Slashdot Mirror
Prediction Markets and the 2008 Electoral Map
Electionwatch submitted a predicted electoral map of the 2008 US Presidential election, based on the bets made by the intrade prediction markets. I'm always interested in these markets and how accurate they end up being. This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any TV "News" channel.
He can walk on water and make the dead rise.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
I visit http://www.electoral-vote.com/ every day.
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
No matter who the people elect, the government wins.
Looks like Jesusland might get a bit smaller...
McCain 70-80% likely to pick up Florida? Obama 70-80% likely to grab Pennsylvania? Everyone is expecting those two to be big battleground states. Those probabilities seem pretty lofty to me.
My favorite political predictor site is electoral-vote.com
They use an amalgamation of national and statewide polls to show the current feeling of Americans on a wide variety of races. Including a national map with a current tally of the electoral votes right at the top.
--why?
At this point, the map might be accurate. However, I think it underestimates the appeal of Obama, and the ick factor of McCain. In a few months, this map will be mostly blue.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
I have a real hard time understanding what policies McCain is offering that are appealing to the voting public. I would like to hear a McCain supporter explain his appeal just to understand the other side of this election.
Does anyone have any insight here?
Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
For any popularity type contest from American Idol to Big Brother to the election I always look where the money's going. Usually I go to the bookies although I can't at the moment because I'm at work so let's look at who's raised more funding - that makes it look like Obama. Unscientific, but it's how I make my prediction.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
The voting results maps by COUNTY of past elections. The pattern that clearly becomes visible is that the division in the US isn't so much right versus left or conservative versus liberal but RURAL-dweller versus URBAN-dweller. Taking that a step further, have you noticed that the urbanites are usually the ones on the environmental-protection bandwagon or the consumer-protection bandwagon (read: you can't have a trike ATV). The urbanites are the ones saying that we can't drill in Alaska. I'll bet that 99.99% of them have never been to Alaska and have no clue as to how enormous the place is. "Yeah, we're going to retire all that great farm land so we can build another cloned shopping mall with the same cookie-cutter stores." "But where will your endive and cilantro salad come from?" "Don't bother me with facts, dammit!"
I guess no one told all those bitter folks clinging to their guns that Obama wants a national ban on Concealed Carry Weapons. I don't think either of those states are even close to being blue this year. Didn't the Democrats learn anything from Gore's defeat in his own home state in 2000?
Bear in mind this isn't some objective prediction, but what people think is going to happen. A lot of those people betting probably have a personal emotional investment in the outcome and are betting with their hearts, not their minds.
Just like sports betting, where folk put money on their local team regardless of whether they're any good, or back a horse because they like the name.
Wow! So it's the money, is it? That's so wise. Why, I can't imagine more than five or six billion people in this world share that knowledge. You rock!
If you interested in prediction markets, check out this wired article:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-06/st_essay
It's a good piece on some of the challenges prediction markets have: small trading populations, mostly community insiders trading on things they care/know a lot about, small stakes. It's an interesting read!
Yeah! Obama/Paul '08!
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
After only a string of 43 previous presidents, the country will finally rejoice when we elect a Christian male to the highest office in the land. It's about time! :P
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Should this map be on the Diebold site?
NPR gives you a map you can play with yourself.
The one I did a while back matches pretty close to the one in TFA. One of the main differences is that I predict Missouri will go to Obama, and New Mexico will go to McCain.
I think the race is Obama's to lose.
Proverbs 21:19
"Prediction" markets are very good at putting numbers on the conventional wisdom of who is going to win, but not that good at predicting who is actually going to win. All you have to do is look at the Obama graph on the second link. Just look at the graphs for the Democratic nomination. It 2007, intrade predicted that Clinton would be the winner.
This is not to say that they aren't valuable. They are really good at codifying who people *think* will win at any particular time, and the closer you get to the actual event, the more accurate they tend to be. I've no doubt that the night before the election, the intrade prediction will pan out, but right now, its "predictions" are fairly meaningless.
The cake is a pie
OMG teh Ron Paul just ate a sandwich. Digg it! (3339232338 Diggs)
"1. Value of the Dollar"
And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite?
"4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage"
And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
"5. Number of houses lost to predatory lenders."
I have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall. It is not our responsibility to provide a safety net for bad practices - doing so brings the whole system down, because everyone starts thinking they can make mistakes and someone will protect them from the consequences (for free at that!)
As for Iraq, all I see is a lot of empty talk from the candidates. I doubt either has a viable plan that is without dangerous consequences; they will instead elect to do nothing.
Iowa state university has a really good prediction market also.
You can see it here. . they have 2 differenent election markets.. one is winer take all and the other is vote percentage..
These numbers don't mean squat until they both select their VP's. Choosing the right, or wrong, VP can make all the difference in the world.
I remember the other predictions from 2000 and 2004, both had Bush on the losing end. I'll take these and any other predictions with a large block of salt.
Although it's not politically correct to say so, anyone who doesn't think Race is a factor need only look at this map. It looks like the North vs the South (with the West Coast siding with the North and all the plain states siding with the South)
I wonder how close such predictions have been to the actual results in past elections? I saw "past elections" on the site, but they only had past results, not past predictions.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Value of the Dollar
As the value of the dollar falls, it makes it better for those Americans who work in fields that export to other countries. So, as Ford retools its truck lines to make cars for export to Europe, would you tell them that Obama will raise the dollar so that that enterprise is unaffordable?
Similarly, you can complain about the high price of commodities, but what do you offer someone that works IN commodities. If you are a miner, an oilman, a farmer, you are making out pretty darned good in the Bush economy and you made out pretty poorly in the Dem economy under Clinton. So, what do you tell someone that works for Exxon?
# umber of people killed in Iraq
# Number of WMDs found in Iraq
All will be trumped by, number of barrels of oil pumped from Iraq.
Number of houses lost to predatory lenders - this is what deregulation is all about
Versus, how many people had their homes double in value and sold at the right time?
This is my sig.
At the Industry Standard, we have a very active prediction market based on technology predictions (Examples include Nintendo announces new DS at E3 [current community consensus 25%] and Firefox 3 out of beta by summer [current community consensus 69%]). In observing the results of the prediction markets, it is very striking how accurate they are -- of the dozens which have generated significant participation, the community has been extremely accurate in terms of picking the correct outcome. This is true even well before the predictions close and the publicly reported news/facts are more definite. I was very surprised by this. I have always been skeptical of the supposed "wisdom of the crowd" but people have proven to be accurate predictors when their opinions are taken in aggregate.
Please - if you're too dumb to understand the terms of your mortgage, then you are too dumb to own a house. I don't feel sorry for people who got a mortgage for 50%+ of their monthly income, then had their rate blow up. Let's remember that is was the Republicans AND the Democrats working together telling us that everyone is entitled to home ownership and that lenders needed to ease restrictions. I also don't feel sorry for someone who bought a house for $600k that is now worth a measly $400k. Cry me a freaking river...
1) And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite? A tax rebate check is only printed money if you are running deficits like we are under Republican rule, not if you have a surplusses like we had by the time Bill Clinton left office.
Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that
4) And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
The only alternative to letting people bankrupt themselves until they die broke, their illness untreated is to scare people with the idea of socialism. If you want to pay through the nose for health "coverage" that specifically excludes the pre-existing conditions you need it for, I support your right to do that.
It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to. All other industrialized nations provide a health care system to their citizens that actually treats their conditions rather than just extracting as much money while providing as little healthcare as possible.
5) have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall.
Falling home prices hurt everyone, not just people who took out bad loans - often while being tricked in to thinking they were agreeing to different terms. If you need to move for a job and find that your home is now worth significantly less than you paid for it, you are screwed.
At that point do you give thanks to a regulatory system that let some slimey, deceptive, piece of shit make a buck at everyone else's expense?
"You're afraid of your own dog," she cried, struggling. "Let me go. I'm coming, Fido; I'm coming."
There was another bark, and another. The old woman with a sudden wrench broke free and ran from the room. Her husband followed to the landing, and called after her appealingly as she hurried downstairs. He heard the chain rattle back and the bottom bolt drawn slowly and stiffly from the socket. Then the old woman's voice, strained and panting.
"The bolt," she cried loudly. "Come down. I can't reach it."
But her husband was on his hands and knees groping wildly on the floor in search of the paw. If he could only find it before the thing outside got in. .
There was a bit in the NY Times within the last week (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html), written by an astrophysicist, who used a new statistical technique (published in a real journal) that combines poll numbers. The point of the article was largely to chide the Dems for favoring Obama over Clinton, as based on this poll analysis technique, Clinton could beat McCain but Obama couldn't.
I'm neither a mathematician or much of a fan of any of the candidates, but it certainly sounds like they might be onto something.
Maybe Obama is exactly what we need at this time.... an ultra-liberal with no experience and a wife and preacher who hate the country. A guy who wouldn't even be were he is if he WERENT'T black.
I sure hope Israel waits until Obama is sworn in before they attack Iran. I can't WAIT to see how Obama deals with that one.
Republican excesses in areas like civil liberties and foreign policy haven't exactly won them many friends in the electorate.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Don't you mean Pat Buchanan? Oh, wait...
to take money from people they knew couldn't afford the loans.
And now the American taxpayer is stuck with the burden, while the executives reap the profits. Any you want to blame it on the people who got suckered? Please. (as in please go fuck yourself).
