RIP: Tech Advocate and Obama Advisor Jake Brewer

SpaceGhost writes: The BBC reports that Jake Brewer, a 34-year-old senior policy advisor in the White House Chief Technology Office, has died while participating in a charity bike race on Saturday. Some of his work included global policy and external affairs at change.org, the White Houses TechHire initiative, and the administration's efforts to expand broadband connectivity. Brewer's death has triggered emotional tributes from many in the worlds of politics and technology. Brewer was well known for his work on Change.org, and in his role at the White House as an advocate for education, access to technology, and intelligent use of data to make government more effective.

Comments

Cause of death

[phantomfive]

According to the article, he lost control and got hit by a car.

Re:Cause of death

[Tablizer]

Partisans are so selectively forgetful:

https://swiftjonathan.files.wo...

Re:Cause of death

[phantomfive]

Bush was pathologically incompetent, but that doesn't mean Obama's any good.

Re:Cause of death

[bill_mcgonigle]

Give us a break - he wasn't on Seal Team 6.

Re:Cause of death

[Stormwatch]

Mind you, Segway had a glitch that could cause the wheels to reverse direction suddenly.

Re:Cause of death

[fustakrakich]

Work with me, okay? Is everything taboo now?

Re:Cause of death

[Anonymous Coward]

Sucks that the man died during a charity event but there's an old adage among cyclists..

Its that triathletes have poor bike handling skills. It's really not a myth. When I'm out on rides I give those guys on their tri bikes wide berth because they really don't behave well for the speeds that they're traveling at. Cycling is sport that demands tremendous technical skill in addition to fitness and the tri guys usually treat the cycling portion of their sport as a necessary evil. (Ever notice how world class cyclists are in their mid-upper 30s and sometimes in to their early 40s? Well past the average male's peak athletic prime?)

Re:Cause of death

[I'm New Around Here]

Sucks that the man died during a charity event but there's an old adage among cyclists..

Its that triathletes have poor bike handling skills. It's really not a myth. When I'm out on rides I give those guys on their tri bikes wide berth because they really don't behave well for the speeds that they're traveling at. Cycling is sport that demands tremendous technical skill in addition to fitness and the tri guys usually treat the cycling portion of their sport as a necessary evil. (Ever notice how world class cyclists are in their mid-upper 30s and sometimes in to their early 40s? Well past the average male's peak athletic prime?)

So you're saying that the 'bad' cyclists don't make it to their 30s, because they die to stupid errors? And it takes those extra years of riding to get to be world-class? Interesting theory.

Re:Cause of death

[Hussman32]

Cycling is sport that demands tremendous technical skill in addition to fitness and the tri guys usually treat the cycling portion of their sport as a necessary evil. (Ever notice how world class cyclists are in their mid-upper 30s and sometimes in to their early 40s? Well past the average male's peak athletic prime?)

I'd say about half the triathletes I know (I'm one of them) are stronger on the bike than the swim (I always assume everyone can run okay). The issue with triathletes is that they often ride their aerobars in places where they should be on the hoods.

I feel bad for the man's family, more than likely he just made a mistake.

Re:Cause of death

[dsmatthews9379]

He hit the car, the car was where is should have been, it is no different from riding into a brick wall, or off a cliff.

The Washington Post reported Saturday that he was killed in Howard County, Maryland, during a bicycle ride that raised money to fight cancer. Brewer apparently lost control of his bicycle at a sharp curve along the race course, crossed the double yellow line and had a collision with an oncoming vehicle.

I think that the driver of the car must be feeling bad enough without people misrepresenting facts.

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary reads like natural causes.

TFA reads like:"Obama 'heartbroken' as White House employee killed"

Was he dead before or after the car hit him?

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

His fixie bike hit a car in a charity bike race. No, I am not kidding.

Re:Nerd + Exercise = Bad Ending

[quantaman]

We are meant to bask in the glow of fluorescent lighting in cubicles or basements. The sunlight weakens us and makes us vulnerable. Add exercise to the mix and you are flirting with disaster.

Of course in this case you're completely inaccurate, FTA:

He was described by the New York Times as "a competitive triathlete who rode on Saturday in honour of a friend who had been stricken with cancer".

