conclusion with moral resonance. The areas activated by political speak in this study are activated during all moral judgments. In fact, neuroscience is finding that all "rational thought" (whatever the hell that is) is based much more on the emotion centers of the brain than ever thought before. According to the latest theories, the rest of the brain is used to compute answers, but the limbic system -- the "emotion center" -- actually chooses the right answer from all the candidates by generating an emotional response. People who lack this ability are called sociopaths. Shouldn't we all be rejoicing that everybody is looking past the facts, which rarely have all the answers, and using their own personal judgement to choose a government?

But no, the story relies on the agreed-upon fact that all politicians are liars to bolster a theory that, because the emotion centers are tapped during political speech, the facts do not matter.

Bullshit.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

If someone told me that "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE", I would not ignore that fact.

I'm just saying.

Old news

[Murdoc]

Geeze, this is what Technocrats have been saying for years! It's time to embrace the only rational system based on facts. I mean really, virtually everyone hates politicians anyway, and suspects politics itself as being problematic. We only accept it because we don't know of anything else to use. Well, now there is: Technocracy!

So there IS Such a Thing as...

[eno2001]

...a "reality distortion field" but it's a virtual construct within the mind of the individual! I THOUGHT so! ;P It's a good thing I see everything in an unbiased and clear way compared to all conservatives and Republicans.

Economics?

[dunc78]

It is just as dishonest to say that the difference in stats between the Northeast and the South is due to the availability of guns. It also may be interesting to know that the median income in the South is approximately $40,000 where in the North it is $47,000. When people have more they have less need to steal. Anyhow, I'm sure income doesn't tell the whole story either, there are many variables in what causes more crime in some areas over others. I believe there are compelling arguments on both sides of the gun control issue, and because of this I think people should err on the side of more freedom.

Not Surprising, yet a Surprise.

[AmazingRuss]

From talking to partisans about political stuff, I've known for a long time that they don't think about anything you tell them if it conflicts with what they believe.

What really surprises me is the scans revealed any brain activity at ALL.

Re:Libertarians NOW NOW!

[Sol_Web_Dude]

My brain's bullshit meter goes off and finds both Democrats and Republicans full of it. Then it heard about the Libertarian Party and found it lined up more closely to what I believed in (without predetermined thoughts guiding this process).

Since then (2000) I'm active in the Libertarian Party in the local elections. But based on the usual comments about the Libertarian Party from others, they have predetermined thoughts and automatically dismiss us.

So that means the studies results must only apply to the people with narrow lines of thinking which seems to be a majority in the US. (Who elected the narrow minded Bush, twice!) So open your minds and you'll see that Libertarians base our ideas on principles, not one sided thinking.

Ahem!

/steps down from soapbox now

Fundamentalist Agnosticism

[greg_barton]

What is easier... going through life having made a decision about something and sticking to it... or constantly questioning your views and decisions and actions right up to the moment you have to commit to them?

The former is easier, of course, but I strive for the latter. That's why I call my self a Fundamentalist Agnostic.

At least, I call myself that today.

The facts are not available.

[wsherman]

Any democrat will tell you the republicans ignore the facts. Any republican will tell you the democrats ignore the facts.

I agree that one of the major problems in politics is that observable facts are not used in the decisions making process. The root of the problem is not that the facts are ignored but that no one actually knows what the facts are and the party that controls the US government is not interested in finding them out.

Take the decision to go to war with Iraq, for example. We had the "fact" that Iraq was involved in 9/11, the "fact" that Iraq had WMD, the "fact" that Iraq intended to give these WMD to Al Qaeda to be used against the USA, the "fact" that the USA would be welcomed as liberators, the "fact" that as soon as Saddam Hussien was out of power Iraq would become a prosperous and stable democracy, the "fact" that democracy would ooze across the borders of Iraq and cause the entire Middle East to become stable and properous and democratic, etc.

The problem, as I see it, is that one party (the Republicans) controls at least two of the three branches of government and that the leaders of that party (Bush, Cheney, etc.) have no interest in using government resources to actually find out what the facts are. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration devoted no resources to providing the American people with a careful fact based analysis of what WMD Iraq actually had. Instead, the American people had to decide, based only on raw emotion, whether they trusted the Bush administration's "secret" evidence that Iraq had WMD along with the Bush administrations other claims.

This is still the situation. For example, when it comes to the decision of how long the USA should maintain troops in Iraq, the American people are faced with a similar dilemna. The Bush administration claims that 100,000+ troops are needed in Iraq to prevent the "terrorists" from "winning". The Bush administration has not provided any scientific proof based on obserable facts as to what effect the American troops are having in Iraq or what effects decreasing troop levels would have. There are reasons why having maintaining troop levels would be beneficial and there are reasons why decreasing troop levels would be beneficial.

Without a detailed study it is not possible to know what outcomes would be observed with a substantial reduction in troop levels. The Bush administration has not, however, shown any interest in actually doing such a fact based scientific study and, as a result, the American people are still put in a situation where they have to evaluate possible outcomes based only on whether they trust the Bush administration at a raw emotional level.

All decision-making about emotions

[acedtect]

Recent research points to the idea that emotions are essential to all decision-making. when part of the preformtal cortex responsible for processing emotions is damaged, patiens can become incapable of making decisions.

"Antonio Damasio draws an intimate connection between emotion and cognition in practical decision making. Damasio presents a "somatic marker" hypothesis which explains how emotions are biologically indispensable to decisions. His research on patients with frontal lobe damage indicates that feelings normally accompany response options and operate as a biasing device to dictate choice. "

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Emot.Dec is.html

Scott McClellan would be a great case study

[mcguyver]

The US Press Secretary and the Iraq Ministry of Defense would be prime candidates for this type of monitoring.

Re:Scott McClellan would be a great case study

[Guysmiley777]

Notice you never see him from the waist down during those conferences? If rationalizing conflicting information stimulates pleasure centers in your brain, I'm guessing he's sportin' one heck of an erection...

Re:and this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like something Hitler would say.

Little difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside the US, most of us see little real difference between 'Republican' and 'Democrat'. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, both believe in massive militarisation of the US, both believe in empire building, both believe in pandering to corporate interest, and neither will compromise with anyone. Looking at the voting record in US Congress in the Senate, the facts is that they are indeed almost ideologically identical. 'Republicans' are just a little more extreme. In Europe, we would probably call them Totalitarians or Fascists if we actually looked at their attack on human rights, civil liberties, and countries that don't pander to US self interest. It is obvious that few of these people follow any logic when making arguments. One only has to look at the cash handouts that these people are given to represent powerful interest groups to see why. Few people would claim that a country that spends as much on its military while neglecting basic human rights like healthcare for all and education for all. Government often defies logic when making decisions for a variety of reasons, but US government is unbelievably cynical, self interested, greedy, and brutal. From the torturing of illegally held prisoners, to the brutalisation of whole peoples, the US has shamed itself thoroughly for the last 50 years.

Experimental evidence

[Big Nemo '60]

You know, I was reading the other dotters' postings, and I thought: "Wow! Plenty of experimental evidence!"

I know it's dumb but I couldn't resist :-)

Miami not highest crime rate - by a bunch

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Miami has the highest crime rate in the country, and has for some time. [...] Highest murder rate, everything.

Really? Where are you getting that claim?

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports deliberately don't rank the cities. But others compile rankings from them and you can check them against the FBI's report on their web site.

According to this Wikipedia article, compiled from the FBI's 2003 UCR (which is referenced there if you want to check), Miami's violent crime rate is significantly-to-far below that of a number of other cities, such as Detroit MI, Irvington NJ, and Atlanta, GA. It's even below that of Springfiled MA - in a state more gun-unfrindly than California.

For murder rate it's even farther behind. Ranked 31 at 19.4/100,000, less than half that of Baltimore MD and Washington DC (with it's federally-enforced near-total gun ban). Gary IN takes the lead there (at 67.0), but many other big names leave Miami in the dust: Camden NJ, Detroit again, Ritchmond and Oakland CA, Newark NJ, Philidelphia PA, I could go on.

Do you have a source for your claim? Or are you just making it up as you go?

Re:Miami not highest crime rate - by a bunch

[bach37]

Pick your favorite source. This is common knowledge, a well known 'attribute' of Miami. Like I said, this debate over guns good or bad could go on for days. That is my point. Also, to say Texas is loaded with guns and safer than elsewhere is not the entire story. You have to take into account demographics. There are many factors to the equation.

If you want to learn about pro vs. cons of guns, look what other countries do. Look outside of the US at their crime rates/gun crimes. And see how they handle guns.

Re:Miami not highest crime rate - by a bunch

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Pick your favorite source. This is common knowledge, a well known 'attribute' of Miami.

And it's wrong.

Picking just the top rated item from the google search in question, we find that the article under the points to sperling's re-interpretation of the 2002 UCR stats.

If you follow the links to the tables, you'll see that Miami was NOT the top in their study - it was beaten by (at least) Tucson. The line "Miami's violent crime rate is the highest in the nation" is from a SUBSET of cities they studied - those with population greater than a half-million (which Tucson missed by less than 3% in the 2000 census). Their weighting of crimes is suspect (unless crime rates changed drastically between 2002 and 2003), since it puts Detroit well below Miami, while the FBI puts it well above.

Interestingly, the next sentence (partially shown in the search you posted) is "Thankfully, the murder rate is relatively low." This directly contradicts your other claim of Highest murder rate, everything.

Of course your local media will be happy to misconstrue such studies into scare headlines, the better to sell more papers to the people of Miami, and more of their eyeball and ear time to advertisers.

But try a different search: '"crime rate" highest'. You'll get a raft of other headlines, claiming a broad scattering of cities and regions as the US or world record holder.

Top two items when I just did it on Google were:
  - "Once Again, Dallas Has Highest Crime Rate in the Country"
  - "England has worst crime rate in world"

Redefine "violent crime" appropriately and pick your cutoff city size and you can make any of a plethora of cities the record holder.

Re:Miami not highest crime rate - by a bunch

[Anonymous Coward]

Look man, chill. Take it easy. We see you love guns. Maniacs like you aren't making your side of the argument look good. In fact, you make the other guy look good.

Re:Miami not highest crime rate - by a bunch

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If you want to learn about pro vs. cons of guns, look what other countries do. Look outside of the US at their crime rates/gun crimes. And see how they handle guns.

And look at how they handle their stats, too.

In England they count a murder when they get a conviction. In the US they count a murder when they find a body.