According to that election map, 21 states will override the will of 29 states. Those 21 states are mainly in the Pacific west and the Northeast.
The South, the Plains states, and portions of the Midwest and Southwest states do not believe in Obama. These are mostly rural and farm states.
Could it be that the data is skewed by the availability of net access?
Also, is this an indicator that those who grow most of the food do not believe that Obama will do what is in their best interest?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I think it's interesting that looking at those electoral maps prior to the bout of elections recently, MOST of our elections seem to have been assumed to be INCREDIBLY one sided. As a younger fella I never really paid attention to how skewed the elections were back in the 70s 80s and early 90s...
Why is it that the recent elections have been so CLOSE.
"This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any tv "News" channel."
Funny that you mention it. It's like the media has already decided the election by focusing on Obama, and specifically the democratic race for the past several months.
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
Prediction markets are still very "new" and participation is low. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. Primarily, prediction markets only work when there are arbitrage opportunities for individuals who actually know what's going to happen. They'll buy the security in question, and it's price will rise to the expected level. In any event - if insiders aren't controlling the price of a security then it's price won't reflect its real value.
The problem comes in when no one really knows the answer. People will buy and sell these prediction securities on hunches or what not, but the actual price will not truly be reflective of the outcome of, say, an election. Case in point, a month after John McCain had secured the Republican nomination for President, his likelihood of becoming President was still trading at around $.39 (Intrade works on fractions of a dollar). Any reasonably intelligent person should have been able to forecast this price would shoot up to at least $.45 or better once the Democrats chose a candidate - Consider that presidential elections are usually around 50/50.
The question was: why weren't people snatching these securities up like hotcakes? I still haven't been able to figure that out. But personally I think it proves the notion I heard someone else mention a while back. To paraphrase: these aren't prediction markets, they're extremely recent history markets.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I find it sad that such a determination can be made so early. To me this is clear indication of the power of the political parties and the severe problems with we have with our two party system. How can you call it an election when it can be predicted like this so accurately before most people have even started to pay attention? Depressing.
The idea that 'markets' have some kind of near-supernatural predictive power is a political opinion which has no real basis in scientific fact. Markets fail constantly, and attempts to emulate them in non-financial situations are always disasterous.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Yes, of course, and Ron Paul hasn't studied, for example, Ludwig Von Mises, Frederik Hayek, and other noted economists...
Just because he doesn't subscribe to your Keynesian theories (or whatever other current fad they taught you) doesn't mean he's wrong.
I think you'll find that many people who've actually studied economics seriously also agree with much of what he says - it's not as if he's invented a new economic theory, he is an advocate of the Austrian school of economics. Nothing to do with Ayn Rand (although there are similarities.)
But, looking at it that way might make a little harder to blindly dismiss him as trivial, wouldn't it? So, let's not do that.
http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
The book explains that people are not rational or logical especially when it comes to risk assessment. The best recent example (the book was written in 1989) is America's reaction to the 9/11 attacks. More people died of hunger that day than were killed in the attack. The US response to the attacks was totally illogical because people felt threatened and this caused them to stop using the higher levels of their brains. They instead, reverted to their reptilian "flight or fight" instincts.
Another similar (or worse) attack will most likely produce a similar response from the American people. They will stop thinking rationally, which is probably the only way the Republicans can beat Obama on November 4th.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It's amazing how on Slashdot, a completely baseless insult or accusation gets modded "insightful". Don't forget to take a jab at Ayn Rand for that extra point!
Congradulations, in one sentence you have completely discredited free market economics! Incidentally, how's that high school economics class going?
The best predictor of who will win the election is to see where the corporate money is going.
Traditionally the Republicans have been corporate America's favorite party—they unabashedly push right-wing policies favorable to corporations and the wealthy. However, when the Republicans overreach and become discredited (as now) then they're all too happy to switch to the "B" team, the Democrats. They know that the Democrats can be counted on to push the same pro-corporate agenda, only they're better at packaging it in a way that workers are willing to swallow it (eg: NAFTA).
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised nearly half a billion dollars combined, while poor li'l McCain hasn't even raised $100 million. Oh sure, Obama has received lots of little contributions, but he's swimming in money from Wall Street, lobbyists and other fat cats.
The US ruling class recognizes that the Republican party has blown it and they're switching to the Democrats (for now), which is the safe bet. The money doesn't lie. Another indicator is that nearly one in seven Republican incumbents are retiring.
I can't say I completely agree with the prediction that the GOP is going to have its usual steamrolller victories in the south. Most southern, hell, all republicans aren't all that enthusiastic about McCain. He is a hard candidate when it comes to polarizing your voter base. Simply put if the commies and pro-Antichrist liberals decided to take over America and turn your children into gay socialist, they don't believe he would do a whole lot to turn the tide.
Also, no one seems to notice that there are plenty of black voters in the south. Contrary to what many in the media would have you believe, black voters aren't afraid to go to the polls; Sheriff Cracker hasn't been at the polls with his shotgun in a long, long time. The problem is that they, like every other voter group, seldom have a reason to go.
In the last hour and a half, my post has gone from +2 to +5 and back at least 3 times!
You're right. Even if it were white vs. white, it would still look like the Jesusland map.
We all know studying "Noted Experts" is only the first step of true knowledge.
THe Free Market when it exists is HIGHLY destructive to PEOPLE, yeah profits for a few skyrocket but monopolies(some subtle) are created and they damage everything they touch until some radical comes along and breaks it up(for a time).
So for your attack on Keynes please show me a BETTER example of economic thought where ALL hard working people are rewarded, and not just a few at the top. Regulation is blunt against greed(its not perfect but what is).
As to Hayek forgive me if the economist who bent over backwards to support Pinochet in Argentina ranks fairly low on my Useful Human Scale and we know how well THEIR economy did after implementing the Free Market.
Maybe the "invisble hand" will save us all
The republicans know that misinformation will sway people. All the facts in the world can't keep up with lies.
So what if you are proven wrong later, the point is to say what you want to be true loud as possible, and even if half the people find out its a lie, you've gotten the other half.
Compare this for example:
Snope.com shows this for emails and spam received about McCain; 3 articals, 2 true, 1 partialy true but the lie was swayed toward McCain.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp
While it shows this for Obama.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
_________________
I'm not saying the rep party is sending these out or any such tinfoil hat nonsense, I'm saying look at the mentality that shows.
This spam email hits enough people who take it as fact that it is effecting things. (How many people still belive we swallow dozens of spiders a year while sleeping?)
Just food for thought.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
As an Ohioan, seeing the lack of jobs around here for a long time, and after Obama's double speak to Canada just a few days before our election day, he has no chance of taking Ohio. Zero. Hillary might have been able to pull it off, but you can already give these electoral votes to McCain since she's no longer running. You can play with the numbers all you want but it's a done deal. Mark my words: It won't even be close here. McCain will take Ohio by double digits.
/. given the way it obviously leans here. After all, if /. represented the general population, we'd have a race more like Kucinich vs. Ron Paul!
Pennsylvania will be more interesting, though. Obama shot himself in the foot there as well with Bittergate, but he at least has some shot there. A lot of things may depend on who Obama / McCain pick for running mates, and after all, we still have several months till November, so almost anything can happen!
Anyway, I don't take much faith in getting political news from a site like
While the Austrian school economists are a step up, they still have an inordinate fondness for self-evident propositions that aren't self-evident (particularly, the action axiom). Unprovable statements that one claims are "self-evident" is just a disease of rational thought.
"Or, if such a treatment does not exist they can just let the illness kill them. Why do you tip-toe around that?"
I didn't. I covered that in the very next sentence, which you conveniently disregarded.......
"I'm not even going to get in to the tortured logic that somehow equates economy stimulating rebate checks for people to printing money, but sees printing money to pay for a war we can not afford as "putting money in the system"."
OK, so say it with me: "I am purposely ignoring part of your argument."
"I would rather watch someone die of a treatable illness than to chip in for their treatment. "
If you want to chip in, feel free to. Don't force everyone else to because of your personal opinion on the matter.
"Or, if such a treatment does not exist they can just let the illness kill them. Why do you tip-toe around that?"
I didn't. I covered that in the very next sentence, which you conveniently disregarded.......
the next sentance being...
If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public (which is at the root of your concern), then such laws should be overturned, allowing less expensive treatments to exist.
Where in that sentance did you say that you would rather let people die of treatable illness than chip in for their treatment? It seems to me to be some nonsensical scheme whereby the government can just will cheaper healthcare in to existance. What laws are you talking about overturning? How would they even make a dent in real health care costs? Are you fucking nuts??
OK, so say it with me: "I am purposely ignoring part of your argument."
That part of your argument is just so nonsensical that it is not worth my time to argue with it. I'm just going to ignore it.
This shit is legit, mod parent up!!!
You said: "if such a treatment does not exist..."
I said: "If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public..."
What I am saying is that this is the case and laws need to be overturned to permit private organizations to provide services currently being provided by government-backed monopolies, just as is the case with ISPs.
"It seems to me to be some nonsensical scheme whereby the government can just will cheaper healthcare in to existance."
No, it is not by government will, but by the removal of government will that competition leads to cheaper healthcare. Read up on the history of Blue Cross / Blue Shield for an example of a government-funded healthcare monopoly destroying and remolding competition.