The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of coming off as hopelessly pedantic: The event that this gentleman tragically died while engaging in was not a 'race', it was a non-competitive charity bicycle riding event. It was not a sanctioned, ranked USA Cycling event requiring a valid racing license, it was open to anyone, which includes purely recreational riders that very often have not have done any specific training of their bike-handling skills. This is in contrast to competitive riders, who, even at the amateur level, typically train all through the year, and their training includes specific work intended to give them a superior level of skill in handling the bike safely and competently in a variety of circumstances and at high speeds.

It is extremely tragic, and I am always deeply saddened when I hear of a fellow cyclist losing his life while riding. However I don't want people erroneously demonizing road cycle racing as 'too dangerous' when they don't know to differentiate between an actual 'race' and 'just a ride'.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[LaurenCates]

You'll find that people often abandon details for the larger picture.

Especially in the case where a 34-year-old guy who died when he was too young to.

Which...that's pretty sad. RIP to that guy, and condolences to the family.

Not that I'm calling you wrong, because you're right: it absolutely sucks to see someone die or get seriously hurt doing the thing that you love doing, and use it to justify their preconceived notions of it so they can try to warn you away.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Anonymous Coward]

To be pedantic: no one is too young to die. You can die at any age.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Rei]

But it raises an important point. Per mile travelled, cyclists are far more likely to be injured or die where cars are present than car drivers/passengers, and even where you only look at bike accidents classified as cars not being involved, cyclists are still more likely to die or be injured per mile. People who do "training of their bike handling skills" may be better off than the average cyclist, but - on a per-mile basis - bike travel is more dangerous than car travel.

I live in a place where the city keeps trying all sorts of ridiculous ways to force people out of cars and onto bikes, such as spending small fortunes to shrink down roads and doing nothing particular with the space on the sides, putting up all sorts of obstacles in the road (such as constant turn lanes, alternating between left and right) to turn 3-4 lane roads into effective 2-lane roads, building new buildings without any parking, tearing down existing parking, etc. And among their reasons for trying to force people off of cars is "safety for cyclists". But even if they succeed at making their goal of forcing a dozen or two percent of the population to switch from cars to bikes, they're only going to increase the total number of transport deaths.

They also give environmental reasons as an excuse, which is also ridiculous. Cycling burns calories. Calories don't come from thin air - they come from food production. Which is very inefficient in terms of energy in (oil, natural gas, etc) per unit energy of muscle power released from burning said food. Now, there's a big difference between types of foods - for example, locally-grown grains and starchy plant-based foods can render a cyclist's net environmental picture better than a single driver in a Prius (although not better than people carpooling in a Prius). But few cyclists eat a diet of locally grown grains and starchy plants (especially where I live!). Meat has a huge environmental footprint per calorie, as do vegetables. A person who gets half their calories from a meat like beef increases their caloric load by biking wherever they go instead of driving; they'd be better for the environment driving a large SUV without any passengers. And of course, that's only the energy picture - that doesn't even consider the habitat consumed for agriculture, the water consumption, the effects of pesticides and herbicides, etc.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you PLEASE just shut the hell up? Some noteworthy person dies, and you're using it as a springboard for your personal agenda? Just shut the hell up!

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[OhPlz]

There is no qualification required to join the USCF other than paying the registration fee. Anyone can do so and race in category five races. Some of those, you can just enroll with the USCF for the day. The training you speak of only happens once the cyclist joins a team or they choose to do some self-directed training.

Even with team training, it's still not a particularly safe sport. One only has to watch a grand tour and note how many cyclists get taken out per stage by some accident or another. But of course, that's racing. Are you insane enough to push it just a little bit more than the next guy. On that point I agree, racing and riding are vastly different. That's like using NASCAR as evidence of the safety of regular car travel.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[PvtVoid]

A person who gets half their calories from a meat like beef increases their caloric load by biking wherever they go instead of driving; they'd be better for the environment driving a large SUV without any passengers.

So much fail here.

Let's see. A 190 lb. person riding a bicycle at 15 mph uses about 58 calories per mile.. Gasoline contains about 31,000 calories per gallon.. Suppose the large SUV gets 20 mpg. That's 1550 calories per mile, or more than 26 times as much.