When a father kills the mother, the three kids, and himself, the US counts four murders and a suicide. Japan counts five suicides.

I could go on.

This is what the "Uniform" is in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report - a standard way of reporting and counting crimes, so the stats from different jurisdictions within the US are at least roughly comparable.

Countries are also not comparable since there are plenty of other factors than gun policy affecting crime rates.

The biggest is culture. The US accepts immigrants from a number of cultures, many of them more violent than those of Germany or the British Isles. And it does not require them to assimilate and dump their cultural and linguistic heritage, allowing them to continue indoctrinating their children with "old country" ideas and ways of thinking for generations. The result is significant populations with hangovers from a variety of cultures, each with their own mix of criminal activity and other violent behavior.

But it's possible to sort out this effect reasonably well, since crooks tend to prey on others of their own community.

And when you look at the stats, you see that US residents of English descent have a lower murder risk in gun-happy USA than those in England. Ditto African descent vs. in Africa. Ditto Japanese descent than in Japan. And so on.

The higher murder rates in the US versus those some other countries is mainly the result of our larger population of people with ethnic roots in violent places.

(And it's cultural, not genetic. For instance, blacks who have assimilated and achieved middle-class or higher income and status have about the same murder risk as those of western European descent.)

But we're not concerned so much with passively observing differences between countries as we are with figuring out how to change things to improve them in OUR countries. (Or at least I am - are you?)

So a more productive thing to look at is how crime rates correlate with state and local gun laws and policies and CHANGES to them.

Short form: Change the laws to raise the rate of weapons carrying and the violent crime rate drops - drastically. "More Guns, Less Crime" to quote the title of one book about it.

There's plenty of solid research on this if you're interested (and willing to consider it, rather than dismiss out-of-hand any study that makes a conclusion you don't like.)

Re:Miami not highest crime rate - by a bunch

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Look man, chill. Take it easy. We see you love guns. Maniacs like you [...]

Anonomous personal attack. I win! B-)

[...] aren't making your side of the argument look good. In fact, you make the other guy look good.

You wish. B-)

Last time I looked, rational examination of issues looks better than either quoting bogus stats or letting them stand.

And it looks a lot better than someone on the discredited side of an argument declaring victory. Or trying to sucker or social-pressure someone on the solid side into shutting up.

Re:Miami not highest crime rate - by a bunch

[bach37]

There's plenty of solid research on this if you're interested (and willing to consider it, rather than dismiss out-of-hand any study that makes a conclusion you don't like.)

Yes, research funded by a group called the NRA. There is no other third party research available to support your claim. Sorry. I'm tired of arguing over this. You love guns. I don't. Agree? Okay good. Bye.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[Jtheletter]

He was killed and dutch politics went back to the total crap it has always been

Whoa! I hope you meant 'killed at the polls' and not killed as in shot dead? Cuz otherwise, damn, Dutch politics are very exciting!

The cause of polarization

[apsmith]

Unfortunately, our democratic process is itself the cause of polarization. It's intrinsic to winner-takes-all competition: the two strongest competitors gain adherents at the expense of others, and membership naturally splits 50/50 for the following reasons:

* You want to root for the winner because their win, glory, or even part of some cash reward etc. comes back to you

* The more the winner is sure of winning, the less they care about their supporters; conversely the closer the race, the more attention both those running and those rooting for the two sides give to each other; the media in the middle also stands to gain the most from the closest races.

Way back in ancient Rome we had the precedent of the chariot racing factions - initially there were just red and white, then blue and green were added, and eventually took over (merged with) the red and white, so there were only two again.

Kind of reminds you of Star Wars Sith Lords, huh...

Anyway, whether ancient or modern, what happens is that the two sides get fanatically loyal adherents, and then the rest of the population sort of follows along with the loyalists they know, and the cultural impact goes way beyond the competition itself. In ancient Constantinople (Eastern Roman Empire), the blue and green factions from chariot racing extended to supporters of different candidates for emperor, with bloody battles in the streets when the opportunity for change arose. Conservatives of all stripes now feel they have to be opposed to evolution and human causation of global warming, for instance, even if twenty years ago 90 percent of them would have reasonably left scientific issues to the scientists.

So how do we get the chariot-racing element out of our democratic system of government? Somehow we need to build something that rewards consensus decision-making, not polarization... any bright ideas out there?

It All Centers on the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[mabu]

One reason why there are so many polarized ideals is due to the eradication of The Fairness Doctrine. There will never be a moderate position that is truly moderate in the United States; there will never be equitible debate on a grand scale in the media, until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated.

In 1987 Reagan destroyed this precious aspect of democracy, which performed two very important things: it acknowledged that holders of valuable broadcast licenses had a duty to report news of interest to their constitutients, and it also gave citizens a right to peititon to have their side of a story heard in the media. When Reagan shot down this law, he paved the way for the new breed of media we see now, where editorial is intermixed with journalism, and we have 24-hour propaganda networks and extremist talk radio. This is why we now have a highly politically polarized populace who is incapable of recognizing 'facts.'

Nothing will change. Nothing. Until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. Every other attempt to alter the current course of corporate-dominated political policy will fail until there is a means by which more than one side gets a chance to air their issues in a fair manner.

People really need to understand this. It's THAT simple. It's all about the Fairness Doctrine. You can't organize an opposition party when the media has an interest in discrediting you. You can't even talk about important issues when the media won't report them. You can't create your own extremist broadcast network to counter another extremist broadcast network -- that doesn't work. The mainstream media must be forced to revert back to responsible journalism and giving equal time to opposing points of view. Without the Fairness Doctrine, nothing will change, and nothing else matters.

Re:It All Centers on the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[reactionary]

It would appear that you suffer from the same malady discussed in the article.

If you believe that removing vague, "equal time" legislation and allowing the market to deliver what the marketplace wants is destroying the debate in society, then you are deluded. Note that the website you reference is not balanced and neither is much of the web. Zealots can and will get their sustenance somewhere. Debate is still hearty today, even on the rightward realm of talk-radio.

I would argue that the problem is that we love to debate the intractable questions (abortion, war, coke v pepsi) rather than the nuanced ones that are a better use of our gray matter and have a hope of yielding "common ground".

-Andrew

Re:It All Centers on the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[typical]

(Blinks) I may be out of touch here. What's wrong with the CSPANs?

Re:It All Centers on the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[onemorechip]

If you think anyone actually watches CSPAN, you are out of touch.

Re:It All Centers on the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[onemorechip]

If you believe that removing vague, "equal time" legislation and allowing the market to deliver what the marketplace wants is destroying the debate in society, then you are deluded.

Facts to back up this claim?

Re:It All Centers on the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[mabu]

If you believe that removing vague, "equal time" legislation and allowing the market to deliver what the marketplace wants is destroying the debate in society, then you are deluded.

I never claimed to be objective. Nobody is objective, Mr. Einstein. That's not the point, and you're trying to create a distraction from the issue.

Exactly who is deluded here?

"What the marketplace wants" is the rallying cry of pseudo-libertarian wankers who think that money is all that matters and whoever has the most power, has the most rights? That's a crock of bullshit.

The United States was founded on the notion that there needs to be representative democracy because sometimes the people don't know what's good for them, so there needs to be am abstraction of layers of more-concerned, more knowledgable citizens who can make better-informed decisions.

Just because less people watch CSPAN than Desperate Housewives does NOT in any way imply that Desperate Housewives is more socially constructive. If we were to follow your argument why not make heroin available to everybody? Let the "marketplace and the society sort it out naturally". It is you who are deluded into sprewing a stupid, irrational argument to a very valid point.

Propaganda and History 101 dictates that he who controls the media, controls the mind of the populace. The corporations and the political parties know this, and by eradicating the Fairness Doctrine, they've removed a crticial element that creates some equality that transcends cultural and economic boundaries. So you think this doesn't matter? You sir, are the one who is blind and delusional.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[joaobranco]

No, he really means killed for real. Pym Fortuyn, I suppose. Still, I don't really agree with the GP about his qualities or the rightness of his views (though he shouldn't have died for them).

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[Jtheletter]

Despite the warnings of the parent post to not immediately trust those who agree with your opinions I've added you as a friend. You raise some excellent points about the SS system and it's likely imminent collapse which I happen to agree with. Also you're well spoken and your grammar doesn't make me want to vomit. :)

EXACTLY.

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, the funniest part is when people like greenspan lament the low or negative personal savings rate of the country. If you were to put money in a savings account, you would end up losing purchasing power after the effects of inflation are calculated in.

Suppose, indeed, inflation is as high as 7% (I've always assumed closer to 3% but it's irrelevant).

The average savings account, at around 0.75%, is ridiculous. Multi-year CDs? Roughly 3.9%. US Savings bonds? 3.2% until May (they'll drop again). Checking account? An abysmal 0.25%. Oh but of course the prime rate, the mechanism through which your interest is supposedly generated (banks pay you to let them loan your money), has no trouble going up and up and up.

There is a reason you never, ever see a chart showing the freefalling interest rates along with that "Americans are saving less and less!1111" soundbyte. With that kind of return rate, putting money in the bank is arguably MORE STUPID than hiding it under the stereotypical mattress. For starters, you aren't feeding a parasitic credit outfit, you're not paying $2 every time you hit an ATM, and you're immune from all destructive forces (embezzling, system glitches/errors, fraudulent transactions, identity theft) except burglary, fire, and the unlikely collapse of your government (unless you stored gold/silver/etc over paper bills). At that point, you could let the money sit in a safe or something but spending is more immediately gratifying...and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, that's what people are doing.

Of course, when does anyone seriously expect the bought and sold media to connect the dots for the American sheeple?

Was this necessary?

[BishopBerkeley]

Was it not obvious that political debate in the US abandoned reality about a decade ago? CNN offers nothing constructive. Fox "News" unabashedly gets people riled up with lies. Bush never talks about the actual numbers of the budget, or any quantitative assessment of the Iraqi conflict. He only talks about doing God's "work" against "terror".

There is a good reason why Europeans are laughing at us Americans. We are disconnected from reality and disconnected from the rest of the world. We have been reduced to a pile of primitive emotions by a system that doesn't want anyone to think. We don't need brain patterns to know this.

With costs born by the state ...

[Original Replica]

I already pay enough to raise the babies of the flagrently irresponsible, please don't add hyper-expensive medical care to it. Besides medical science can cure that ill right now. Birth control implants have existed for some time now and can be removed when family is desired. I'd rather pay for that,then another mouth to feed.