"That part of your argument is just so nonsensical..."
A pithy statement backed by no rationale whatsoever. Which part(s) is nonsensical and why? Is all of it nonsensical? If so, then where does the breakdown in logic occur? Between certain sentences? Which sentences?
As I remember, Ron Paul got more money from more individual Americans than any other Republican nominee.
So "follow the money" would indicate Paul.
However, "follow the New Hampshire Primaries" and "follow the Nevada Caucus" indicates that Ron Paul can even get the votes of those who voted for him.
So I'd say that the scientific answer is "McCain".
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Well, I had it explained to me in a way that made a lot of sense, and I have (little) sympathy. I have seen predatory lending practices, but I don't personally see that as what happened in this case either, particularly when interest rates have continued to go down. So it seems to have gone like this:
;) to make some money? The small banks were just playing the market; they did their homework, and came out on top. Further, they extended home ownership opportunities that wouldn't have otherwise been available in a more conservative market. So what is the big deal? That is the cost of freedom. I want to own a home, but not in this market. I could even get a home loan, but only because I know some banks that are more shady than others. There are all kinds of risks at every level people can take at any time. There is no law that says "You must own a house" or "Only lend to the rich", and this is the kind of situation we end up with sometimes.
1) Local banks make conservative loans based on good data to protect their own investors
2) Recession kicks in and more people are saving, putting more money into conservative investments with big banks
3) Big banks are more desperate to loan out money and rather than make direct loans they buy up mortgages from small banks.
4) Small banks looking to make a quick turn around investment start taking on very risky loans (lending money to people that SHOULD NOT be borrowing money) offsetting the risk with the knowledge that a big bank will buy out the loan anyway. Meanwhile the big banks assume they are buying out loans from banks that were risking their own money.
5) People that couldn't afford their mortgages to begin with didn't pay them, but their bank already made the money off the loan.
6) Greedy suckers that naively bought up every loan without considering the risk are stuck.
There are problems that can occur that are beyond people's control that deserve sympathy, but saving people that took loans they could not afford, and big banks that likely drastically reduced their overhead cost in the short term
If we want to safely extend opportunities to underprivileged, why not extend opportunities to poor people (or anyone for that matter) BEFORE they sign their lives away a loan they SHOULD have understood the terms of. Spend the money on educating people about mortgages and credit cards. Set aside money for first time home buyers to subsidize interest (People should save for their down payment because if you can't save for a down payment, why should you be trusted with making a house payment when you have already proven you can't even make a payment into a savings account). This would reward making payments and being responsible.
When giving money to people for taking on a risk that they should have not made, what kind of message does that send to people that knew better than to buy more than they could afford.
btw, I know there is a lot of societal pressure to own a home, and have difficulties with managing their money well, and want to do the best for their families even at a high risk. The above is just what I have considered when making choices for my own family.
I've been married for some time, and I know I have taken on certain kinds of risks for the sake of doing better for my family I would not have made when single. But I got the same notices and offers for credit as everyone else. It was VERY tempting, but I knew it was selfish and thought either "This bank doesn't know me very well", or "These banks are trying to pull some kind of scam". The reality was I knew I could afford the mortgage, kinda, but I am not so stable or financially secure enough to know I could afford the entire term of the loan. I did not know I could make every payment, even if I was pretty sure about the first 12. I just told myself I simply couldn't risk my family on too many unknown factors. I was (and am) much better off renting for now. Preferably, I need to be in a situation where my income is 3x the mortgage.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
that elections can be called off and military rule can be applied. Then we can get our troops back to position them all over America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's an absolutely horrible assumption. I happen to live in small-town Alaska, but by no means am I a country bumpkin. I live there because I want to, not because I have to. Many in this area vote for the candidate that stays out of their lives the most, be it Demican or Republicrat. Not like there's much of a difference these days.
Either way, the idea that voters somehow have superior beliefs and or logistical reasoning skills simply because they live within a city boundary is absurd.
Parent should be modded troll, not insightful.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
Anyone else have trouble following that map. Red states usually denotes a Democratic win.
When I read(and re-read) this post it seemed like DrJimbo was saying more people in the US died from hunger in the course of their illogical response to 9/11. I just wanted to point out that this is not the case, this just refers to the fact that there are more people in the world who die from starvation everyday then who died in the WTC attack on 9/11.
So once again, regulation is the problem. Where have we heard that before?
I wonder what the health care equivalent of a deceptively marketed adjustable rate mortgage that the "bank" knows (or should know) the borrower can not afford, but the borrower is tricked in to blieving he can afford?
It's an individual health "care" plan that costs a fortune and doesn't cover the pre-existing conditions that you need it for. This is the only option for many people. No health care company wants to offer the coverage/price that these people need to survive because it would cost them money.
And your solution is to remove barriers of competition? Nobody wants to insure these people, but you think if a few rugulations I've never heard of were overturned these people would magically get treatment?
It's not going to happen. What you have offered is a non-solution that almost sounds like a solution. It is the standard politically correct way of obfuscating the monst important element of the current system:
At the end of the day, if you can't pay for your treatment, you are left to die.
A 70-year strong fad is one hell of a fad.
The best recent example (the book was written in 1989) is America's reaction to the 9/11 attacks. More people died of hunger that day than were killed in the attack.
In the US? I'm calling BS on that one unless you have some stats that prove otherwise. The most commonly used number is 24,000 world-wide which the vast amount is going to be in 3rd world countries. And you can hardly compare the effect on having 3,000+ of your countrymen killed vs. a worldwide, mostly anonymous group of people. And this was the largest attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor. Had it happened later in the day, even more would have died.
The US response to the attacks was totally illogical because people felt threatened and this caused them to stop using the higher levels of their brains.
So-called "higher levels of their brains" simply suggests that you then turn around and reason with those who attacked you. (And this is WHY most Americans don't trust democrats when it comes to national security.) That's like being bitten by a snake. I do not turn around and reason with the snake. I cut its head off.
I might remind you that the "intellectual classes" are the FIRST people who are off'd after a military coup. Not because of their intelligence, but because they are quick and easy prey who only realize their mistake when it's too late. Stalin called them "useful idiots." OTOH, those so-called "reptilian flight or fight" instincts have a lot to be said for and have kept our butts alive for millions of years.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
No Pat Buchanan makes Ron Paul look like mainstream in comparison.
I'm not sure if it was from the Pentagon papers, but Chomsky gave a talk where he discussed the CIA's incompetence and outright idiocy while they were trying to figure out if China or Russia was sending Ho Chi Minh orders in the 60s.
They chased down every lead, and the most they ever found was a Russian newspaper in a Vietnamese embassy. Their conclusion? Ho Chi Minh was such a dedicated communist client that they didn't even need to send orders. Ho Chi Minh just "knew what to do."
I also recently finished watching "RFK Must Die," and at this point, we just need to wipe the whole intelligence community out the door and start over again.
Dude, you're not thinking clearly. Commercial transactions don't capture all value.
I live in a city. When there are a ton of desperate poor around, it affects my quality of life. I can't go outside at night.
By myself, I cannot do a damn thing to change this: I do not have the resources. If we want to change the city, we require collective action. Government is the means by which collective action is achieved.
If an epidemic spreads through the city, simply having enough money to pay for my own medical bills isn't enough. No: What was really needed was for the first poor schmuck who caught the disease to begin with and started spreading it around to have received adequate medical care before the situation ballooned out of control.
Libertarianism is dogs eating dogs. You might win, but it won't have been very pleasant for you even if you do.
Obama going to win, because he is taller, better looking and great at giving speeches. It does not matter about the who is better qualify or will do a better job. I just hope they just do not press the big red button.
Time to sing a song "Smiling Faces Sometimes".
Tax "rebates" are NOT free money it is a loan on your taxes for next year. It is YOUR MONEY (unless you manage to make below a taxable income.) Talk to a tax expert, I did.
They get the rebate money back from you.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"So once again, regulation is the problem. Where have we heard that before?"
Is that statement a rebuttal/refutation of any part of my post? If so, which parts. If not, why include it?
"Nobody wants to insure these people"
What is the source for this conclusion? And if you think certain people are not getting emergency protection because no company wants to provide it, why not donate to companies (or help start your own) that will provide it for these people? If that is the cause you want to support, then feel free to support it, but don't force everyone else to.
"At the end of the day, if you can't pay for your treatment, you are left to die."
No, there are plenty of other options that I have already covered and you have yet to reply to. You may have characterized them as non-solutions, but you have not shown why such a characterization is valid.
Your assumption and your misunderstanding of seven simple words combined with the visceral attacks in the rest of your response are an excellent example of the point I was trying to make. Thank you for your help.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
There are good stats; however, the USA seems to run on bad stats.
Unemployment is a BOGUS stat and that was before Bush made the math worse so he would look better. Its highly likely that unemployment is near DOUBLE the official rate.
The USA stat is based on people collecting unemployment; which they only do for a short period of time, if they even collect it at all (+number games +bush's new rules.)
Inflation is NOT reported anymore its also HIGHER than the numbers on TV. Economic growth is poorly measured in ways that do not reflect the life of MOST citizens. A better measure is what % of income it takes to buy a basic new car - but that isn't saying much.