See also here.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[kheldan]

Sure, anybody can get a one-day Cat-5 authorization for a few bucks. But if you've done zero training of any kind, the vast majority of riders are going to be off the back in short order, riding alone or with a few other stragglers, and therefore not even racing anymore -- at which point it becomes more like a small group ride than an actual race. Guys who actually get an annual license, starting out as Category 5 (Category 4 if you're female) may then be 'racing', but under USA Cycling rules there is no prize money to win, which is done to discourage new racers from being more competitive than their skill-set provides for. After 10 mass-start races you get an automatic upgrade to Cat-4, then the 'kid gloves' come off. And I never said that racing is 'safe'; far from it, in fact, but you also have no reasonable expectation of it being safe, either, and anyone you train or race with, or any mentors at clinics, or coaches you might employ the services of, will tell you that over and over again, so you will work to be as safe as possible. The average recreational rider doesn't really think that anything bad is going to happen to them, of course until it does. The reality is that if you ride long enough, something is eventually going to happen, and if you're careful and lucky it'll be minor and you'll learn from the experience. In my opinion if you're not willing to acknowledge and accept the risk then you shouldn't be riding in the first place, you're just a hazard to yourself and others. But I ride 200-300 miles a week, in all sorts of weather, 4 nights and 2 days a week, on all sorts of roads, have been for years and years and years, and haven't (knock on wood!) been hit by a car, run over a cliff, or anything really major. I've crashed a couple times at races, and avoided a few more crashes, but it doesn't deter me either, I get over it and move on. Of course I've also been riding motorcycles for decades as well, and learned to stay out of harms' way doing that, too (even had nothing but a motorcycle for 10 years) and those 'survival skills' serve me well on a bike, too.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[OhPlz]

I think we're mostly saying the same thing? The AC I replied to seem to be saying the opposite, that racers are highly trained and would be less likely to be harmed because of that. Commuting, recreational riding, and competition are all different and not all that comparable to each other. Racing is a higher risk since it involves a bit of risk taking to win, and you're pushing everything to the limit. The other two may not be as safe as travel by motor vehicle, but they're not dangerous. Of course a vehicle with a safety cage, crumple zones, air bags, seatbelts and an extra set of wheels will be safer. Cyclists have two wheels, some LEDs, and a styrofoam cup on their heads.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[kheldan]

I think we're mostly saying the same thing?

Sure. Being in disagreement with someone is not a requisite for posting a comment.

I sometimes find it disturbing how many people will avoid any number of things because there's any kind of risk to their safety in engaging in it. Honestly, if people avoided all risk, however small, nobody would ever do anything other than sit quietly in a room with no sharp angles on anything, surrounded by nothing but soft pillows, scared to death of every little noise. You can get killed crossing the street, for cryin' out loud. Living involves taking chances. If you're not willing to take chances then you're not living. The only thing you can be 100% sure about is that you're going to die at some point. Dying full of regret for all the things you were never brave enough to try is a pretty poor epitaph for a life if you ask me. Let me tell you: there are plenty of road races I've participated in where someone crashed, often times taking others down with them. I have crashed, and been unable to ride for weeks afterwards, the worst of which messed with my head for about a year afterwards, even if the actual injury was relatively minor. But I got past it and continued to train and race. The rewards outweigh the risks so far as I'm concerned. The average cyclist, if they learn situational awareness (which is a survival skill everyone should have anyway) and purposefully work to become competent riders, will probably never be involved in any sort of major crash or sustain any sort of major injury, and in the process they'll experience vastly improved health and fitness and a longer, possibly happier life overall. Benefits outweigh the risks. People spreading FUD about cycling need to be quiet IMHO.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[OhPlz]

Yea. I'm cynical, but.. it is easier to sit on the couch and come up with reasons not to do any physical activity. It's too bad too, because the select few that manage to get past that end up having a great time. It's one of those chicken and egg things.

I did have a pretty spectacular crash years ago that almost ended me, but I was back riding in less than two weeks. Wasn't easy, but like you said.. there are things you have to get past in order to a live a life that was worth living. If you give up all the things you enjoy, what's the point?

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Hussman32]

I live in a place where the city keeps trying all sorts of ridiculous ways to force people out of cars and onto bikes, such as spending small fortunes to shrink down roads and doing nothing particular with the space on the sides, putting up all sorts of obstacles in the road (such as constant turn lanes, alternating between left and right) to turn 3-4 lane roads into effective 2-lane roads, building new buildings without any parking, tearing down existing parking, etc. And among their reasons for trying to force people off of cars is "safety for cyclists". But even if they succeed at making their goal of forcing a dozen or two percent of the population to switch from cars to bikes, they're only going to increase the total number of transport deaths.