NO compromise

[dpilot]

Actually there is a middle-ground, though neither side appears to want to acknowledge it.

Let me being by saying I am pro-choice. Then let me add that I think that abortion is a very bad thing, and I wish it never happened at all. Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. (There may be some exceptions, like Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Godwin, etc, but let's let that lie.)

IMHO, if the real goal is to reduce abortions, you have 2 ways to go about it. The first is to understand the causes of abortion and try to eliminate them. The second is to forbid it. The benefit of making abortion illegal is that you can feel all smug and self-righteous about a job well done. You can probably also discount Steven Levitt's (look it up) arguments and the fact that some/many of those abortions still happen, illegally. (Abortion stops a beating heart... but a botched back-alley abortion stops two.) It's much harder to understand why abortion happens, and stop it at that level. It's also much harder to declare victory. (Perhaps both are impossible, but I still believe it's the better route.)

Incidentally, if you want to get really hot about abortion, take The Pill off the market. The old high-dosage Pill used to work by stopping ovulation. That dosage had too many side-effects. The new low-dosage Pill, basically the only kind in use now, works by preventing implantation. Essentially the low-dosage Pill is a very early (clearly pre-brain) abortion.

Re:NO compromise

[jahudabudy]

Interesting. I have never really considered the morale implications of "winning" the abortion debate by just gradually convincing people to not have them. I can see where that is a much less emotionally charged victory, and thus less rallying for the troops. Of course, you also run into the problem that a lot of the anti-abortion crowd are also pro abstinence as the only form of sex education, so any suggested program that sought to address some of the causes of abortion would, ironically, also be opposed by them. Anyone that tried to rally anti-abortion sentiment into an education program would probably not be very successful.

Re:NO compromise

[ipfwadm]

Of course, you also run into the problem that a lot of the anti-abortion crowd are also pro abstinence as the only form of sex education

I've never understood this one either... I've heard people on the right say that abstinence is, as you said, the only acceptable form of sex education, and people on the left say that abstinence education won't work so the only acceptable way is to teach safe sex. Why oh why is it that black and white? Is there a problem with encouraging abstinence, while acknowledging that some percentage of the teenage population will still have sex no matter what, and encouraging them to engage in safe sex? This doesn't even really strike me as a "compromise", it strikes me as a no-brainer.

Re:NO compromise

[jahudabudy]

The general argument is that teaching safe sex is actually encouraging the kids to have sex, b/c by mentioning it, we are giving tacit approval, or possibly ideas they wouldn't have come up with on their own. I'm not sure where the teenagers that won't experiment with sex unless they are encouraged and informed by their elders live, but presumably they are the ones protected. It's kind of like security through obscurity, without any actual obscurity.

Re:NO compromise

[FromellaSlob]

Incidentally, if you want to get really hot about abortion, take The Pill off the market. The old high-dosage Pill used to work by stopping ovulation. That dosage had too many side-effects. The new low-dosage Pill, basically the only kind in use now, works by preventing implantation. Essentially the low-dosage Pill is a very early (clearly pre-brain) abortion.

Your conclusion is correct, but you're a little off on the facts. The original high dose pill works as you describe, the second description you gave is how the morning after (or "emergency contraceptive" pill works (and why pro-lifers oppose it). The modern low dose contraceptive pill is something of a halfway house between the two. It's primary action is still to stop ovulation in the same way as the original pill, but reducing the dose made the failure rate too high. To remediate this a second hormone was introduced to provide a backup anti-implantation action. Therefore a woman taking the modern pill over a long period of time may have some of these early abortions without even knowing about it.

Libertarianism is a sham

[mabu]

It's important to note there are two types of "libertarians":

a) There's the person who believes in an ideological abstraction that is the core basis of libertarianism, which is just that: an idea, that has no track record of being practical nor desireable when you look into the reality of a world where everyone is left to fend for themselves.

b) There's the "libertarian movement" and political party which is basically a shill for corporations who want to snowjob people into believing that (a) is attainable, but all they really want is less government regulation so they can pollute the environment, release un-tested drugs, and not have to worry about getting caught or sued. Organizations like the CATO institute propagate the myth and pretend to be "non-partisian" but they're really lobbying organizations that have exploited the notion of a libertarian agenda solely to get the government to lay off select industries.

In either case, the Libertarian movement is a sham.

Re:Libertarianism is a sham

[ChrisMaple]

a) Although libertarianism has never been fully employed in a modern civilization*, those regions with the freest markets tend to become the richest. (*There are some claims that Iceland had a libertarian society about a millenium ago.)

b) Have you ever heard of a major corporation contributing to the Libertarian Party? Because it is small, the LP is more vulnerable to crackpots, as can be seen by looking at a subset of their candidates. No staid corporation wants to be linked to the LP.

Re:Libertarianism is a sham

[crimson30]

a) There's the person who believes in an ideological abstraction that is the core basis of libertarianism, which is just that: an idea, that has no track record of being practical nor desireable when you look into the reality of a world where everyone is left to fend for themselves.

As a registered Libertarian that sometimes votes Libertarian, I strongly identify with this notion. I've always assumed that a larger part of party consists of those who have the same idea. It's not a practical party, but it has a LOT of good ideas and the basic sentiment is appealing. I sometimes wish there was a "practical libertarian" party, but alas, it is not so.

So, to all you libertarians out there: How many of you are realists (pro-libertarian because you feel it's ideals are better than Rep/Dem) and how many of you are purely idealists/extremists (swallowing anarcho-capitalism whole)?

Re:Libertarianism is a sham

[mabu]

The CATO institute is a super rich, super powerful, "Libertarian" lobbyist group. Well, technically it's a shill for select industries that want the government off its back, but it calls itself "libertarian" as a cover. I don't know whether they've directly contributed to the Libertarian party, but indirectly they are furthering the cause to suit their corporate benefactors' anti-regulatory agenda.

The other thing that happens...

[delcielo]

is that you find that you cannot do anything in Congress by yourself. The old saying about no man being an island is especially true in the legislature. So, to get anything done, you have to make deals and compromises with others in your party. Want that reform bill passed? Ironically, you'll probably need to sign on to somebody's spending bill to get it done, whether or not that spending bill contains ridiculous and harmful earmarks or riders. Refuse to help your party leadership do whatever they want, and you'll find yourself out in the cold, ineffective and unsupported. And the next time elections come around, the party leadership will campaign for your opponent in the primary. Voting your conscience will eventually result in your breaking a party line; but doing so will spell disaster, especially for a freshman.

The only way to solve this is to impose term limits. In a system where legislators may serve for decades, there is less incentive to do what's right for your constituents than there is to do what's right for you and your party.

Whoa!! "Both"?

[BarnabyWilde]

Wow, a fundamental mistake. Reminds me of "There are two kinds of people in the world, those that think there are two kinds of people, and those who don't". Typically (here and elsewhere), I see that "liberals" are associated with Democrats, and "conservatives" are associated with Republicans. That in itself is fallacious. Not to mention that if you buy into this, you're being stampeded. Moo. Baaaa. BWilde (something of a Libertarian)

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[DavidTC]

Almost no 'race riots' are related to race. They are related to the poor being jammed into their own tiny neighborhood with no hope of advancement, and are thus 'class riots'.

And, yes, they often are poor due to race, but that's akin to calling a riot in Hawaii an 'airplane riot' because presumably most people travelled there by airplane.

That's not to say the poeple involved in the riot will often take an 'us vs. them' stance based on race, which is easy enough to do when 90% of the people of 'the other' race you see are rich, and 90% of the people of your race you see are poor.

You have a value judgement, not an argument

[Loundry]

an idea, that has no track record of being practical nor desireable when you look into the reality of a world where everyone is left to fend for themselves.

Libertarianism is not "everyone left to fend for themselves." It is, "everyone left to fend for themselves if they choose to do so." No one prevents you from helping someone else, giving money to someone else, caring for someone else, or in any way providing what is called "charity" to someone else. The notion that "people NOT being forced to care for other people" == "everyone left to fend for themselves" is false.

so they can pollute the environment, release un-tested drugs, and not have to worry about getting caught or sued

I've heard this before. It sounds like, "Corporations are defined as evil and they follow their evil, machiavellian machinations because they're evil." I don't think that giving you any information about how frequently corporations get sued and how much they spend on litigation tactics will alter your axiomatic belief.

Your argument rests upon the values that people won't get what they Need(TM) unless others are forced to give it to them, and that corporations are evil. In other words, you're not arguing against libertarianism on logical grounds. You're just laying a value judgement against it.

And I think your values suck as badly as you probably think mine do. My values are individualism and reason. If you'd like to convince me that Libertarianism is a sham, then you're going to have to appeal to those values of mine.

Re:You have a value judgement, not an argument

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd like to convince me that Libertarianism is a sham, then you're going to have to appeal to those values of mine.

And, if you'd like to convince me that God doesn't exist, you're going have to have to use the Bible.

Libertarianism is just like any other political philosophy, there are people who adhere to it mindlessly. Most libertarians I've talked to support the philosophy without actually considering all the consequences or applying much rational thought beyond, "I gots mine!" And they defend it by giving circular bullshit reasons like you've spewed right here.

Re:You have a value judgement, not an argument

[Professional Slacker]

The notion that "people NOT being forced to care for other people" == "everyone left to fend for themselves" is false.

uh? What planet are you from?

The one I live on is populated by 6 billion greedy bastards who'd just as soon watch another person starve than do anything to help them, and frequently hurt other people because it advances their goals.

Re:You have a value judgement, not an argument

[10101001 10101001]

And, if you'd like to convince me that God doesn't exist, you're going have to have to use the Bible.

That's part of Socratic logic, and it's very effective a lot of the times at disproving a logic system.

Libertarianism is just like any other political philosophy, there are people who adhere to it mindlessly.

Very true. Unless one is part of a movement composed of only one, odds are very low that other follows even begin to attemp to fully comprehend the consequences of the movement (note, I'm not saying that that one member has, only that it's a prerequisite).

Most libertarians I've talked to support the philosophy without actually considering all the consequences or applying much rational thought beyond, "I gots mine!"

Yes, this is sad. There's certainly a lot more to political philosophy than that.

And they defend it by giving circular bullshit reasons like you've spewed right here.

I'd take issue with saying it's circular bullshit reasons. The simple fact is that libertarianism, like most (all?) political systems, is based on a set of axioms, rules, and a set of desired goals. It's not unreasonable to desire that a person who is against the system to use the rules of the system to show that some of the desired goals cannot be fulfilled. Now, obviously if the axioms, rules, or goals are chosen poorly, the goals can be met, yet the system as a whole could be meaningless.