Seriously, measuring the median of inflation adjusted income growth would make sense for economic growth.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Yup, that worked in 2004...
Who said I was single? People moved their families around for jobs all the time.
Besides, who put a gun to these folks' heads and made them take on a mortgage they couldn't afford in case of a rainy day? Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for people who make bad life decisions -- especially those which are monetary in nature -- and then expect others to pay for the consequences of their actions.
The fedguv used my taxes to build a road network that limits access to good jobs to those people with a car, and now they demand that I pay a bookie (insurance company) in order to be allowed to drive a car on said road network. My insurance premiums aren't used to lower my tax load when I drive safely, or to fix the roads, instead the insurance profits are used by lobbying organizations to make government less responsive to my individual needs. Men with guns, and the legal right to shoot me if I kick back, are used to keep me paying and driving "by the rules".
This is the way ALL the so-called "privatized" services that neo-cons, Randites, and the other blue-sky lassiez faire dreamers want to institute will work. That's certainly the way all the ones that CURRENTLY exist work.
"Privatization" just means hiding crimes by eradicating elective oversight, it doesn't mean a fair market.
There is something to say for living in rural areas. I would challenge your statement in saying it is urban dwellers who keep voting in people whose means of power is keeping them in poverty while picking good politically correct scapegoats as being the true source. In other words, it is cities which have be dieing under oppressive taxations and rules and rural areas expanded because people left. Look to the cities of the north and ask what the failing ones have in common.
What they have in common is politicians promising more benefits further trapping people in the endless cycle of relying on government to solve their problems. This requires money which in turn indirectly raises the cost of living in the city further putting the very same people being helped further behind or barely holding on. Instead of seeing a real need to help themselves they maintain the status quo because it is easier and less risky.
Given the choice, which I do have and have made, I will not live in any urban center. The elected officials in my county are far more responsive to our needs because in many cases we know them. Even in the large county I live it they reflect more on the average person. We have less burdensome governments which are the only expanding workforce in the US for the most part. These employees are pretty much dead set into keeping the people providing them jobs in office.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Using the Intrade data is interesting, so it's too bad that the author then just throws out the probabilities. He just counts the higher-probability outcome in each state as if it's certain to happen.
The result is that the map is telling us the maximum-likelihood outcome in terms of which states go to who. This one outcome happens to be one that Obama wins. But it doesn't tell us the probability of Obama winning over all outcomes.
What I'd like to see is this data fed into a model that simulates many possible elections, like the one at fivethirtyeight.com.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
I just wanted to take the time to let you know that you are putting on one of the best, longest running, most entertaining examples of pure trolling I've seen on Slashdot in a long while. I thought this kind of thing was lost to our society, like Greek fire or something.
You've scored more points in the point-by-point rebuttal category alone than most trolls score across the board. Easily the best in the last 5 years.
Seriously, man, bravo. It rouses the old Adequacy spirit in me.
Obama is very much an "American Idol" candidate. What has he really said? His choice of VP is going to be very important because it will tell us if he truly will be independent of the powers of DC or just a tool run over by advisers smarter than him. He also is most likely going face a Democratic dominated Congress and Bill Clinton didn't have a good time with that situation because as of late when one party has a real majority they tend to run amok, ignoring the President even if from the same party. He isn't very good off the teleprompter with unprepared speeches or replies. It was evident during the debates but he was Kennedy to Clinton's Nixon. He is driving forward on a carefully projected personality speaking in generalizations so as not to step on toes.
What of McCain? I don't know, I don't like him for some of the same reasons I don't like Obama. I certain don't give any faith in his ability as like Obama he is from Congress and those nuts make Bush look fiscally responsible.
Frankly I think our choices suck, if you can call it a choice. When there are two parties there is no choice. They are both to similar to matter. The only difference comes in what they plan to do, not what they end up doing. What really matters is which one will stand up to Congress instead of just going along with them in the stupid hope of getting what they want some of the time.
I would have thought Clinton the better of choices for Democrats but that is simply from an experience and drive history. She is strong enough to stand up to Pelosi and Obama hasn't proven that he can or will. It is just as likely he will be run over by her.
Still by your use of "ick factor" there would be no point for any McCain supporter to respond you, you already gave clear indication that the discussion was over before it started.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Fear Him!!! Obama! Master of the Ice Zombies!!!
But three words come to mind... Dewey defeats Truman. You really have to watch to see how this all plays out before calling the election.
Or yellow.
They don't need to suspend elections with black box hacked voting and high level media manipulation, ie. picking the globalist approved candidates to give coverage to, and instantly labeling all the others as "fringe" right off the bat. Advertising/propaganda *works*, at least to a large enough extent that they can do whatever they want to do all the time, and real laws and the real constitution gets ignored. And even if they get found out in lies or illegalities, again, nothing happens, because we have a paper tiger toothless congress that is mostly compromised and an executive branch that just issues orders at random through EOs and "signing statements" and so on, and has all the official guns and "no questions asked" order followers to back those orders and edicts up.
But members of the public should not be forced to give up some of their own productivity (in the form of money) to support such individuals when they become unproductive.
Generally speaking, when people find that they aren't earning a living (either through inability or unwillingness) they turn to crime.
Of course, we have law enforcement for that. We also have some of the most overcrowded prisons on the planet.
If an economy is seeing growth in the numbers of people who cannot/willnot support themselves, that same economy will start to experience increases in crime. There is a point at which law enforcement will not be effective in keeping it under control.
Now, I ask you, would you rather subsidize the income of the poor to keep them out of prison, or let them go to jail where you pay for all their needs entirely?
And further, would you rather subsidize the poor, or get mugged and/or hurt?
Honestly, I don't care what your preference is. I don't want overcrowded prisons, and I don't want to get mugged and/or hurt. Therefore, I have no problem at all spending my money and taxing yours to prevent it.
All that the Republicans need to do to win this election is to continually refer to Obama by his full name. A pity for the Democrats that McCain's middle name is --Oven Chip--, sorry, Sidney.
"Oh wait what's that? I hope you're not going to point so some silly paper like the constitution now, because it's the same silly paper that imposes taxes on you."
Appeal to authority. You're either making that fallacy, or you're assuming both that the government grants natural rights, and that property rights never existed before the Constitution. Both assumptions are incorrect.
"Tell the IRS that next time you see them."
My purpose in this discussion is not to get everyone to picket some government agency - that would be pointless and temporary - but to help move people toward once again wanting their rights to be upheld, with the eventual goal of bringing about candidates who support those rights and overturn laws and pass legislation accordingly.
"Ok, fire insurance is individual but tell me how a fire department is supposed to work... [snip]"
That one's easy, as there is a long history of private fire services (fire brigades). Modeling after those would be a good start. Certain individuals in communities at some point thought that it could be done better or cheaper with public funds, and the idea caught on. That doesn't make it true or justified.
"Are they going to check which tenants in my building have paid their fire department subscription, and save only those apartments?
You live in an apartment. Your landlord would decide what company to go with, and allocate part of your rent toward paying for that service. So your whole apartment would be covered. If you don't like your landlord's terms, you can find another apartment complex or move into a house and get your own insurance. If you don't want insurance, that is once again your choice, but it is a choice that will put you at some amount of risk depending on your specific circumstances.
Notice how all of these are freely-made choices, and how none of that freedom exists in a public service where comparable private services are prohibited from existing.
"So far, the track record is that you have zero control unless backed by law."
According to what evidence? Unless forced, you need not give up any of your information. Only a government can provide force, correct? If an insurer refuses to tell you what they will do with your information, do not sign the contract. If someone spreads your information without your consent, sue them for restitution. That is entirely different from a law requiring companies to do for you what you should be doing yourself.
"Is there any color except black and white in your world?"
A rights violation is a rights violation, no matter how you sugar-coat it. You can choose to ignore violations you believe are minor, but it is to your own detriment in the long run.
That's like being bitten by a snake. I do not turn around and reason with the snake. I cut its head off.
Yes, we should NEVER reason with people, only chop their heads off. Perhaps understanding WHY 9/11 happened would have been a good thing, it would have probably have been better to do that before ensuring that more people want to blow us up.
snakes != collections of people
I might remind you that the "intellectual classes" are the FIRST people who are off'd after a military coup. Not because of their intelligence, but because they are quick and easy prey who only realize their mistake when it's too late. Stalin called them "useful idiots." OTOH, those so-called "reptilian flight or fight" instincts have a lot to be said for and have kept our butts alive for millions of years.
Anti-intellectual movements FTW! Look what electing a moron (which is the opposite of intellectual) got us. I don't want "folk" running our country, folk are ignorant, superstitious, illiterate, yokels, with no ability to reason in advance, or ponder consequences of their actions.
No one in power should be common. My experience with the common, non-educated, man is not encouraging.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'm not saying that the points about a weak market being a poor predictor are wrong, but from the comments regarding the NH primary it seems that the author has entirely failed to grasp how these markets work. If the Met Office says there is a 91% chance of rain tomorrow and it happens to stay dry, does he see this as an indication that their models are suddenly faulty, especially as the last 9 times they gave this forecast it pissed down?
[ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
Your comment, though facetious, really does sum up how many of the Obamamaniacs view their 'messiah.' On a related note, has anybody else noticed that slashdot tends to transform itself into a bastion of the far left a few months before major elections? I think that it's really amazing that the demographics of this site shift so much and so predictably that way. It's almost unbelievable how the libertarian contingent that is evident on slashdot the rest of the time seems to fade away under a sea of socialist and collectivist rhetoric. It's almost like a bunch of new people flood in just before elections, radically change the tone of the dialog, then disappear after the elections are over. I wonder who would do that? I'm probably just paranoid, right? I'm sure someone will helpfully point that out to me very soon.
If we're talking popularity and you're an Obama supporter need only worry about what happens after he's in office.
Uh, pardon me for asking, but what the hell does this have to with slashdot?
That is a terrible argument. My thoughts are rational. I have control over whether or not I starve. I do not have control over whether or not some towel head flys a plane or drives a car bomb into my place of work. I know there is a greater chance of the government taking my money for something I do not believe in then a company taking my money for a product I do not want to buy.
... me?"
I am rational, I am looking at the government to protect me from problems I cannot solve as an individual, nothing more.
I solved the gas problem by moving closer to my place of work, switching to a 4 day work week, etc.
I solved my health care problem by opening a health savings account for myself and my wife. I spend less for top of the line healthcare then I do in taxes and I am the diabetec Type I Democrats always talk about wanting to help. Do me a favor please, I beg of you "Don't help me pay for my insulin supplies. Free health care is simply to expensive for me."
I solved my food and shelter problems by getting a job and living within my means. Eating at home and moving to Texas where housing prices are relatively cheap.
I have solved my retirement problem by spending less then I earn and building up savings.
I solved the problem of criminals trying to take by stuff by buying a gun and learning how to use it.
What I cannot stop is some bigot who believes in oppressing women from trying to blow my wife up because she is shopping in a mall that Alah would not approve of. What I cannot do is get Barbara Olson back after Muslims flew her plane into the Pentagon.
The government is supposed to provide a common defense. What I need the government to do is close the border and keep people who hate America out of our country by doing background checks on all legal immigrants who come here and making sure they go back when they are supposed too.
It is very rational thought.
What I see as irrational are Obama sayings like "Only through collective salvation can we achieve personal salvation".
On the surface liberals think, that is so good, because it means that if I mess around and do not save for retirement or work as hard as my neighbors, then I can live off the people around me." and Ithey clap and cheer for "Oh, Oh, Oh".
It is they who never think rationally and say "Hey wait that is an unjust system, why should I have my achievements taxed higher to support the people around me who refuse to work,? Why should my individual prosperity be tired to others instead of being tied to how much I work and contribute to society? Shouldn't my salvation be tied to
The irrational part of socialism or communism is that it removes the humanity from living. What is the point of living if there is not struggle? Collectivism is irrational, there are not collectist examples from nature, in nature, there are dominant males, in evolution (that liberals love so much) the core point is natural selection, so why do they push to remove it from our society?
The only collective natural examples are with perfectly equal members and let me tell you something, people may be born equal, but they do not end up equal.
Collectivism is irrational.
Respect the Constitution
Seconded - raise this guy up to +6 -- society exists to serve the individual, not the other way around. If there is such a benefit to feeding the poor blah blah blah, what makes you think a libertarian *wouldn't* do this? Why is it necessary to actually force at gun point collections, with absolutely no oversight by the people actually paying into the system. I for one, DO NOT WANT 50% of my collections going to fund the military industrial complex.
Nor do I want half the crap that is currently criminal to be criminal -- there is something *really* wrong with a society when 99.999999% of its citizens are criminals in some form (violating a criminal code). The percentage should be significantly lower (10% say), and it should be reserved for the serious shit like rape, pillage, war-profiteering, bullying, home invasion and the state/business should make absolutely *no money whatsoever* off of it etc. The fact semebody downloaded a video (THEY ALREADY OWN WTF?!), took a piss on the side of a building, ran over your petunias, went whoring, took a crap on the front porch of your church, sold some software against the EULA, burned a flag, fucked somebody in the ass, smoked crack, spoke up about how fucked up the current situation is, blew a whistle on illegal wiretaps etc SHOULD NOT BE CRIMINAL OFFENSES.
Hell yelling fire in a crowded theatre in my opinion should be protected - gets rid of the idiots that panic without confirming there is a problem (or rather thats the price I'm willing to pay so that I WILL NEVER FUCKING HEAR THE WORDS: its not protected by freedom of speech!).
Really gentlemen, ladies. Grow up. Your all (presumeablely) 20+ - time to gain a little perspective on life and grow a backbone and take some personal responsibility for that waste of an existance you try passing off as a life.
Yeah yeah, flamebait +0 - but you know what, I ain't going nowhere, and my viewpoints ain't changing anytime soon
and whether you like it or not, I'm in your rotting cesspool of a system and at some point you're gonna have
to get over your bougiousie mentality and your sunday church I-got-a-right-not-be-offended and deal with somebody
like me.
In the words of Jim Morrison, look-out there's somebody coming and there's nothing you can do about it!
And in case you're curious yeah I am community and civic-minded I just dont think its your
(or by virtue of a gun, the governments) place to be telling me where I should be spending my monies.
That isn't limited to welfare, death tax etc - if your service is so necessary I should be kicking in
*anyway*, if its so good, I should be happy to give.
Your forced intercession in my affairs is NEVER wanted, NEVER wauranted and will ALWAYS elicit hositility.
If you want something from me, ASK and I'll prolly give it to you.
Can't really blame congress when Bush waves the veto stick every other day.
How long was it into Bush's presidency until he made his FIRST veto? Oh that's right...2006.
Living With a Nerd
You should check out A Mencken Chrestomathy, you'd agree with much of what he says, even though it was written 70-90 years ago.
Indeed, however tobacco killed over 10 times more people than terrorism in the USA alone in September 2001. In the first week of July 2005, 52 people died on the London Underground. 61 people died on UK roads. One of those events had wall to wall media coverage, and people decided to commute by road rather than tube as it was "safer". An order of magnitude more people died on London roads in 2005 than on London public transport. The more bombings you get, the less people are bothered, its when something unsual happens -- like when the IRA murdered two kids in Warrington in 93, that people are shocked and will change their lives slightly. Everyone I knew was back in Manchester the week after the 96 bomb, it was just one of those things that had was a (not so) slim chance of happening to a given person, like car crashes or smoking.
In a libertarian country, who would prevent the Mafia from taking over? Certainly not the government, which would be so tiny it may as well not exist. Most libertarians have never even considered this vital question. The question is of primary importance because it directly addresses the stability and therefore the durability of a libertarian society.
A few might offer up the feeble answer, "hire a private security firm against the Mafia", but this is not looking far enough ahead. Nothing would prevent these firms from merging with each other or with the Mafia, and growing ever more powerful. And as history teaches us again and again, power corrupts. Eventually, some sufficently merged security firm would become your lord and master, and you would be at its mercy.
Isn't it obvious how easily a libertarian society could descend to feudalism or fascism?
it's the rapid rising of home prices that has hurt. that is what makes us all poorer and contributes to inflation. like gas prices. how can anything being MORE expensive help? sure if you want to sell your house it hurts, but tough shit. when you bought your house, you obviously decided that it was worth the price you paid for it. just because that value goes down doesn't give you the right to bitch. you chose to live there. the only ones who have benefited from rising home costs are investors. homes shouldn't exist as a tool for investors. that can be a symptom, fine, but they exist to provide shelter. how would it be a good thing that people cannot afford them? investment is only secondary. or should be. also in terms of the economy, the credit crunch and the construction industry are directly affected by the high value of homes. now the banks allowed this to happen, or more specifically, the lack of a fool-proof self-preserving system, but regardless this is the problem. i welcome low home prices. not only so i can afford one some day, but so anybody else can as well. when prices come down people will afford them and construction will increase and the economy can be normal again.
It's easy to poll well when the race hasn't even begun in earnest yet and you were only beating down someone who had the highest unfavorable ratings ever to run for president.
Once people actually start critiquing Obama for his socialist policies, once true dialog across the left and the right starts happening, then the race will tighten up. Like may only be possible in America anymore, it will be within 2 or 3 percentage points nationally.
New laws that allows pres to deploy troops inside of USA AND in an emergency as deemed by the pres, he may apply military law, including suspending elections. I am not certain what Military would do, if they would accept such an assignment, but ...
Exactly! People only seem to "care" when it is with other people's money. Even if they do pay taxes, they don't pay as much as the "evil" rich. I always tell people that if they are really concerned about people's well-being, then give to charities that are accountable. If you don't have money, give time. The United States is the most individually charitable nation in the world in time and money. If they government comes stomping in, the charities will go away. Do we expect the government to be as accountable as a "market" of charities.
This is sooooooo much better a system than having a faceless, monolithic government handle the problem as they intrude on our rights.
The fortunate thing is that I do believe a forced national health system would be unconstitutional in the US. The federal government has no right to get in the way of health services. I think there was a court case in one of Canada's provinces that found the same thing under their constitution --private health care is legal. In that case we will end up with a two tier system like that in England. NHS -- The one that is running out of money and telling people they won't treat them if they smoked cigarettes for very many years.
Insightful. That's a good description of the problems we have. I have an unusual solution in mind.
When I hear people talk about conservative bias or liberal bias in the media, I wish they were right. Bias would be an improvement over what we have now. Biased people have some incentive to dig up facts if that will help them persuade people. The US court system is built on the theory that two attorneys, biased in opposite directions, will between them dig up enough truth to serve the interests of justice. That requires a referee and has notorious breakdowns, but it does sort of work.