I think I know the Silicon Valley city of which you speak, if you are referring to the recent changes in the road where I live. Especially if said road has a hill that is over 10% grade in spots.

See this link on bike statistics, based on what it says it looks like the risk may be doubled (if 2% of the deaths are accounted for by 1% of the trips), but those could be misleading. I'm guessing the better metric is time on the bike, not miles traveled.

As others have noted, a person burns about 3000 joules extra per hour on a bike, and 100s of kilojoules per hour in a car, so it's a no-brainer that overall cyclists use less energy if you are only doing personal travel, regardless of the food transport and other factors (also consider cyclists are just burning excess calories they would have already eaten).

How much that compares to the overall carbon cycle? Hardly at all and most of the changes you discussed are symbolic.

But again, this thread is about a father and husband who died while riding, it's a sad day for that family and some of the comments on this thread are disappointing.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[kheldan]

Having been over 300 pounds at one point in my life, with ruined knees, weak, sickly, depressed, and neurotic as hell, to now, having low bodyfat (~10%), strong, healthy, extremely active, and happier overall than I've ever been? Couldn't ever go back to being what I was. Can't fathom why anyone would want to, either. I'd rather drop dead than become what I used to be again.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Rei]

*Which is accounted for in the above.

Food is an incredibly inefficient source of energy. A kilogram of beef, for example, causes the emission of a couple dozen kilograms of CO2 and contains 2140 kcal. A typical man cycling will burn on the order of 60 calories per mile at 14mph, or 840 calories per hour. Driving should be about 100 (comparing to other activities), so 740 excess kcal, aka 346 grams of beef, aka about 8 kilograms of CO2 for 14 miles, aka about 600 grams per mile. A prius emits 135 grams per mile. A Hummer H2 emits about 660, depending on the version - most large SUVs well less

Before you go off on a rant and call people "dumbass", do the damn math.

And before you start saying "people don't eat just beef" - no, they don't! But a lot of other things they eat are even worse. For example, vegetables - healthy for you, but an utterly terrible ratio of calories per unit CO2 emitted (because they don't contain a lot of calories). Other meats are also very bad - some even worse than beef. Lots of fruits and nuts, while containing relevant amounts of calories are bad because they take so much energy to harvest, process, or ship. Only some relatively narrow categories allow a cyclist to beat a car in terms of CO2 emissions. But food doesn't just have CO2 emissions as its negative consequences, as mentioned, but also others which are sometimes even worse, such as habitat consumption, water consumption, and fertilizer and pesticide pollution.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Rei]

Because, all energy sources are equally efficient, right? Because I didn't just write "Which is very inefficient in terms of energy in (oil, natural gas, etc) per unit energy of muscle power released from burning said food", right? 58 calories of beef per mile is about 600 grams of CO2 per mile. Which is a terrible rate of CO2 emissions per mile.

See this post for a breakdown. Yes, there's a lot of fail, but it's in your post.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Rei]

Never said cyclists don't use less energy. They use less energy, but they use it terribly inefficiently. And no, nobody burns "excess calories that they would have already eaten". The reason you get hungry after exercise is because you're burning calories. If you start burning an excess of calories and never eat more to compensate, you will starve to death. There's a small amount of exception to that rule, in as you lose weight, your baseline metabolism drops. But it doesn't drop anywhere near the amount that a person cycling an hour or so a day burns. You simply cannot add an extra ~750 calories a day to your routine and not eat any more. You will literally die if you do so.

Human energy doesn't come from magic. It comes from food.

And this thread was about a cyclist dying in an accident. A comment whose main purpose was about the dangers of cycling is fully on topic. The environmental aspect was just a related followup that people are choosing to obsess over.

And of course it's risk of death per mile that matters, not per time or per number of trips. Are you going to quit your job and pick a job closer to your home when you switch to the bike too? You have the same destination as in the car, just a different mode of transportation. You have to do the same number of miles.

The average Briton cycles 53 miles a year. The average number of car miles is 8200 - 155 times more mileage. Looking at the same year's accident statistics, 801 people died in cars and 8232 were seriously injured. 110 cyclists died, 3222 seriously injured. That's 7,3 times more deaths and 2,6 times more serious injuries for cars... which go 155 times further. Even if you factor in 100% of pedestrian deaths to cars (and hey, are we forgetting that we still need goods hauled around?), they're only about half of the car casualties, so it doesn't even bring the numbers close too each other.