Libertarians, at least those who do try to think about it, will point at past examples of places where other systems have failed. Real libertarians should also recognize that their system will produce people who are entirely dependent on others for survival (the free market, assuming such could ever be created (it couldn't, though that's another subject), would produce a surplus of workers; that means some simply would never be able to find work).

I recognize this, and I'm more inclined to push for a libertarian federal government and a somewhat socialist state government. The federal government is, after all, primarily responsible in maintaining relations between states and between the union and other countries, not with the personal safety of individuals. On the other hand, states are primarily responsible for the well-being of its citizens (and all people who live there are citizens). I know that I don't have a complete system that can meet all goals that I and others desire within the mentality of live and let live, but I just wanted to let you know that there are those of us who could claim to be libertarian (or at least quasi-libertarian) who do try their best to think of such issues.

Republican without insurance

[Original Replica]

People with money have access to better everything than people without. Fact of life get used to it. Healthcare has progressed to the point where we have to put a pricetag on the extension of human life, failure to do so is why our current system is in shambles. The majority of $$$ is spent on the extension of terminal cases through excessive efforts. Those costs are distributed to everyone paying into the system, putting healthcare out of reach for the poor. That's why an ace bandage costs $30 in an emergency room visit and doctors bill for $400 an hour. Just like all of the other dividing issues mentioned, you only think there are two potential views because that's all the politicians want you to think about, because those issues are what they use to lead you around. They have no interest in actually providing a solution, because the problem has become such a valuable tool in influencing the public.

Problem with this...

[CashCarSTAR]

Is that it kinda flies in the face of everything that I see in the liberal grassroots, for the most part. I think on the right, it's a bit different as Bush is a personalization of the conservative movement right now (kinda sucks for them that he's not really conservative).

But on the left, on most of the liberal blog sites (Probably as partisan as you can get?) There's still fact based discussions on individuals issues. In fact, some people do have conservative stances on various things. In fact, quite a few people do. They've made up their own mind to a potential solution. And often case, NEITHER party is advocating said solution.

No, the problem in American politics isn't too much emotion, it's that there's not enough emotion. Washington DC is a frat house for greedmongers. Getting along is more important than making America a more popular place. Incumbants don't have to worry, because with gerrymandering, their seats are safe.

And because of that, people feel detatched from the democratic process. They don't vote. They don't care because to them, they're all the same.

I say fuck this shit.

DC needs to realize,that AT ANY MOMENT, we can destroy them. We, for lack of a better word, can totally 0wnerize them. All it takes is for people to stop putting party over country, and decide to destroy one of the two parties.

Put a bullet in their head.

Right now, the best party to do that would be the GOP. Mainly because they control pretty much everything (Killing the Democrats would entrench the status quo), but also because they walk in lockstep a WHOLE lot more than the Democrats. (In fact, the biggest problem with the Dems right now is that they don't stick together enough to be an opposition for the GOP).

What do you think would happen if the GOP lost 20-30 seats in the Senate, and several hundred seats in the House? The story would be a voting revolution. People demand new government. The Democrats would be terrified, because we could get the message out..YOU COULD BE NEXT. Get your ass in gear, get out of DC, and focus on fixing things. That would be a message that no party could ever forget.

NO DONT VOTE!!!

[argoff]

When you vote on an issue that you can't win, then what you are doing is legitimizing the way the system takes away your freedom. If someone wants to take away your freedom, and they win, it is far better that they win with a 30% turnout then with %100 turnout - which would be translated as a mandate. More often that not, votes should be used as a tool to throw people out, or recend bad taxes or laws - not as a tool of participation.

And most especially, votes should never be used as a tool to give (insert good cause here) freebies coerced at everyone elses expense

Today I will not vote for democrats or republicans, neither have the slightest care about my freedom. But let me tell you, when the time comes to reap the consequences of their unstable policies - you can better believe I will be happy to nail them hard.

Well that's fairly obvious

[smoker2]

There are 2 halves to the brain, left and right. One handles logic, the other creativity. If a partisan has to respond to criticism of their parties policies then they will be using the creative side of their brain, not the logical side. They don't understand (mostly) what they are arguing about, they just know they must toe the party line, so they get creative.

That's why they always try to change the subject when questioned, so as to get into territory they actually have a developed opinion on (and have probably rehearsed).

Fairness Doctrine: Good riddance

[Loundry]

When Reagan shot down this law, he paved the way for the new breed of media we see now, where editorial is intermixed with journalism

I think this has always been the case. Were you going to argue that journalists were some special breed of human which is magically incapable of bias? Whether or not this bias in "reporting" has become more egregious is another discussion, and one where you and I will likely agree.

and we have 24-hour propaganda networks and extremist talk radio.

That's a rather unfair statement for you to make given the site you linked to. It is blatant and shameless left-wing propaganda. For example, from the article:

"Even the president jumps on the bandwagon with statements like, 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'" (Okay, accuses the president of black-and-white thinking.) "Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and thousands of other partisian pundits were free to spew their slanted take on the world" (And there's some black-and-white thinking by the author himself -- Politically, Bill O'Reilly is quite different from Michael Savage, but if you're not adequately "progressive" then you're a FASCIST NAZI!)

"Liberals, representing the moderate voice of the mainstream" (Only Liberals are in the mainstream!)

"didn't have the resources that mouthpieces for big-pharma, insurance, finance, oil and defense contractors, and as a result, found themselves literally drowning in a sea of pro-big-business propaganda," (All corporations, business, and capitalism is of the Devil!)

"So now you have pundits-o-plenty on the airwaves, representing the agenda of the richest corporate benefactors." (Only the right-wing represents the interests of the Evil Rich!)

And now we get to the core disagreement in our philosophy. You write:

The mainstream media must be forced to revert back to responsible journalism

Absolutely not, and shame on you for suggesting such a repugnant, unconstitutional, anti-American notion! No one should be FORCED to say anything! The "Fairness" Doctrine is a direct violation of the First Amendment which guarantees I am free to say (and NOT to say) anything that I wish. I believe that you view "responsible journalism" as something that only the Left can provide, and if the audience doesn't want it, then you aren't afraid to use the deadly FORCE of government to make it happen. I really am disgusted by Christian, right-wing zealots who wish to make my life a living hell, but you outclass them in villany when you start talking about FORCING people to say what you want to hear, particularly since I think socialism sucks at least as badly as evangelical Christianity does.

Party politics don't work

[Heretik]

No shit, sherlock.

The people in power (double plus especially in the US) like this team-ism though. All you have to do is make a word dirty, say, oh, I dunno, "liberal", and start calling everyone you don't like by it. It's not about issues, it's the political equivalent of a Football game.

And that's exactly how they want it. It makes the people easy to manipulate.

It's all a distraction

[Bimo_Dude]

There is another angle to consider when thinking about heated debates within the general public. It keeps the people distracted. When somebody is so incredibly angry over some issue (pick any), they are not thinking logically, they are not receptive to new information, and they can not really pay attention to the other stuff that's going on.

In the US, we have all kinds of issues and debates being trolled to us by the media (abortion, immigration, gun laws, drug laws, think of the children, etc.) that we get distracted by all of this. This leaves very few people to actually keep an eye on the politicians, the lobbyists, and the corporations. While we heatedly debate the finer points of abortion, those in power are free to redirect the resources of the country to their friends and themselves. This includes both dems and reps. It is not partisan or political. Maybe they don't all do it, but the temptation is there.

Re:It's all a distraction

[starm_]

hehe that reminds me: think of the children!

More than two "sides"

[KillerB]

First of all, there are way more than two political parties. Thus, there are way more than two "sides", which most people ignorantly arguing politics fail to realize/acknowledge.

Second, the adversarial system is what's crushing the efficacy of our political system. With two major parties that have passed a great deal of legislation to keep it exclusively two major parties, we've set up a system that "us" vs. "them". The main problem with that is at any given point in time, about half of the people involved want the system to fail, so they can get their people in office. Democrats want Bush to fail just as much as Republicans wanted Clinton to fail (speaking in generalities, of course).

Both parties scream bloody murder at each other in order to scare people in to voting for them, if for no other reason than to make sure "the other side" doesn't win. Take any major issue in the past 20-30 years and measure as objectively as possible the change since the beginning of the issue. Have abortion rights changed significantly since Roe vs. Wade? No. Has Social Security collapsed? No. Have taxes gone up under both Republican and Democratic supervision? Yes.

For all of their shouting about the "crisis" of this or that, we're just fine. To the average American in their routine life, not a whole lot has changed as a result of any political action.

So stop shouting about how "they" are going to ruin everything, and start figuring out how to work with whoever IS in office to help them make the best choices.

blah

[Danzigism]

HAHAHA listen to you people.. you're proving this study perfectly valid every with comment you post in favor of your party..

Stop Playing With Double-Edged Swords

[geoffrobinson]

You can apply this to everyone about anything who believes in anything, secular or relgious.

People ignore things that they already believe in. People are prone to self-deception.

People are prone to notice problems in other people while not noticing problems with themselves or their own positions.

This is not new. And knowledge about the heart's capacity for self-deception is not new. Especially if you are familiar with the Scriptures.

Set the Wayback Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:The False Middle

"Partisan".

Democrats are the only people who use this word, they and newscasters. It's a lovely thing, because they only use it as a term for people who call them liars.

As for the "balanced" folk, the newscasters, the majority of Americans: the truth, reality, the right answers, call it what you will, is not determined by looking at the "left" and the "right" and finding with certitute that reality lies somewhere in the middle, with liars hedged all about it on "both" "sides".

There are two sides in today's reality, the leftists with Clinton as their titular head, and everyone else in the world, which the lefists term the "right-wing".

That's why the Republicans are such a mess. They're absolutely everyone else that isn't Clinton. They aren't a side, they're the majority of us, the contrarians to Clinton's view of reality.

The leftists are monomaniacs, magical thinkers, borderline psychopathic personalities. They can't change their minds; it's not a concept they can understand. They have the truth, and everyone else can go to hell. Evidence, science, exposure, error, nothing can reach them. They lack empathy and think it a strength.