The Economist is biased. They're up front about their biases and will call a policy "lunatic" in a news article if that's what they believe. They also hire reporters who go out and get stories.
I'll take bias, preferably with honesty but in a pinch just with testability, over the mindless distractions we have now.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Your blind trust and worship of the government is both frightening and dangerous. Sure, a properly functioning government will safeguard the rights and liberties of its citizens, but no government that its citizens blindly trust and thoughtlessly follow will remain functional for long. Government is composed of human beings and is not at all immune to being corrupted by the same type of greed and lust for power that you can find in the corporate world. Even the best run government is not your friend and will only do what is legally required (and that which it is bureaucratically capable of) to protect you. You, and not anyone else - even the government, are ultimately responsible for your own life and the way it turns out.
If you are foolish enough to trust government to protect you from all the baddies out there whilst simultaneously being blind to the very real danger that a government with too much power or too broad a scope of authority represents then you're just begging to be taken advantage of. Looking at the EU and the UK, something tells me you won't have long to wait, either.
Congradulations, in one sentence you have completely discredited free market economics! Incidentally, how's that high school economics class going?
Oh, the hypocrisy. It's amazing how on Slashdot an AC can whine about "baseless insults", then finish the post with a gratuitous putdown about high school economics and be modded insightful.
FYI, I have a degree in economics from MIT and took all of the PhD level macroecon courses offered. What they taught me is that the functioning of a free market isn't a question of theology or mindless belief, the system's behavior can be studied analytically. Doing so shows that there are cases in which free markets work wonderfully, and other cases where they can break down spectacularly. Knowing this, I'm unwilling to just willy-nilly accept free markets as a universal solution. Hence I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, or anybody else who advocates free markets dogmatically.
According to them, there is a 2.3% chance that
neither Obama nor McCain will win. That seems
somewhat unlikely at this point.
A small correction. Their representatives, either through the "rever[sion] to their reptilian ... instincts" or through a more calculated choice to do what their constituents wanted, followed through with irrational attacks against Afghanistan* and then Iraq**. Personally, I'm inclined to go along with the latter. Most people, politicians and otherwise, are more willing to sit idly by and agree with the majority on issues than stick their neck out, be it for fear of not being elected or for fear of being physically harmed.
Yes, there was a small chance that a single voice, casting light on the irrationality of the demands of the people would turn that person into a martyr. But, odds are good that one martyr would stop people long enough to realize that their demands *are* irrational. People don't like to get their own hands bloody. They don't want to appear like monsters. Sometimes someone has to stand up and risk death to break the skin on the drumhead.
*The fact is, no matter how much the Taliban was effectively flipping the bird at the US, the US had no reason to go and overthrow a whole government just to kill or capture *one* man. It was *ONE* man that the US was after. Now, it could be the case that in the pursuit of that one man, the US would violate the borders of Afghanistan and get into a conflict with Afghanistan. But, assuming the US's efforts were directed well enough, odds are good that either (a) we would have found that one man and been able to leave without Afghanistan able to do much but whine about the US's actions to the UN or (b) we would have eventually gotten China's or Pakistan's support when that one man left the area, thereby allowing the US to leave (and again still leaving Afghanistan to complain to the UN). Instead, the US clearly had an intent to get rid of the "annoyance" that was the Taliban, and hoped it'd be simple to find said man, disregarding that a part of the reason the Taliban didn't want to try to find said man was because it was so difficult.
**I don't think I need to say a lot about this, except to point out that if the UN weapons inspector doesn't think there are WMDs, then I'd want more than a few "intelligence reports" that, invariable, will include just about every possibility just to cover their ass. Certainly, I wouldn't start a ground war against a foe who had very limited ability to disperse WMDs except to slow moving, near targets (ie, ground troops), regardless of how "lightning fast" my ground forces were.
PS - This is subject really eats at me a lot. Why? Because GWB was a smuck. Specifically, until the point of 9/11, the media so often reported just how much time he spent vacationing and so little time doing anything relevant. Once 9/11 happened, GWB was so quick to appear for the photo-op and to be the "tough and strong" (not wise and reserved) leader that'd "kick ass and chew bubble gum". Hell, I rather expected GWB to be there and take advantage of the situation as best he could. And the fake bravado was to be expected to an extent, since GWB was not at all regarded as the intellectual type to actually *ever* step outside the "reptilian" brain. But the fact that he took it so far for so long and no one who had a real opportunity to stand up and make it well known how fucked up the situation was becoming (eg. the media for pointing out how much of a smuck Bush was to be hogging the camera to play war games; eg. Congress authorizing anything remotely close to force to Bush after it was clear (a) he wanted to fight wars, not just use the military to get what the US wanted and (b) he really sucked at reaching the intended objective). Of course, even I, a lonely voice, could be blamed because I wasn't shouting at the media or involving myself to effect change early enough or aggressively enough. So, to an extent, I feel a personal shame that I didn't stop it.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
There is a predition market for the upcoming New Zealand elections here: http://www.politicalstockmarket.co.nz/
You can buy contracts in parties (to be redemed for $1 per percentage point at the election), in government forming (worth $100 if the party you bought forms a government, else $0), and in the election date itself (which we don't yet know).
There was some big action a few weeks ago, but prices have settled down a lot now.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
And yes, I realize that you didn't limit hunger to the United States. What I'm saying is that as a resident of the United States, it is perfectly logical for me to be more concerned by terrorism than hunger. My personal chances of dying from hunger are ridiculously low (far more likely to die from obesity). Even if my personal chances of dying from terrorism are also low, they aren't quite as low as my chances of dying from hunger.
Your point (that terrorism is of only mild danger) is correct, but your argument is not. Instead of hunger, you should use obesity, drunk driving, or some other risk that actually affects Americans to argue that Americans should be more worried about that than terrorism.
I far prefer a common, not completly stupid person over any elitist in power. The reason being simple. The elitist will always look after his own special interests just by the fact that his worldview leans that way.
Best of course is a well educated, intelligent, non-elitst that frequently talks/debates with people from all layers of society.
People make a big deal of it because they know that the other side will make a big deal of it when their candidate misspeaks.
It sucks that politics has to be played like that but I suppose that's the nature of the beast.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
it does not suggest that you reason with people who attacked you. it suggests you reason with people who have NOT attacked you, and that you behave in ways that does not provoke people into attacking you without damn good reason.
it DOES SUGGEST that you do NOT then, after you've presumably gone after the people who attacked you, start attacking or threatening to attack anyone else you think might ever possible THINK about attacking you; that's clouded judgement at work. a backlash.
it's understandable too, but we elect leaders to be better than knee jerk responders; they are supposed to be LEADERS. Being knee jerk wuss bags is what makes our credibility worldwide disintegrate, which has ramifications if we are expecting people to side with us and not Russia or China in the coming years, and it has in large part left us weak, vulnerable, and horribly overspent.
it may be a great way to jump out from in front of a speeding bus, but it's a ridiculous way to run a country. But then, if you bothered to think for two seconds about the company you're quoting to support your view of intellectuals, you could probably have figured that out all by yourself. but your fight response must have been a little strong.
If I ever got a diagnosis of a condition that would bankrupt my family with treatments that didn't cure the underlying condition or only gave me a short period to live anyway....
.22 through the cranium when it was clear that I could no longer be productive.
I would personally resolve the situation with one leap off a tall bridge or a quick little
Problem solved.
We don't live forever. And there really are worse things than death.
I can deal with that.
So, basically you advocate subsidizing stupidity and non-productive behavior?
So, we're all supposed to carry the "moochers" out of fear of rioting and crime?
Screw it. I'll just mooch.
Of course, I won't actually produce anything either. It's just too expensive.
What is rational? The American definition of rational is vastly different than what is proposed in your comment. Maybe we are using a higher level of thinking, not a lower level.
The American Revolution was fought over pennies. No one died. Irrational! Maybe the whole American Revolution was a bad idea.
By this "such little lost" logic we should not have entered WWII because so few died at Pearl Harbor, or fought the Civil War.
We fight based on principles of fairness and freedom. When this is threatened, America responds. We stand by our word. We don't watch idly while people try to destroy our way of life to impose a backwards religious "Fatwa". If you want to do that, move to France or Denmark. Just don't make any drawings of Mohammad.
You might be afraid of these cowards, but don't project your fear onto those you disagree with in an effort to infantilize them and therefore justify your point of view to yourself. Check your assumptions first.
I know I am speaking for a few on here. I pissed off far more Paulistinians though, I'm sure. But like digg, this site suffers severely from tyranny by the majority over the minority.
EOF
My point was not "rational is good and non-rational is bad". I used the well documented fact that people respond non-rationally when faced with certain threats to suggest that another terror attack in the US would probably help the Republicans in November even though it happened "on their watch".
If anyone was questioning what I said in my original post, several of the responses, including yours, should erase all possible doubt. Thank you for your help by providing a specific example of the behavior I was discussing.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
The first problem with this argument is that no single community has to bear the full weight of such tragedies.
The second problem is that the timing of the 9/11 attacks minimized casualties.
The population of the WTC around noon on a fine autumn day would have been around 100,000.