Sorry, bike nuts. Your mode of transportation is horrible for the environment and horribly dangerous per mile. So stop trying to make us all take part in your stupid hobby.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[aardvarkjoe]

Your analysis is missing a very fundamental point. The only calories that it makes sense to count are the extra calories that someone consumes as a direct result of cycling. There's no guarantee that it will be 100% of the calories used, and it could easily be zero. An obvious case -- if you bike to work instead of going to the gym, you could save a car trip with no net increase in calorie intake.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Rei]

if you bike to work instead of going to the gym,

And most people don't go to gyms, so this is an irrelevant point.

Adding exercise where there was none is adding caloric consumption where there was none.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[aardvarkjoe]

And most people don't go to gyms, so this is an irrelevant point.

People who are not active are going to be very unlikely to start biking rather than driving.

You're the one who was whining about people making assumptions without appropriate data. Unless you have data to demonstrate that most of the calories consumed by people switching to biking are going to be added consumption, you can't pretend that it's an irrelevant point.

Re:The difference between an 'event' and a 'race'

[Hussman32]

Never said cyclists don't use less energy. They use less energy, but they use it terribly inefficiently. And no, nobody burns "excess calories that they would have already eaten". The reason you get hungry after exercise is because you're burning calories. If you start burning an excess of calories and never eat more to compensate, you will starve to death.

If you ride your bike an hour, you'll burn about 500 calories. If you drink two beers worth drinking, you'll consume 500 calories. The average person has a pretty large variance in caloric intake and an hour exercise isn't going to change the food distribution of the world. So it's not a stretch to say that extra food consumption from cycling isn't going to affect the environment at all, when comparing to moving a 1000 kg car with the 90 kg person inside it going the exact same distance with the goal of getting that person from point A to point B. Nor is a single person driving a car, I think we're in agreement on that. The cyclist commuter wins easily. Especially if you go back to the petrol and car supply chains like you did with cyclists food (after all, oil wells don't drill themselves, nor does gasoline refine itself, nor do cars spring magically from the earth...all of these require tremendous energy.

And of course it's risk of death per mile that matters, not per time or per number of trips. Are you going to quit your job and pick a job closer to your home when you switch to the bike too? You have the same destination as in the car, just a different mode of transportation. You have to do the same number of miles.

This would be true if all miles were the same, but they aren't because of hills. My 10 mile bike ride takes 45 minutes where it would take me 30 minutes in Florida. Plus, probability math would use a timescale, not a distance. More important considerations would be the road configuration, traffic per lane, clearance between the car lanes and bike lanes, and the blood alcohol content of the driver and cyclist. Apparently it's more dangerous in the UK than the US, our fatality rates are 1:2. Clearly the UK roads are more hazardous to cyclists than American (because I know that the Brits drive better than we do).

The average Briton cycles 53 miles a year. The average number of car miles is 8200 - 155 times more mileage. Looking at the same year's accident statistics, 801 people died in cars and 8232 were seriously injured. 110 cyclists died, 3222 seriously injured. That's 7,3 times more deaths and 2,6 times more serious injuries for cars... which go 155 times further. Even if you factor in 100% of pedestrian deaths to cars (and hey, are we forgetting that we still need goods hauled around?), they're only about half of the car casualties, so it doesn't even bring the numbers close too each other.

Sorry, bike nuts. Your mode of transportation is horrible for the environment and horribly dangerous per mile. So stop trying to make us all take part in your stupid hobby.

By the way, I'm not saying don't drive your car, I'm just calling BS on saying that cyclists are less efficient than cars when considering commuting. And it is more dangerous, but not extraordinarily so.

Re:still can't figure out what he actually did

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats really all the skills you need when you are paid by the taxpayer. They are always "engaging", "pushing" or "seeking". Unfortunately actual "doing" is not required.

Re:No big loss nor accident.

[Tablizer]

Sorry, Ms. Jenner is a Republican.

Re:still can't figure out what he actually did

[phantomfive]

He was a product manager. He lead new product development for Change.org. (AFAICT)

Re:queue conspiracy theories

[nucrash]

He was getting in the way and had to be dealt with. He was also an advocate for pardoning Snowden. He had to go.

young death rare in our society

[peter303]

Our society relatively healthy and safe compared to previous generations. So early death is rare and tragic. I myself never directly witnessed a death until my 40s and I know some older people still havent either.