Clinton and his co-thinkers have been wrong on the environment, tax cuts, terrorism, civil rights, causus belli, voting machines, the Matt Drudge and Ken Starr smears, privacy, education, regulation, disaster relief, military reform, anti-missle tech, reactivating nuke weapon building, the UN, diplomacy, the powers of the executive, secret prisons, torture flights, torture, kidnapping, lying about same, secret executions, unpersoning American citizens in secret, being wrong about damned near every terrorist arrest and imprisonment, having the JAG's turn against him, the CIA turn against him, finally the military turn against him, the destruction of our preparedness for war, hiding personal military misconduct, wilderness preservation, the FCC, the internet(s), the stealing of furniture (Clinton at least admitted they were wrong about that, but who heard the apology?, redistricting out of turn, bribery, treason in outing CIA ops for revenge, destroying the budget through taxation, borrowing from everywhere, on and on and on. He recognizes no error, no mistakes. At the "Q&A" last Monday, a student asked him why he cut military spending. He look confused, and denied he did it. Magical thinking. He can lie and not think it lying. This is the worst kind of madness. He enjoys lying. He thinks it artful. He laughs out loud as he fabricates, badly, on the fly.

There is nothing like this list of crimes against sanity on the "other" side. The truth is not in the middle, and both "partisan" sides are not equal in mendacity. The war in Iraq will cost two trillion at the end. We're broke. He's lying. All the 'rats, even Feingold, are lying even to this minute. The "other side" still thinks that they are playing a gentleman's game, as I watched the Whitewater/Waco/Perjury/Campaign/_________/ hearings. They just don't understand what they are up against.

It's easy to play the fallacy of the false middle. It makes one seem wise, and has the advantage of relieving one of the hard work of making judgements based on actual knowledge. Reporters of the new school use it constantly. Thusly:

"Clinton said today that the sky is green. Some Republican spokesmen have said that the President is not being straight with the American people. Here are three talking heads to tell you why they are wrong."

All reporting thereforward is based on the Green Sky world, with occasional fillips of quotes from "partisans" saying that he might not be right. Entire cable networks dedicate there time to Green Sky stories, and it becomes the truth, inextricable. Later, geniuses talk about how both the Blue Sky and Green Sky "proponents" have not told the truth, and that they are addicted to their positions and their combat.

But the sky is fucking BLUE. It's not blue-green.

Hot button issues

[Kelson]

I remember a slogan I once saw: "Sure I could compare the PC and Mac, but I make it a point never to argue about religion."

The rivalries can get pretty intense. I mean, consider the following:

Windows vs. Mac
Microsoft vs. Free/Open Source Software
Linux vs. BSD
Red Hat vs. SuSE
MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
Firefox vs. Opera

The list goes on...

Sometimes, It's Just Plain Necessary

[geoffrobinson]

For major important beliefs, I will from time to time examine them more closely. And I have gone through periods where I change and modify them.

But is it necessary to do that all the time? Once you settle something, you would like to move on and do something with that belief.

A mind is like a mouth. Once it finds some food it should clamp down and stay shut, otherwise it is disgusting.

Up to a point. You should listen to other people. But it is just not practical to constantly debate your core beliefs.

Oops

[beeplet]

Appearances notwithstanding, I do in fact know how to spell "Liberal"... I blame lack of caffeine due to pregnancy. Sorry!

Methodology

[NixLuver]

I note that the article doesn't discuss what the second statement was, that supposedly showed their analysis to be incorrect. Were they factual statements, or artificially crafted statements designed to discount the original apprehension of the subject? What is the possibility that the subject had actually already encountered the statement in question and made a decision on it's validity or authenticity, or that the subject had sufficient knowledge of the question to know that it was artificially manufactured (if that was the case).

Second, I would wager a small amount of money that *any* topic that one analyzes and draws a conclusion about then slips onto the back burner to be dealt with via pattern matching rather than critical analysis. Examination of history seems to support this; scientific inertia, political inertia - slow acceptance of new truths. So I suggest that if one were to take a widely known scientific dichotomy, where there are two possible interpretations, that if one applied the same test to people who had analyzed data and drawn conclusions in that aspect, we would see the same brain behavior as we do in politics.

thank you for the link

[cecirdr]

I'm findng it facinating...much thanks.

Racism and Conservatism

[Valdrax]

Ever heard of the Southern Strategy? In essence, the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats switched sides over the civil rights movement. The Party of Lincoln was a liberal party, remember. Conservative Democrats revolted in the 40-60s over desegregation movements as the civil rights movement took over the Democrats, and Goldwater led the conservative push within the the Republicans that later led to Nixon courting the South by expressing support for "states rights," which in the 60s & 70s was well understood to be tacit support for segregation much like "family values" today primarily jargon for pro life and anti gay rights stances. Many Southern Democrats became life-long Republicans after that, with Strom Thurmond being the most infamous.

Overt racism is mostly dead in the Republican party as voters who have racist goals have become too much of a minority to be courted. The closest thing to overt racism lies in the kind speech used to bash welfare and programs to help the poor in right wing talk radio. They commonly use the spectre of the "lazy" and "criminal" urban poor (i.e. black people and hispanics) as a wedge to support the passage of laws that hurt the rural poor (which is a Republican base). As long as fear and disgust of the ghetto exists, people will support laws that take away programs that help them. "It's a shame, but it's all their fault for making it unuseable by abusing it." (Think of Reagan's fictional welfare queen for a good concrete example. Also go back and listen to Rush and Hannity during the weeks after Katrina.)

Remember, the Republicans and Democrats switched sides. It's not labels but values that matter. Social (not fiscal) conservatism and liberalism in my mind are best understood by mankind's innate instinct to form groups, praise the values of the group, and denigrate the values of those outside of it. Conservatives seek to "focus" the group to more closely adhere to its idealized core values and to ostracise those outside of it. They seek to strengthen "us" by driving out and defeating "them." Liberals seek to expand the groups as much as possible to make as many different people as possible "one of us." Liberals seek to eliminate the concept of "them" and suppress the natural tendency for a large enough "us" to divide into "thems" on its own. Social conservatives are insular; social liberals are embracing.

Racism is a socially conservative value just like sexism, homophobia, and religious bigotry because it forments the divide between "right-thinking people like us" and "morally or inherently inferior people like them." The reason that racism doesn't have nearly as much sway over conservative politics as it used to is because liberals (whether Republican or Democratic) won that fight. Now the primary divisive issue is homosexuality, but it's still all about the division instead of the unification. Racism and indeed all forms of social division and partitioning is an inherently conservative value.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not to long ago I had an argument with an american about the race riots in france and the american claimed that in the US such things could not happen because immigrants were integrated into society better. Any recent immigrants in america want to reply on this? Apparently the riots in LA were not related to race."

They were racial, but also class based. (Some will say it is all race or all class, I don't think the issues are separable like that.) It is a very similar thing to what goes on in parts of the US. However France may be worse because racism is not generally socially acceptable in America. Starting in the 60s the US really struggled with racial issues, but in the last decade we've gotten a good handle on them and the crime rates have dropped accordingly. Now Europe seems to be dealing with racial issues like immigration, so a lot of your crime rates seem to be on the uptick. Expect this to take about a generation to pass just like it did over here.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[pipingguy]

America's "greatest generation" now in retirement is making out like bandits because they paid very little in and are getting huge social security and medicare benefits out they didn't pay for

The "greatest generation" is the guys (from all allied countries) that went to war in 1939 and after. Are you maybe thinking of the baby boomers who "inherited" success?

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Social Security" is badly broken. It is true that politicians couldn't keep their hands out of the cookie jar. What they've done makes Enron look like bad eBay transaction.

However, even the SSA admits that it won't provide ample funds for retirees. Their site says that the benefit will amount to some 40% of the standard of living enjoyed by the beneficiary.

Social Security is welfare for senior citizens. It is also, very clearly, the "third rail" in politics. Politicians will never blame themselves for stealing money from the program and won't sell the cow that keeps giving them more money to steal. We recently saw that President Bush was unable to gain any support whatsoever for reform of Social Security. Partisian politics played a part. Scared seniors and the AARP lobbyists played a part. The aging middle-class who have paid in their entire lives don't want to spoil there benefits now and the youth can't trust anyone above 30...and justifiably so! Not a single 20-year old Senator stole money out of the SSA.

It doesn't matter whether the money was spent on pork, weapons or whatever, both parties are equally to blame and neither are willing to set the record straight and fix the real problems with Social Security. Half say that it isn't broken to begin with. The other half claim that it will die in just a few years without immediate attention. No matter what the prognosis is for this patient, one thing is clear and that is that the citizens of the USA don't have a choice but to pay the employer-enforced tax.

Like the previous poster, I'd happily settle for the return of what I've paid into the "system." As someone lucky enough to pay in the maximum each year and still have a few months at the end of the year where I don't owe the tax, I'd be ecstatic to just get HALF of what I've paid in back in a lump sum payment. Strangely, I'm allowed only $5000/year "contribution" to my tax-deferred IRA, but I "get" to pay over $18K per year to SSA...in what they claim will be a likely maximum benefit equal to a 2% return on my (forced) "investment."

While there are some limited "survivor" benefits that the SSA pays, it isn't the same thing as a "nest egg" for ones family, friends or even the girl at the topless club that does lap dances the way you like them. In other words, the government has its sticky, smelly, grotesquely annoying hand constantly stuck in my pocket and always reaching for more.

At least one position on the "advantages" of SSA are that the fund helps out those less-fortunate than me. (I guess that is why Republicans are called "selfish?") I may not get the full benefit of my contribution, but spread around in such a manner so as to completely obscure the real "cost to benefit ratio," at least I can take comfort in the understanding that this tax is just the "cost of doing business" as a US citizen. I'm really tired of hearing: "It ain't perfect, but it's a lot better than XYZ." We can assume that it will never be "perfect," but why can't it at least be fair? If I make more, I should pay more? What motivation is there for the true bottom end "class" to ever pick up their slack? What ever happened to "go a good job, work hard and you'll be rewarded for it?"

America...land of the "free" as long as you can afford it and don't mind listening to the liberal media's spewfest proclaiming their interpretation of it and selling it as fact 24x7.

less filling

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

tastes great

The tree of liberty...