It then becomes possible - it then become necessary - to imagine terrorist attacks that kill on the scale of a nuclear blast.
The terrorist attack is not a random event. His weapons and targets do not remain static. He learns through experience. How then do you build a valid statistical model of the risk he presents?
I used to be a libertarian. I've read Mises and Rothbard and Hayek and Spencer and Spooner. It sounds great on paper. But basically it's like these national myths we have about the old west, back in the good old days when everyone was fiercely independent and self-sufficient.
Only they weren't, because the army came to shoot the indians, and the government bilked the taxpayers and gave favors to the railroad tycoons to build the tracks that made the westward expansion so profitable and inevitable. But people edit out those parts because they think of themselves as would-be self-sufficient pioneers. Behind every libertarian is a person who thinks that they really did do it all themselves. Meanwhile, if the government stopped mandating and paying for immunizations, we'd all die of the plague or something, because we really are in this together.
Colombia has done fine with private security forces. Somalia is also a good example. Weak government, easy access to firearms. It's a recipe for freedom.
Your using elitist in a different sense than its being used in our normal "discourse", but otherwise I'd agree.
Though, I still would like someone who realized that he is more educated, smarter than most. Too much compromise is a bad thing, as is too much populism.
he elitist will always look after his own special interests just by the fact that his worldview leans that way.
I always thought that this was universally true.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Everyone will look after their own interests.
Actually, I think the best is probably to have a balanced goverment with people from many parts of society. That is why people in the congress and senate are more relevant to my first post.
When you need a single person, having one who selects a wide variety of peers to take advice from and actually listens to them would be nice. And for that you probably require mainly intelligence, a willingness to actually listen and the guts to actually make a decision and stand by it.
However, it is difficult to speculate on stuff like this.
Not sure actually. Certainly, on that single day, ~3000 dies from terrorist-attack. Many less died from undernourishment in the USA, on that day, obviously.
.... up until today. Even if just -1- person a day dies in the USA as a result of undernourishment, the death-count would be similar.
But in the ~2000 following days a very low count of people died in the USA as the result of terrorist-attacks, whereas undernourishment probably killed a similar count of people on 9/12, 9/13
Many old people die earlier than they otherwise would due to undernourishment. These do generally have access to food, but for various reasons do not eat it. (or not enough of it). If you included these, undernourishment-deaths are CERTAINLY an order of magnitude higher (in the usa) than terrorist-deaths. Perhaps that's unfair though, these peoples problem isn't that they don't have -access- to food.
In any case, you're sort of nitpicking a detail. The point is, if you're an American, living in USA, "terrorism" isn't something that even enters the top-20 on your death-risk scale. Infact it's completely down in the noise. Lose 10 pounds(assuming you're overweight) and you've done more for your security than eliminating every terrorist on the planet would do.
I always thought it was pretty poor strategy by the terrorists to start with 9/11 as it's going to be hard for them to top it as a spectacular. Luckily for them the over-reaction by the US and other governments has done their job for them better than they could ever have achieved through a series of relatively small scale acts of terrorism.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wow and what a bunch of egotistical, elitist tripe. I'm sure the "common man" didn't think much of you looking down your nose at him either, although I seriously doubt you've really dealt with that many. The problem with elitists is they never venture far from their own watering hole and only mingle with their own kind so they can preen each other's feathers and tell each other how much better, much more intelligent they are than the rest of the world.
Anti-intellectual movements FTW!
If you a brain, you would have known that was not an rant against intelligence, but of those in the "intellectual class." There's a difference. These are the very same people who during WWII told us that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy and that we shouldn't get involved. It was Lenin (my bad, not Stalin) that called them "useful idiots," not I. You'd think they would have learned from that but I think maybe their heads are so swelled they can't fit in any lessons from history.
Yes, we should NEVER reason with people, only chop their heads off. Perhaps understanding WHY 9/11 happened would have been a good thing, it would have probably have been better to do that before ensuring that more people want to blow us up.
First off you cannot reason with the unreasonable. We've reasoned with North Korea right into them having the time to build a nuclear facility. And we know WHY Al Qaeda and other terrorists hate us. They want to bring us down so they can create a world where their brand of Islamic fundamentalism is the law. We stand in the way of that. They hate us for who we are and nothing we say or do (or should say or do) is going to change their visceral hatred of anyone (including other Muslims) that don't ascribe to their beliefs. We virtually ignored the attack in 1993 and so left ourselves open for 9-11.
No one in power should be common. My experience with the common, non-educated, man is not encouraging.
I don't think there's hardly been anyone in the presidency this last century that was "common" or uneducated. Most have either been born into wealthy families or at least ones with connections or there's no way they would have had the financial support to be elected. That despite how almost all like to pretend they came from 'regular folk.' I think perhaps you'd be happier in a country with a autocracy or perhaps a absolute monarchy ruling. Can't get more elitist that someone born to the throne and that way you don't have to worry about all those "common folk" having a say-so.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Help us Barakiwan Obami ...you're our only hope....
That and somehow the theme of Flash Gordon by Queen...
(of course after election -- 'we are the champions'...)
First 3 months in office -- 'Ballroom Blitz' as he replaces all of Bush's illegal and unethical appointees....
I'm sure the "common man" didn't think much of you looking down your nose at him either, although I seriously doubt you've really dealt with that many. The problem with elitists is they never venture far from their own watering hole and only mingle with their own kind so they can preen each other's feathers and tell each other how much better, much more intelligent they are than the rest of the world.
Actually, you are quite wrong. I grew up solidly middle class, and my parents were (and still are) blue collar. Then I lived in one of the poorest areas of my city for years, and made plenty of disreputable friends. But I managed to pull myself out of it, and get an education above a GED. I still don't live in the richest area, and I doubt that anyone I consider a friend makes anywhere near six figures. I also am pretty much the best educated of anyone I associate, most of my friends haven't even stepped on a college campus in their lives.
Try not to make up imaginary backgrounds for people you don't know, and then argue against them. Its a fallacy.
If you a brain, you would have known that was not an rant against intelligence, but of those in the "intellectual class." There's a difference. These are the very same people who during WWII told us that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy and that we shouldn't get involved.
But we don't even have an "intellectual" class involved in politics, that I see. Could you point them out, please?
And yes, it is a pretty big debate against intelligence, even if your statement was not overtly saying so, it still is nothing but a symptom of a larger problem in America. Americans are suspicious of anyone smarter, or more educated, than them.
As for Hitler (so much for avoiding the Godwin), it wasn't just the "intellecuals" who were against involvement, the average American was against involvement, which is why we avoided overt involvement until Pearl Harbor. Hitler was doing an amped up version of what we were trying to do, and actually modeled much of his early strategies off of the American, and British, eugenics movements. Antisemitism was also pretty much endemic in the US at the time too.
First off you cannot reason with the unreasonable.
There is no harm in first trying. You can't brand someone unreasonable, until you try to reason with them. I don't like the "shoot first, ask questions later" track we've been on post-WWII, it doesn't work, and generally makes situations worse, and gives us more enemies.
And we know WHY Al Qaeda and other terrorists hate us. They want to bring us down so they can create a world where their brand of Islamic fundamentalism is the law.
I have a feeling it is a MUCH more complicated beast than that. Rhetorically, did the IRA want all of the UK to be Catholic, or did they just want the British to leave them alone? We've been unfavorably involved in the Middle East for years and years, some people mike take umbrage at that. They want us to go away, and stop meddling in their affairs, and randomly bombing their countries. I don't want to bring Israel up, but regardless of your feelings on that matter, you can see that our support for them makes us REALLY unpopular in the region.
The religious aspect plays a roll, though. But it is but one of a full array of reasons behind terrorism. From the looks of thing, it plays a roll on both sides.
We virtually ignored the attack in 1993 and so left ourselves open for 9-11.
No argument there. We pretty much flubbed the emerging threat in the beginning, and are still paying for it.
' I think perhaps you'd be happier in a country with a autocracy or perhaps a absolute monarchy ruling. Can't get more elitist that someone born to the throne and that way you don't have to worry about all those "common folk" having a say-so.
Wrong. I'd be happy if the main metric for nominating a president was "folk appeal", since it has nothing to do with your ability to lead. I'd also be happy if stupid value based items (abortion, gay rights, evolution, what church you go to) were stricken from the public debate.
But then again I only literate people should be allowed to vote.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
When you need a single person, having one who selects a wide variety of peers to take advice from and actually listens to them would be nice. And for that you probably require mainly intelligence, a willingness to actually listen and the guts to actually make a decision and stand by it.
No disagreement there. But I still think we're both missing something, since you basically described the current president, and his cabinet.
And we can see how well he is doing.
I don't know what essential quality he's missing though. Perhaps he has too much conviction, and we should include flexibility in your criteria for a good head honcho.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
You've clearly done a bang-up job of understanding what the people who disagree with you think. Well done. Thanks I read a lot of books from both sides and opinions that don't really fall into either side. I also watch the full spectrum of cables news from Left-wing MSNBC to Right-wing FoxNews. I am very good at uncovering how people think even when they themselves either don't understand their own thought process or refuse to acknowledge why they think a certain way (6 times out of 10 people are liberal because of their own inner greed, the other 40% are just doing what their Professor says; 9 times out of 10 supposed conservatives just want to be free of government oppression and left alone, the other 10% aren't real conservatives). The only problem I have when it comes to understanding people is sarcasm, I rarely pick up when people are being sarcastic. I wonder do you have that problem?