Re:young death rare in our society

[Virtucon]

you've led a sheltered life.

Re:young death rare in our society

[will_die]

In the USA early death is not that rare, compared to other countries,, we have alot of it due to adventuring and dare taking. It is the 2nd major factor into why the USA has a low life expectancy.

Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

Maybe your expectations of what prez can accomplish is unrealistic. The middle east has confounded them all, for example. Either a prez should quit meddling over there, or be honest that failure is likely. They don't appear ready for (stable) democracy, which leaves either iron-fisted dictators, or roaming zealotic hordes.

And economic downturns seem to happen roughly every 10 years no matter what's done. Bubbles and the "business cycle" have existed for at least 400 years. It's a bug in capitalism that nobody knows entirely how to fix.

The only known partial solution is to save up during the good times so there's spending money during the down times (Keynes). However, politicians are expected to fix the here and now and are judged on the here and now, not the next decade. (The prez who exits during the "up" phase gets undo credit.)

We could perhaps have a constitutional amendment to force saving up, but that requires objectively defining "good times" and "bad times", which is a sticky request.

The same pattern of problems keep appearing and we keep blaming them all on the prez. Perhaps it's because they always promise to fix these things, but the fact they keep failing suggests we should not expect the prez alone to fix them regardless of what they claim. Spank the voters for once.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Note that both parties are guilty of running up debt during good times (for the reasons I already gave).

Giving the known evidence, "half-ass" Keynes still works better than so-called "austerity" during down times. Hoover (1930's), UK, Greece, Kansas, and other tests of austerity suggests it either makes downturns no better or worse. And WWII was the ultimate (unintentional) debt-based stimulus that ended the Great Depression once and for all. (FDR's public works programs greatly improved over Hoover's numbers, but didn't outright solve the slump.)

Some will argue that austerity will create a short-term shock but that the recovery is fast afterwards. However, populations don't want to suffer for the short term and seem to prefer a slow but steady recovery over shock-then-quick-boom.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[ScentCone]

In the case of Bush, "Don't start a war in Iraq on false pretenses" would have been a good idea.

Iraq didn't actually invade Kuwait? Iraq didn't agree to end the push-back against that invasion in a way that required them to meet a list of very specific requirement? Iraq didn't systematically blow off those requirements for years, and continue to slaughter Saddam's opponents, including thousands of people using WMDs? Iraq didn't continue to shoot at allied aircraft enforcing the agreed-to no-fly zones? The UN didn't see, but later be unable to account for the location of tons and tons of VX gas weapons? Iraq didn't respond to UN inspector requirements with completely bogus reports and denied access to inspection targets? Iraq didn't cheat on their oil-for-food agreement by diverting the money to more weapons purchases? Iraq didn't continue to import SCUD parts despite agreeing to no longer make those missiles?

Saddam didn't live up to a single aspect of the cease-fire agreement he signed in response to his attempt to annex Kuwait. The re-invasion and toppling of his regime was in response to his continued hostility and what intelligence agencies around the world perceived to be his ongoing stockpiling of WMDs, missiles, etc. He himself appears to have been deceived by some of his own underlings, thinking he had more and better of such things than he actually did. Regardless, the "false premises" part is incorrect. The underlying premise is unavoidable: he invaded a neighboring country and then did everything he could to avoid living up to the agreement that kept his regime in place at the end of that attempt. The consequences took some years to catch up to him, but they did.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

could have left a small force there, like the Iraqis wanted

The main Iraqi gov't officials did not want it. For good or bad, the ultimate decision was theirs.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

Iraq didn't actually invade Kuwait?

I'm sorry, I seem to have confused you. I was talking about Bush Jr.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

The main Iraqi gov't officials did not want it. For good or bad, the ultimate decision was theirs.

That is how the Obama administration spun it. You fell for their propaganda, which isn't surprising since you've been defending them this whole thread. You are clearly a fanboy, and that is affecting your thinking, and your information gathering process.

The Obama administration claimed that "the Iraqis wouldn't allow forces to stay without immunity." That is the story that made it through the news, but later investigation revealed it wasn't the case. At one point, the Iraqi administration and the US administration were discussing how to keep the military there. The Iraqis offered one solution, "If you get rid of immunity, the representatives will approve it immediately." The US administration grabbed that phrase, and warped it to mean, "if we don't get rid of immunity, they won't approve it." Twisting their words. Lying. Getting what they wanted in the first place.