[fashionfirst]

It is time to abolish both parties. Neither has the answers yet they both have been bought out by big business. It is also time to make it illegal for anyone (I speak of lobbyist for big businesses that buy laws) other than the people of this country to influence our senators and congressmen. It is time we the people are represented as was intended by our forefathers instead of this perverted systems of he who pays the most for a vote. As long as there are parties there will be divisions. As long as there are parties there will be massive corruptions, lies and mudslinging. Instead of two parties make each congressman and senator vote as he is told by those in his area for which he is elected. When he or she stops doing as they are paid to do they are removed by popular vote that can be called on by the people for the people and of the people. Term limits of 2 terms as the president is held to is also a much needed change. The system is plagued with complacent lazy men who collect a pay check and don't show up for work due to being out on their new yacht paid for by the big business that now controls their hand in our government. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time

Re:The tree of liberty...

[Anonymous Coward]

You actualy had me thinking that one day a political party may be elected who is completely (non-corrupt), cheers for your insight into the human condition. Unfortunately the people at the TOP have most likely been through these problems to the point they have often made serious mistakes whilst trying to seek what they may believe to be superior causing others who propigated many idealisms to further the mistakes in other areas, often in a realm closer to what some of us may strive to adopt. The tree of Liberty is pure and white until a confused human form thinks it understands its seed, unless it is the tree of something else...

I do not have to like Mr Bush, but he has an important job to do and as far as I am concerned he's not an idot.

Nice example

[sheldon]

And this definately goes to the lack of critical thinking which can come into play with partisanship.

Now I'm a supporter of owning guns, and certainly think they can work for self defense in some cases. that being said, John Lott's study conveniently ignored other variables such as economic conditions, additional cops on the street, etc.

I live in Minnesota. We have had a concealed carry law now in this state for about three years now. For the most part I don't think it's really caused any problems, other than some confusion and at least one dead bouncer at a bar.

But in the past year, crime has increased. Murders are up a bit, but so also are burglaries. Heck just the other night there were two armed robberies of hotels, which is something kind of unusual.

So does this disprove John Lott's theory? That armed citizens increase crime, rather than decrease? I don't think so, rather I think it's more directly related to the increased population and the decreased number of cops by comparison.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[ChrisMaple]

The idea that money could have been put aside for social security is completely bogus. In the large quantities required, removing that much money from circulation would have completely screwed the economy, so the gov't would have had to print more. The result? Same as today, with the gov't holding a large pile of green paper in a big vault. When it comes time to pay off, reverse the process.

If the gov't tried to accumulate a store of value by buying up assets (real estate, precious substances, businesses) the distortion to the economy would be even worse. In particular, it would destroy the businesses upon which the future payouts having any value would depend.

Most of what the recipients of social security receive is going to have to come out of production occurring at that time. If there isn't enough production then, no amount of government funding is going to make it happen.

The best way to assure that there will be enough for old people to survive well is to create conditions that allow the populace to become rich. This can only occur if the gov't stops draining the economy.

Well, since you explicitly asked for it....

[Jim_Callahan]

Your statement regarding "studies have shown that where politics involve more than 2 sides" is complete bullshit/pulled out of your ass/etc, as demonstrated by the fact that you're ashamed enough of the unreliability of your source not to post it. Also, stating that 'there's no politics in the US' tells us you either failed your community college polysci class miserably or just haven't bothered to learn english well enough to know what the word 'politics' means.

Regarding your comments about the US, at least it's still harder to rig an election here than in Europe. Elect the party, indeed. Pft. I've had worse ideas, but I was drunk and in grade school at the time.

Re:Well, since you explicitly asked for it....

[trezor]

Your statement regarding "studies have shown that where politics involve more than 2 sides" is complete bullshit/pulled out of your ass/etc

Indeed. In this particular case I'd refer to it as "sarcasm". But I thought that was rather obvious.

Basicly it was more of a rant against the article in general, and here seemed like the most fitting place to put it. People emotional about stuff, or emotional people in general think less coherently and logical? Wow, that's certainly news to me. lgt;/sarcasm>

And I haven't even been with that many girls!

Misanthropy?

[Loundry]

The one I live on is populated by 6 billion greedy bastards who'd just as soon watch another person starve than do anything to help them, and frequently hurt other people because it advances their goals.

That's not the planet I live on, for if we lived on the same planet, then there would be no private charities.

Here's some charities:

List of Charities

Do all those charities, say UNICEF, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, Habitat for Humanity, and so on -- do all of those charities do nothing but "watch another person starve" and "frequently hurt other people"? I believe you were trying to be inclusive of all humainity with your "6 billion people" comment and it flies in the face of that which is casually observable.

Do you just hate humanity?

Re:So you actually believe we have swing voters.

[CrazyDuke]

The problem with term limits is that as soon as you elect a polititian that supports them, they no longer support term limits.

It reminds me of people that loathe government interference in private matters, until it's their party that's in power. Then they are all for it.

Democractic Republics don't work

[drwho]

Democractic republic's don't work, this study seems to say. The masses cannot be trusted to use reason and vote for the correct candidate. Thankfully, I don't live in a Democratic Replublic, I live in the USA, which is governed by unknown superiors (cryptarchy). I, for one, salute The Cryptarchy, for without them, we wouldn't have any semblance of order and progress.

News

[Bongo Bill]

Pundits perform cognitive dissonance?

Stop the presses!

More Republican disinformation

[Kris_J]

This article is just another example of the ongoing Republican tactic of "they're as bad as us". For shame Slashdot, for shame.

Intelligent design

[Gadgycough]

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChin g.html

U cAn BeLIve WhAt U WanT! Although it may not get you what you desire!

politics = religion

[SebNukem]

I honestly think these findings can be expanded to religion. All fanatics need a fix as well.

A shining example of what the article talked about

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Yes, research funded by a group called the NRA. There is no other third party research available to support your claim.

In fact, none of it was funded by NRA.

(Some of it was funded by anti-gun groups, and at least one major researcher did a big opinion turnaround as a result of his results.)

Sorry. I'm tired of arguing over this.

Then why do you bother to respond?

You love guns. I don't. Agree? Okay good. Bye.

The base story was about research claiming that partisans, confronted by evidence, evaluate it based on emotion rather than logic, dismissing out of hand any evidence that conflicts with their political position and the releated preconceptions.

Thank you for providing such a glaring example of the behavior they describe. B-)

Re:A shining example of what the article talked ab

[bach37]

Yes, the NRA funded those "studies." This is common knowledge. I had to reply to correct your post. That's why I replied. If you want more to read, here you go:
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/02/12/08/21352 29.shtml?tid=103

This is actually one of the best debates on the topic of guns archived out there on the net, some say.

Values get in the way of objective truth

[onemorechip]

Imagine taking a time machine back 150 years, and trying to get slaveowners and abolitionists to agree on some objective facts. Both sides will adhere to their values. What objective facts would you present? Suppose you said, "We abolished slavery, and have a better society as a result." But this is not objective, because what you consider a "better society" depends on your values. Pointing out that people should be free is also a value position. You might speak of specific economic changes but those changes will not appeal to the slaveowner's values (they'll want to keep their plantations). In contrast, the fall of the plantation economy will not have negative value to the abolitionists, so where is the common ground? How do both players gain?

From the point of view of the slave states, abolition was a forced social experiment. How do you justify any social experiment with objective facts? How do you justify maintaining the status quo with objective facts? Can a society make any critical decision in a value-neutral manner?

US distorts party purpose, serving the public

[billeger]

Political parties are meant to be fundamentally grassroot organizations. As structured in their still-existing but totally ignored rules, both of our major parties are built from precincts -- neighborhoods -- where the major problems are schools, health care and potholes.

Formerly, citizens met in a sequence, precinct, county, state and national conventions where the needs of the public floated upward into platforms that determined what candidates pledged to do if elected under their party banner.

In 1948 the Southern Democrats stormed out of the national convention because they could not or would not support a tough and effective civil rights plank in the platform.

Many pundits said at the time it was the end of Harry S Truman who surprised them all and won a second term, pro-civil rights and all!

That scared the incumbent politicians who, from that day forward, began disassembling the parties. They introduced "Super Delegates" -- themselves -- to control convention committees. They weakened the requirements to do what platforms said the people needed from precincts up. Or did you think the idea of going to the moon started in Kansas?

As the "big issues of the day" grew away from local needs -- New Orleans and your town, for example -- the public became more gullible to manipulation by weakened media -- press and television -- and outright misrepresention by their leaders.

The parties you see today are totally disfunctional, unable to follow their own rules, typically unable to attract citizens to the old, now tiny, precinct meetings.

What was lost? Easy, the only system this nation ever had to control government!

If you are less than about sixty years old you don't have a chance of remembering that old party purpose, nominations by a true political party instead of a media dominated caucus or primary unattached to party control before platforms are formed.

I know how difficult it is. I'm 70. What is impossible for me is to imagine is what this country can possibly do to corral the wild stampede in Washington and most state capitols.

Don't blame the parties for what you see. The parties are the people, us guys. Blame the politicians who hacked them to death for fear "the people would tell them what to do" as we did from the founding of the country.

What Would Nietzsche Do?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once the decision has been made, close your ear even to the best counterargument: sign of a strong character. Thus an occasional will to stupidity." -- Beyond Good and Evil, Epigrams and Interludes, section 107

Why futarchy is better than democracy

[FleaPlus]

Things like this are why I think futarchy is better than democracy. With a democracy, a government tends to make decisions based on the self-deceiving ideologies of individuals, with relatively little feedback based on actual results. In a futarchy, people would vote on a measure of national welfare and prediction markets would be used to predict what policies would actually be most effective in promoting national welfare. In the past, prediction markets have been shown to be much better than opinion polls and individual experts at predicting future events.

As an example, consider the current debate over public healthcare. In the end, most people don't really care about whether healthcare is publically or privately run, they just want to be healthy. The public discourse is dominated by people who exclude contradicting evidence, who are mostly concerned with promoting their ideology. With a prediction market, people would end up having to put their money where their mouth is, encouraging them to consider contradictory evidence and make the best decision possible.

Intel and AMD

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this study also applies to Slashdot AMD and Intel fanboys.

So I wasted my money...

[onemorechip]

...on that Jump to Conclusions Mat?

You know, this might be insightful...

[Samrobb]

...if it were posted in another thread.

Given the article under discussion, though, I find myself wishing /. had an "ironic" mod.

Re:You know, this might be insightful...

[zCyl]

Well, I can see the irony you refer to, but interpretation shouldn't be blind to the facts. In fact, one could argue that if it is blind to the facts and based ONLY on pre-existing beliefs, then it is not interpretation of anything, but simply imposition of ones beliefs. Judicial interpretation should begin with the factual content of the law and a factual examination of the situation, and then it should attempt to interpret the intent of the law from within that factual framework.

Re:You know, this might be insightful...