Respect the Constitution
Despite the fact that I explained the script for the cheap illuminati theater "Comeback kid Clinton 'elected' the last president of the US" aka "BushClinton, the last antichrist", and "Clinton suspends campaign, endorses Obama" as the final chapter before the curtain falls (1), the sheep don't get a thing.
"Clinton suspends campaign, endorses Obama" theater explained
This is nothing but an act to sell better Clinton, using the mind control technique of acceptance by association.
To better sell the "victory" of 5 pct Clinton, she is previously (i.e. now) sold as the candidate who, despite having received "more votes" (2), was a "victim of the delegates system", and yet was such a "fair player" by calling her "crowd" to fully stand behind Obama.
So when next the curtain will fall, it will be easier to have the sheep cheering what they just watched on stage.
In other words: when after the coming "scandal" chapter "forcing" Obama to exit the "race", he will appeal to his crowd to "stand with all their forces behind Clinton against McCain".
As I explained previously, you, the sheep, are long past the point of still having any chance to understand any illuminati theater until you will be slaughtered. (3)
Because you accepted to carry the mark of the beast.
Notes
(1) All has been explained long ago:
http://last-antichrist.blogspot.com/2007/05/hillary-clinton-2008-for-dummies-two.html
http://end-times-data.blogspot.com/2008/02/loser-john-mccain-to-clinton-horrible.html
http://end-times-prophet.blogspot.com/2008/02/hours-before-hillary-clinton-will-be.html
http://end-times-computers.blogspot.com/2007/05/ronpaul2008com-barackobamacom.html
(2) This is how the illuminati media sells the ca. one million votes Clinton got in the primaries, as she "concedes": "About 18 million people voted for Clinton. It was the closest a woman has come to capturing a political party nomination for the presidency." (Associated Press - June 7)
(3) The HORRIBLE TRUTH about YOU, the sheep
http://mind-control-for-dummies.blogspot.com/2007/04/quintessential-mind-control-programming.html
Translation: I prefer to ascribe nefarious motives and personal failings to people who disagree with me rather than acknowledging that they may do so for legitimate reasons.
Only on the Internet. I'm a big believer in Poe's law--so much so that I think that it applies far more broadly than its original specification.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
If you're trying to apply lessons from North Korea to Al Qaeda, you're not going to get very far. The government of North Korea has recognizable motives, a desire for self preservation, and an understanding of its limits. It's possible to negotiate and work with North Korea without blowing them up. The mistake is in assuming that they'll be an honest partner in those negotiations if it's not in their best interest to do so.
Dealing with Al Qaeda is a different beast, and I think that we've constantly made mistakes in treating them like a nation state that can simply be beaten into submission. The reality is that the truly crazy people of the world, while they can't be negotiated with, are also in the minority. They have a hard time operating in an environment where people don't sympathize with them. If a small cult of Americans decided that they wanted to impose Christianity on the world and were willing to blow up vegetable markets and police stations over it, they'd be done for. Why? No sympathizers. Not possible to recruit people, get funding, or keep secrets. Your neighbors report you to the police and you're gone. We keep those crazy people from being successful by simple virtue of the fact that it's obvious to those around them that they're crazy.
The question we should ask ourselves is how we managed to lose a PR war to a bunch of people who purposefully blow up buses full of civilians. You can't win a war against the idea that Americans are out to destroy Islam by killing the people who espouse that idea. You can't negotiate with those people and convince them that they're wrong, but you can convince the public that they're crazy, and that's what we've been woefully unable to do. All we've managed to do is lend legitimacy to their paranoid fantasies--so much that when they say, "See, they are out to get us! Who's with me?" money and recruits start pouring in.
You can't bomb an idea out of existence when that idea is that you're a military that's out to get people. I think it's time that we stopped using analogies like, "It's just like killing a snake" and start bringing in the "intellectual class" experts on local culture and politics who were ignored during the run up to this failure. If we don't start valuing analysis and expertise over folk wisdom and brute force, I suspect that 100 years in Iraq is optimistic.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Are you suggesting that it's a good thing that being elected President is just as much about convincing the average voter that you're just like them as it is about accomplishing things that the average person hasn't?
No, but that's what a lot of them spend time trying to do. Convince us they're the everyman. Then we see a picture of them having a hard time getting a coffee machine to work or an ATM. I think while some have some accomplishments, there's not that much that separates them from us other than they've made it a goal to enter politics and either a pile of money in the family or supporters who give them a pile of money. Most have had no life other than politics. And I really don't believe most (in the higher offices, like congress) are their because they want to help people, if they ever had that sentiment. They're in it for themselves.
And what have these candidates accomplished? One's a brand new senator, another tried to ride her husband's coattails into office. The third is a genuine war hero, but has been in the washington bubble so long.
If you're trying to apply lessons from North Korea to Al Qaeda, you're not going to get very far. The government of North Korea has recognizable motives, a desire for self preservation, and an understanding of its limits. It's possible to negotiate and work with North Korea without blowing them up. The mistake is in assuming that they'll be an honest partner in those negotiations if it's not in their best interest to do so.
And I agree...I'm not trying to say they're the same, I'm pointing out the failure in previous negotiations was to simply make agreements and then walk away without demanding checks to make sure they were holding up their end. Trust, but verify. Bush was right to bring other countries who where a lot closer to those missiles into the negotiation. I don't trust China, but I don't think they're going to let NK get in too deep and put themselves in danger. Japan certainly won't. Which is why NK doesn't want the rest of their neighbors involved in the intervention.
Dealing with Al Qaeda is a different beast, and I think that we've constantly made mistakes in treating them like a nation state that can simply be beaten into submission. The reality is that the truly crazy people of the world, while they can't be negotiated with, are also in the minority. They have a hard time operating in an environment where people don't sympathize with them. If a small cult of Americans decided that they wanted to impose Christianity on the world and were willing to blow up vegetable markets and police stations over it, they'd be done for. Why? No sympathizers. Not possible to recruit people, get funding, or keep secrets.
I agree with most of what you say, but I think you're missing one point. The reason--why would we have no sympathizers in your scenario? Why? Because people are happy with the status quo. Even our poorest live lives only dreamed of by third world people. That's why the middle east oppressors keep, for example, the Palestinians in refugee camps. (There is no such thing as a Palestinian anyway--there never was a country of Palestine until Arafat declared it to be.) These people were Arabs, Egyptians, etc. but they are kept in refugee camps because if they assimilated back into the Arab countries, Hamas couldn't keep supplying suicide bombers. The last thing that Iran (along with other Arab countries) want to see is a democratically controlled Iraq where they have open elections and basic civil rights.
That's why we DIDN'T go in and blow them into the dirt. We wanted to eventually help rebuild a democratically elected government. When a people are no longer oppressed and can work and feed their family, they're not going to care about sending their children out to blow themselves up.
Al Qaeda is a lot closer to what we dealt with regarding Japan in WWII. There you had an emperor whom the people worshipped as god and who's people committed suicide bombing runs. After the war, it stil
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
And a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law school, an accomplished legal scholar, law professor, state politician, and political activist.
After graduating from Yale Law, contributing as a legal scholar, working a successful career at a distinguished law firm, and spending years as a political activist.
And a graduate of the prestigious Naval Acadamy at Annapolis, a Navy Captain, and an experienced politician. I am not saying that any of these things immediately qualifies somebody to be President, but these are not your average Joes. They're all very accomplished people in their own right. Some past candidates have been more accomplished than others, but the reality is that there are very few serious contenders for the office who don't have some impressive resume points outside of politics.
I certainly don't disagree entirely, but I don't think that it's as simple as that. We can't just blame poverty for those reactions because it implies that these people have no legitimate gripes about US foreign policy. They do. And what's worse, we're doing a really excellent job of giving propagandists fodder to make their illegitimate gripes look legitimate. That's the real trick. As I said, if you're planning to counter the idea that the US is at war against Islam, it's a good idea to do a serious cost/benefit analysis before invading a Muslim country. Or at least, once you're there, try to do a halfway decent job of running the operation. This is where the "intellectual class" that was kept largely out of the planning and execution of this most recent war becomes a useful asset.
That's a 10 year occupation to rebuild. There was no comparable insurgency reasons you pointed out: The people in charge made some very sensible decisions when it came to understanding and handling the motivations of the people involved. I suspect that if it had been handled like we handled Iraq (let's say we moved in, executed the emperor, and tried to rule by force), they would have been dealing with a similar shit storm. People don't like to be occupied, so if you're going to do it, the analysis of how you'll do it should consist of more than common sense and best case scenario thinking.
It wouldn't be so if there wasn't so much bad news. That's the reality. Even the giant liberal media conspiracy wouldn't fabricate stories about large scale civilian deaths and suffering if it weren't happening. More to the point, the Middle East doesn't rely on our press to get information any more. They have their own these days, and theres isn't nearly as sensitive to our point of view as ours. We've reached a point where we can't say one thing and do another, because we will get caught, even if the crazy liberals at CNN and the New York Times play ball.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
BECAUSE the TRUTH is NEVER TOO HORRIBLE, even if YOU, the sheep, realize it only once you are already INSIDE the slaughterhouse.