But it was enough to trick people like you, who don't do deeper research into topics.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

Anti-trust should be enforced, which neither party does much of, perhaps because they are being legally bribed via campaign donations to ignore the issue. The big co's have the most bribing funds.

Note that the crash started before O was in office such that anti-trust enforcement was not an option for him at the time. However, the banks are still too big for their britches. The new regulations didn't directly solve this.

They merely put more rules on big banks to reduce the chance of another similar crash. However, I'm pretty sure the creativity of banks will result in a different kind of crash in the future.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[tsotha]

Giving the known evidence, "half-ass" Keynes still works better than so-called "austerity" during down times. Hoover (1930's), UK, Greece, Kansas, and other tests of austerity suggests it either makes downturns no better or worse.

Hoover doesn't belong on that list, as he sharply increased spending as a result of the economic turmoil. During the campaign Roosevelt actually criticized him for it.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

Exactly.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

Incidentally, this part is not true:

They merely put more rules on big banks to reduce the chance of another similar crash.

By promising to bail out banks when they do run into that kind of problem, it encourages similar crashes.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[jittles]

Iraq didn't actually invade Kuwait?

I'm sorry, I seem to have confused you. I was talking about Bush Jr.

So was he. He was specifically referring to the sequence of events that up to the Bush Jr. invasion of Iraq. Now, I'm not trying to say one thing or another about his arguments, but they are definitely geared towards justifying Bush Jr invading Iraq after they systematically failed to meet their obligations after the invasion of Kuwait.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

Only after the unemployment rate went sky high did Hoover experiment with public works programs. He originally hoped things would fix themselves and mostly left things alone at first. True, FDR was a flip-flopper, but that appears to be a good thing in this case. Politics is messy.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[ScentCone]

I'm sorry, I seem to have confused you. I was talking about Bush Jr.

Right. Bush Sr. was president when Iraq attempted to take over Kuwait, and Saddam signed the agreements that he failed to uphold throughout Clinton's time in office, and continued to abused up to and until his regime was finally removed. That was two US presidents later, but the same single agreement against which he continued to cheat. He (Saddam) continued to kill people, threaten allied aircraft, import weapons, steal UN funds, and block inspectors right up until the end. That conflict started with his invasion of Kuwait, and never actually ended, because he never honored the agreement that saved Baghdad from invasion during his initial retreat. Of course you know all of this.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

When the banks are too large, we practically have to bail them out. Banks are key infrastructure. If too many fail, the economic machinery of the country chokes.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

Of course you know all of this.

True, true, it's merely words. Bush Jr certainly escalated the war beyond what was necessary, and did what his father wisely avoided. The invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and I doubt you disagree.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

That was Volcker's point......if they get too big, so that we have to bail them out, then break them up. Bail them out first because that's what we have to do, but then break them up.

Any bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

That was my original point also: anti-trust enforcement.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

he best thing would have been not to enable Saddam Hussein or OBL in the first place

So we take out 5,000 mid-level jerks JUST IN CASE one of them grows to be Hitler-like? Not practical for many reasons. Hindsight is fool's gold.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

Your link is about democracy in Iraq, not about troops staying. Neither of you gave any decent evidence/link of your troop-stay claim.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[jittles]

Well like I said, I didn't really want to comment on the validity of his arguments, just that it was a progression that ended at Jr and wasn't just referring to actions during Sr's term in office. The first gulf war was certainly far easier to justify to ourselves and the world than the second.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[tehcyder]

What if the policies of prior administrations, or even other actors in a position to influence if not write policy, make it one of the less-odious of available options?

In the case of Bush, "Don't start a war in Iraq on false pretenses" would have been a good idea. After nearly a decade of fighting, somehow Iraq managed to stabilize itself. Obama could have left a small force there, like the Iraqis wanted. Instead he grasped at any excuse he could to leave the place, and now it's a mess again.

A small force would either have been wiped out, so you would have had to top it up until it became a large force. You'd already sacked half the Iraq army, so the nucleus of ISIL was just there waiting to turn into the Daesh we see today.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[Tablizer]

That's more or less my original point. The politics of funding make longer-term saving difficult. My reference to Keynes was merely a hypothetical situation presented as a hypothetical situation to be commented on and critiqued later in the text.