[Samrobb]

You're making my point again :-) Your original post said:

Any interpretation process must in fact bring a bit of personal beliefs into the process, and thus, the beliefs and opinions of the justice on how areas of the law should be interpreted are everything in determining what sort of justice a person will be.

And your second post elaborates on the first, where you state:

Judicial interpretation should begin with the factual content of the law and a factual examination of the situation, and then it should attempt to interpret the intent of the law from within that factual framework.

Two contradictory statements. All the more interesting because, AFAICT, your position in the above post is identical to the original poster's argument on why Alito would make a good justice: that he is able to seperate the influence of his personal beliefs from the interpretation and application of laws within the legal framework.

Re:You know, this might be insightful...

[zCyl]

Two contradictory statements.

No, because one begins with "should begin with", and the other begins with "must in fact bring". These are two very different conditions. One declares the goal that should be strived for, and the other states the inevitable condition which must be considered when evaluating a candidate.

The underlying premise you missed, is that while people will succeed at this goal of fact-based judgment to varying degrees, no one will succeed at this completely because this is ultimately not possible as there are insufficient facts to use. Therefore, two important things to evaluate when considering a justice should be how well they manage to stick to the facts, and what their beliefs are about how things should be interpreted when there are insufficient facts.

Re:You know, this might be insightful...

[Samrobb]

And it took you two days to realize this and come up with a rebuttal? Nuh-uh. Not buying that. You made two statements that were, indeed, contradictory - go back and re-read your own words in context. That you happen to use "should" in one sentence when you used "must" in another is irrelevant - your very clearly intended that both statements be taken as existing fact. As such, your second post still contradicts your first.

Fuck the Fools

[extrasolar]

You don't get it, do you? Yes, the Republicans are evil, psychopaths and that, why that must mean that your team is right, doesn't it? It's not a false middle: it's that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are right. Neither the left nor the right possess the truth: you pretentious fool. As far as I'm concerned, you zealots have no right to speak of "the truth" at all. All you see is black versus white, us versus them, tweedle dee versus tweedle dum.

The fallacy is called false dillema you nitwit. Fuck ideology. Fuck the fools.

Burn karma burn! :)

Re:A shining example of what the article talked ab

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Yes, the NRA funded those "studies." This is common knowledge.

No, the NRA did NOT fund the studies in question, and the claim that they did is a bald-faced lie.

If you want more to read, here you go:

Pointing to a 3042-comment Slashdot argument about something as if you were pointing to evidence is really disingenuous. Sorry, but I'm not about to spend the next week wading through it to try to find the claims you were making so I can check them.

If you have any evidence that the studies by, say Kleck, Rossi & Wright, or Lott & Mustard were funded by the NRA, please post a pointer to it.

The sky

[Anonymous Coward]

But the sky is fucking BLUE. It's not blue-green.

Not at night.

voting reform now!

[ChristTrekker]

Two parties means both drift to the center and have no meaningful differences. It's a Duopoly rule. Politics is not a one-dimensional, left/right spectrum, so why do we think two parties can adequately express all points of view? Be an advocate for Condorcet Voting.

voting reform now!

[ChristTrekker]

Two parties means both drift to the center and have no meaningful differences. It's a Duopoly rule. Politics is not a one-dimensional, left/right spectrum, so why do we think two parties can adequately express all points of view? Be an advocate for Condorcet Voting.

Nations with a multi-party system often do not have a very good voting method behind it to make their selections with. For example, it's often been demonstrated that Instant Runoff Voting, though giving the appearance that third parties are given a fair shot, still leads to a two-party system. I find it extremely hard to believe that, with the multitude of political issues, most people can still fall into one of two camps. This leads me to conclude that IRV is flawed - and the math backs me up. Until a third party garners enough support to actually rival a major party, it will remain on the fringe. When it has that support, it suddenly unseats one of the major parties. It has to do with the whole concept of "elimination rounds" in any runoff system - until you have enough "primary" support to get to the final round, you don't really matter. Condorcet methods neatly solve this by realizing that your secondary-vs-tertiary preference is just as important as your primary-vs-secondary preference, and your primary-vs-tertiary preference, so it takes them all into account at the same simultaneously instead of sequentially.

I believe that with a voting system in place that rewards sincerity, politicians would be obliged to have a clear message and then stick to it.

The absurd aspect of all this...

[ncstockguy]

The absurd aspect of all this, is that elected politicians of either party, do NOT represent their constituents. They march to the drumbeat of their financial contributors. Election finance reform, REAL election finance reform is the only way the U.S. will ever return to a representative form of government. The Repubs and Demos can blather all they want about who's right or wrong. For now, they really are just mouthing slogans and platitudes. Why is it that multinational corporations, unions, professional groups and PACs can give ANY money to candidates or campaigns? They can't vote, and they are not people. Only registered voters should be able to contribute. Anyone who doesn't recognize this needs to watch The Matrix one more time and this time, think about who is really running it.

election reform about voting, not money

[ChristTrekker]

The problem isn't the money. I should be free to spend my money to support whatever cause I want - free expression.

The problem is the voting system. Plurality voting causes two-party systems, and a choice between two parties is not much of a choice at all.

Two parties means both drift to the center and have no meaningful differences. It's a Duopoly rule. Politics is not a one-dimensional, left/right spectrum, so why do we think two parties can adequately express all points of view? Be an advocate for Condorcet Voting.

I believe that with a voting system in place that rewards sincerity rather than encouraging "strategic thinking", politicians would be obliged to have a clear, distinct message and then stick to it.

Think about it - you make all candidates free to run a political race, rather than crippling those that aren't "major parties". You make all people free to donate whatever they want to getting their message out, which they have the right to do, and since there are more candidates to spread the money amongst you still don't have the huge warchests and media blitzes like you do now. The more freedom you have in the system, the better. Clamping down and making more regulations doesn't help.

need voting reform

[ChristTrekker]

Plurality voting leads to Duverger's Law - a two-party system. You're right, having a Duopoly in power means not really having any choices at all. Both drift to the middle to gain voters.

What we need is voting reform (not campaign finance reform). We need Condorcet voting. With the electorate freed up to make choices based on platforms and ideas rather than "winnability" we'll finally see honest competition and debate of issues. We need more freedom (voting reform) not less freedom (campaign finance reform).

Since the Duopoly is not going to change the system that benefits them, it's important to start voting for third parties now. Having even a few in office will allow the issue to be raised and put in the public eye. The Libertarian and Green parties endorse IRV, which is a big mistake as it's about the only well-known voting system that is actually worse than we currently have. But at least they address the issue of voting reform.

Most people don't think of the mundane issues like the process of voting, but it's very important. It has shaped the political landscape in the USA for over a hundred years.

Re:A shining example of what the article talked ab

[bach37]

Pointing to a 3042-comment Slashdot argument about something as if you were pointing to evidence is really disingenuous. Sorry, but I'm not about to spend the next week wading through it to try to find the claims you were making so I can check them.

What a newbie. This is one of the most famous /. discussions ever. If you actually read some of the comments, you will get good info on both sides of this debate. YOURS and mine. Better comments on your side than you have tried to pathetically present.

Notice how no other civilized countries in the world have people walking around armed with loaded guns (legally!). Nor is it allowed. But here in the US, Uzis, AK-47s, whatever you want is all legal to buy/sell/own. (Assualt weapons are thanks to pressure [$$$$] from the NRA of course, to extend the ban.) Guns show sales still go unchecked. Only about 10 states have any kind of laws checking records/ids at guns shows. (Guess who keeps pressuring congress from passing laws against that...hmm your friendly NRA!)

It's obvious you haven't visited Europe, or other countries for that matter. Then you see living in fear (fear of 'terror,' fear of guns, [the wrong] fear of God ('Left Behind' Evango Baptists) is what the US has become. Thank you for adding to this fear.

Before you say it, yes I AM planning on living in another country, moving in the next few years. Thank you and enjoy your guns.

that's why we need voting reform

[ChristTrekker]

Duverger's Law (two-party system) is caused by plurality voting. We could end the Duopoly if we just instituted Condorcet voting. Politics is not one-dimensional, yet so many people think of everything being neatly divided into two camps. I just don't understand that. We need a voting system that lets us honestly choose who we really want, rather than voting strategically based on "winnability" considerations. Condorcet voting would force politicians to have a clear, distinct message, and then stick to that platform.

Another Great Slashdot Summary

[mattwarden]

But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix

You know, I could go on a rant here about how ridiculous this statement is, but it's so hard to type when laughing this hard.

Quickly, though, it's also similar to what 5th graders experience when they get 100% on a spelling quiz.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[demachina]

The greatest generation retired 10-20 years ago so they missed most of the steep increases in payroll taxes, they paid very low payroll taxes, but they were the generation that started to reap the benefits of medical advances so they are living in to their 90's in many cases. They are the generation that paid the least in and got the most out.

The baby boomers are going to reap some bug windfall's too but they are just now retiring so they did pay the steeper payroll taxes for a while. In part the hikes in the 1980's were because of the baby boomers and to make them pay some before they retired. If all that surplus had gone in to an investment fund someplace so it would be there to pay for their probably long retirement it would of helped. Instead politicians mostly squandered it.

The greatest generation and the baby boomers are both winners in the current systems so in that I agree with you. Everyone following them is going to get screwed.

Re:Nice to see proven what should be common knowle

[demachina]

True to an extent but I would have been happy if the government bought its own treasury notes with it instead of depending on the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans to carry our debtor nation. At least then there would be paper there that the government is obligated to pay back in 20 years instead of NOTHING and NOTHING is what we have for all those payroll taxes.

An even more sane approach would be to adjust the payroll taxes on an annual basis so that the income more or less just covers the outlay. Sure workers are going to get hammered when the baby boomers retire because the taxes will go up, but workers would have been spared the last 20 years of gross overtaxation. With this approach the system would NEVER have surpluses for politicians to squander or short falls to bankrupt it. You would most probably have to raise the retirement age or trim benefits to allow for the fact people are living too long and the health care system is squandering far to much money going to extreme measures to keep people alive at all costs, and in fraud, waste and abuse, all of which would cause the rates to be an excessive burden in some eras without adjustment.

Better still this is an area I really would prefer that I had the ability to just opt out of this program, keep the payroll taxes in my bank account, and forego social security or medicare benefits. I would have more money during the prime of my life and if I spent and invest it wisely I would be covered if and when I made it to retirement. If I squandered it then I would pay the price for personal responsibility when I'm older.