I was trying to illustrate that forces of the general system of government tend to overwhelm the practical power of a given president. If any president resists spending during good-times, it's a happy accident and a rare accident, and they probably won't get sufficient credit during their tenure.

I'm not sure there's a constitutional or legislative fix for such pressure to spend during good times. It may take experimentation, which voters don't like. A "balanced budget amendment" is one approach, but doesn't give flexibility during down-turns.

Some way to put "soft" incentives should be considered. One suggestion was to tie representatives' pay to the deficit, but that had legal problems. Maybe create a law that representatives have to wear chicken-suits if the debt grows a certain % above GDP if GDP growth is zero or positive for X consecutive quarters, and there has been no down-turn within the last 3 quarters. Wearing chicken-suits won't halt gov't or trigger any significant event, just create embarrassment. Thus, it's a low-risk tactic.

Sometimes you just have to experiment to learn what works and what doesn't. Speculating in a corner only goes so far, and simulating politics on super-computers is still a dark art.

Re:Unrealistic Expectations (Re:Cause of death)

[phantomfive]

A small force would either have been wiped out, so you would have had to top it up until it became a large force.

Seriously? How small a force are you thinking of? I think you are over-estimating Daesh.

Re:Nerd + Exercise = Bad Ending

[zlives]

he was not a nerd.

Correction (Re:Unrealistic Expectations...)

[Tablizer]

Correction: should be "undue credit" not "undo credit". Writing too much tech doc ingrains certain words.

Re:Again

[Virtucon]

Man up and buy a cheap car already. Your loved ones will thank you.

So will Jeremy Clarkson

we the assholes

[zlives]

young guy dies, which is tragic at the least. and most comments are smart ass or asshat...
fuck this place has really gone to shits

Re:we the assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the car hit you on the way out.

Re:we the assholes

[responsibleusername]

Its sad, I clicked the comments almost just to see the what the comments would be. I fully expected "If you don't want to die don't ride a bike. Why is this news." or something blaming the government and/or surveillance practices.

Re:we the assholes

[phantomfive]

fuck this place has really gone to shits

You must be new here. Gallows humor has always been de rigueur on Slashdot.

Re:Again

[Anonymous Coward]

He was taking part in a charity bike race. Clue's in the name, mate.

Unrealistic promises, too.

[SecurityGuy]

Presidential candidates have only themselves to blame, really. For once, I'd love to have a president's campaign promises include only things that a president actually have power to do. Instead, they promise like a monarch and then deliver like a president.

Re:Unrealistic promises, too.

[Tablizer]

I have to disagree in general. If the system strongly encourages a certain behavior, then it's unrealistic to put the blame solely on those who follow what the system encourages.

Further, an honest candidate probably won't get elected. The over-promising one will beat them.

We have to fix a bad system if we really want to solve the problem. Repeatedly beating up on prez's won't solve anything, even if some of the blame is theirs.

Politics focuses too much on who to blame over how to fix the system in general. If we over-focus on individuals, we just reinvent the bad wheel over and over.

To try to use a technical analogy, you can keep complaining about how vacuum tubes are bulky, energy-pigs, and unreliable until the cows come home, blaming the "lousy rotten" tube manufactures. The real solution is to invent the transistor.

Re:Change. Org

[sexconker]

Even if they didn't, it would be a scam because they don't have to respond in any meaningful way.
Half of the responses have boiled down to "lol nope".

Re:queue conspiracy theories

[I'm New Around Here]

What if the AC just wants to put them all in single line?

Re:Get bikes off road?!

[kiphat]

What dedicated "bike trails" are you talking about? A side-walk? Try riding on a sidewalk with a ROAD BIKE! They don't call it a road bike for nothing. Sidewalks are poorly maintained and never kept. It's September and the shit the county put on the roads last winter is still sitting there waiting to get cleaned up. It's a hazard and nuisance to ride on. What we need are dedicated bike lanes. They've been promising those in my area for over 20 years. But all they seem to do around here is start them and never finish, resulting in bike lanes to either lead nowhere or just stop, putting the rider in the middle of hazardous traffic.

Re:Nerd + Exercise = Bad Ending

[tehcyder]

Having opinions and the spine and balls to express them does not make one a murder suspect.

So why hasn't he issued a public statement denying the accusation then?

Also, where's his hairpiece's birth certificate (long form)? I'm pretty sure it's alien.