If current trends continue we will reach a point that the young will be financially ruined just supporting a vast population of retired seniors who depend on staggering sums in health and drug benefits to keep them alive indefinitely.

In further irony the boomers and greatest generation in many cases have better financial resource of their own for retirement than younger generations do. They lived through booming economic times in the U.S. Young people today face the prospect of unemployment and declining real income as all their jobs are outsourced to cheap foreign labor. The greatest education was college educated thanks in large part to the GI bill. Todays generation face staggering higher education costs at the same time Republicans are slashing low interest loans, so higher education is increasingly only for the affluent further pushing young people out of the global labor market. I guess today's young people can still join the army and get a college education though as with the greatest generation in World War II you may also get killed, burned or go to college without some of your limbs.

Now they need to examine religions the same way

[macraig]

Yep, now they need to take their new-found understanding and examine the behavior and choices of religious people in the same fashion.

What they will find, of course, is that the two groups exhibit exactly the same brain activity and behavior.

Closed-minded fanatics of any particular stripe are a dangerous breed. They care more about what makes them "feel good" and gives them the easiest emotional reward than fairness and identifying reality and truth.

Danger of generalizations

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing few have mentioned about this MRI study is that it only tells us that those partisans who were subected to the brain scans are using emotion more than reason when parsing political flip-flops. It does not tell us that John Kerry or George Bush or anyne else who was not scanned uses the same brain functions when debating. Having said that, my other 2c would be to cncur with those slashdot readers who think partisan politics has run it's course and needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. For one thing the world is too interconnected, rapidly changing and complex for partisan sniping to get in the way of real social policy decision making. Look at the Hamas victory in the PA elections. I'll bet Bush and Co. have no idea what to do to about it, and they're too busy trying to justify warrantless "terrorist surveillance" and how to Swift Boat the opposition building up to the mid-term elections to spend time thinking about how to create a peaceful Israel-Palestinain settlement. Partisan politics is really very artificial anyway, the divide it creates is only effective for allowing brain dead voters to think in terms of balck and white. There's no subtelty, and the result is huge dissatisfaction with government to the extent that many people think government is bad (well it is at present but that need not be the case). You have to have elected representatives who care deeply about public policy in order for government to be strong, corruption-free, efficient and effective. The current crowd, whether Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian or otherwise are all ill-equipped to run such a government. The irony is that I'm generalizing here! Exactly what I started out warning against. But I'm not inferring that particular individual party politicians are bad people, I'm just arguing that anyone, even of good motivation, who tries to work in the partisan system is simply not going to be as effective as they would be if free of the artificial pidgeon-holing that party politics results in. It's not always the individual politicians who are incompetent, more often it's the broken system that they work within. I'll happily debate anyone who thinks otherwise. As evidence I would cite the rules the US houses use for creating law. They are incredibly messed up and open to corruption and allow bad law to be passed. One hardly needs to mention the crazy pork-barrel spedning bills that get passed. But the ruels for debate are absurd, the time legislators have to read bills is absurd, the amount of crap that the US rules allow to get into law is an indictment on the US system. Have any Americans actually compared the system their elected reresentatives use to say teh Westminister system for example? The Westminister system is not perfect, but it has far more rigorous debate, select committees debate every bill, the public gets a chance to make suubmittions, the bill is further debated, and then each clause is debated along before it is passed to a PM for signing. By contrast the US system seems like a kind of toy parliamentary model that might be used by kids in kindegarten.

Re:Danger of generalizations

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Bush may be reading this thread by the way, just thought I would say. Which means your/our comments probibly are not as anon as you may like them to be.

Re:Danger of generalizations

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Westminister system is not perfect"

I agree, but I am not going to or willing to debate this "fact", rather I am going steer it in the correct direction according to what I believe is correct by my own experience and perspective. If you or others feel or think I am wrong to do so I am willing to accept all sudgestions and await your valuable INPUT!

Re:A shining example of what the article talked ab

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Pointing to a 3042-comment Slashdot argument about something as if you were pointing to evidence is really disingenuous. Sorry, but I'm not about to spend the next week wading through it to try to find the claims you were making so I can check them.

What a newbie. This is one of the most famous /. discussions ever.

This "newbie" made seven of the comments in that more-than-three-years-old article. B-) Near the end, too, so you can tell I already waded through it once.

I'm not going to wade through it again to do YOUR homework for you.

If you actually read some of the comments, you will get good info on both sides of this debate. YOURS and mine.

That doesn't address my point.

  - You claimed that the NRA funded the major studies showing benefits from gun ownership and gunbearing. (A gratuitous assertion.)

  - I said that's false (gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied.) But being of open mind, I then asked you to back your claims with evidence.

  - You pointed to an enormous slashdot discussion as if it were evidence for your claim.

  - I refused to sieve through the more than 3,000 postings to try to find the evidence you claim is there, and asked you to point directly to it.

If there really IS any evidence for YOUR claim I challenge YOU to produce it, posting a direct link (or cite if it's not online) for it.

If you (or some other poster) can not do so, then I, and any other rational reader of this discussion, can safely assume that you do not have it, and that your claim is arbitrary and unsupported. (And given the number of people who would LOVE to discredit those studies, almost certainly false as well.)

The rest of your posting is a collection of red herrings. I will not be sidetracked.

Put up, or be exposed as either a dupe or bald-faced liar.

Re:A shining example of what the article talked ab

[bach37]

I'm trying to inform you of the common arguments in this debate. There are many good arguments on both sides. That slashdot story had many good comments on both sides. NOT 'EVIDENCE ON MY SIDE.' The wikipedia page has good info, perhaps laid out better for you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_U S

It is good to debate things, but to be a jerk about it (ie. MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!) is not good for debate, nor does it make you look like an intelligent person. (Even though that is Bush's motto.)

Put up, or be exposed as either a dupe or bald-faced liar.

Nor do comments like that.

If you have any dignity for yourself left, please stop.

You don't understand libertarianism

[SonicSpike]

I think you are confused about Libertarian party.... Or better yet libertarian ideals in general.

A libertarian society has nothing to do with the amount of wealth you have. It is all about individual liberties, personal responsibility, free markets, and limited government. NONE of which have anything to do with feudalism.

Besides in a libertarian society if you are not born into wealth you have the opportunity to move up into wealth in your lifetime because the government doesn't restrict class mobility like it is trying to now.

Re:You don't understand libertarianism

[Lijemo]

I'm not claiming that a feudalistic society is what Libertarians are intentionally shooting for, just that according to my understanding of libertarian ideas (and I admit my reading has been limited, so my understanding may be flawed) that's the result I see happening, intended or not.

There are things about Libertarianism that I really like, and there are things I would "borrow" from Libertarianism for my "ideal" party platform. But as a complete system, I don't see it working as intended.

because the government doesn't restrict class mobility like it is trying to now.

But my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the government also doesn't do anything to protect the "have nots" from the "haves". Thus, the version of the free-market system Libertarianim employs would be skewed in favor of those that already have more, and thus weath and power would neccesarily become more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

A friend of mine who's a Libertarian tells me that Libertarians don't even beleive in public money for education (again, let me know if I'm misinformed in that). If this is the case, that would further exagerate the differences in oppertunity between people born into privilage, and people who are not.

If I am wrong, and Libertarianism does provide safegards for people who don't have the weath to bargin on equal footing with those that do have wealth, and if it does provide for a strong public education system so that everyone at least has a shot at a decent education-- then I will revise my opinion about what the end result of Libertarianism taken to it's natural conclusion would likely be.

Too many stupid politicians

[pupupupupupupupupupu]

today... they just sit on their bums yappin' the same garbage over and over again

libertarianism

[SonicSpike]

Well first off I appreciate your ability to be somewhat open minded about this. That is more than I can say for a lot of other /.'ers.

First off it isn't the government's function to protect the classes from each other.

Secondly except in a few very rare cases (national defense, law enforcement, etc) the free market can ALWAYS do a better job of performing socities functions than the government can. It is proven fact that students who are home schooled or private schooled perform much better than those students who are educated in government schools.

Libertarians advocate the seperation of school and state. Why should the government be in the business of education? When a government has control of anything, it will typically use it to push its own ideas and agendas. Same for schools. When conservs are in power they will try to push their ideas through the school system. When liberals are in power they will push their agendas.

If the government didn't have a platform for indoctrination then there would be a lot less governmental doctrination going on. If the gov was taken out of education and all of the taxes spent on education were repealed or put back in the economy, we would see a surge in wealth in this country. That money could be then spent by parents to educate their children in whatever idealogical school they wanted. Christians could send their kids to Christian schools. Muslims could send their kids to Muslim schools. Jews could send their kdis to jewish schools. Athiests could send their kids to secular schools.

The government high school where I graduated from spent over $12,000 per student per year in their budget. The much higher rated Prepratory school down the road only cost $9,000 per student per year. If the government had not spent that money on me and repealed those taxes which funded the schools then I could've gotten a better education because my parents would've been able to afford it.

It is indeed proven that non-governmental students on average out perform governmentally educated students. Education is not a right, it is not in the Constitution, it is not guarenteed. Not in the US anyway.

But outside of education, in a free-market society anyone can start a business and begin to earn more and move out of their current class and upward.

It's pretty hard to start-up a small business with half of your yearly income taken from you. Not to mention retirement savings and building wealth.

The attitude that the government needs to "do something" or "solve problems" is sorely misguided at best, subversive to liberty at worst, and marginally socialist.

The government really has a few basic functions here in the US per the Constitution and the DoI:
Defend foreign aggressors
Provide justice
Secure inalienable rights
Ensure Domestic tranquility and general welfare
Make sure the states play nice together

Outside of those very simple and basic premises the government should keep itself limited.

When the government took a hand's off approach in the late 19th century we as a society and country saw its greatest prosperity and boom to that point. In fact the lassie-fair attitude of government actually created a revolution; the industrial revolution.

Microsoft might be a monopoly in the sense that they have over 85% of the market place, but they DO NOT have a stranglehold on the industry. They play dirty and have some very questionable predatory business practices, but they don't build hardware, and they are not the only software vendor in town. In fact you can even write your own software if you want to take the time to do so. The barriers to entry in that market are very low.

Now the prescription drug and oil industries are interesting. Why? Because they do have a stranglehold on the marketplace because the government gave it to them! It takes over 1 billion dollars and 10+ years to release a drug in this country not to mention getting the "approval" of the FDA. That is an impossible b