>>Besides, if were all supposed to be companions to God after we're dead, why the hell would he want to surround himself with stupid people?
You can't have your cake and eat it. That's a line from the bible. So throw it at religious folk if you want, but it doesn't actually advance your argument except in so far as it hurts theirs.
I think you underestimate how crazy the administration was that led us into that war. If they were out for money, there were far easy ways to get it than starting some stupid legacy ruining war. We have Hanlon's law for a reason, and I think all the evidence suggests that Bush, Rummy, et al, really thought they could do something great and just entirely fucked it up.
That they did it for money via halliburton doesn't really make sense, if you stop and think about it for more than a minute. They'd have to be laundering money, because any gains they made from stock are public and small, and that would imply some really bizarre scenario with halliburton execs giving administration members briefcases of cash, or wiring money around through different countries, and stuff like that. And you have to ask yourself, why would they do any of that. Halliburton execs are risking life in jail for a gain not at all in proportion to that risk, and there are obviously better ways for members of the administration to take care of themselves financially.
The halliburton stuff is almost certainly all skin deep, with Cheney and such having executive friends there, and making use of good old fashioned cronyism to get the job done. That's obviously bad in and of itself, but it's not the treasonous situation you make it out to be, and it's certainly not the reason the war was started.
You're forgetting the Air Force. They're aren't tied up, and if you'll recall Desert Storm, they're more than capable of handling any Middle Eastern nation that decides to make a land grab. My point is that army tied up != military tied up.
>>Pretext to torture and eliminate most of the Bill of Rights
I think you're trying to strap together too many conspiracies here. The Iraq war has never been used as a justification for the erosion of the bill of rights or torturing U.S. citizens (which of course hasn't been done). The pretext was Islamic terrorism, which I'm surprised you of all people don't know is actually a separate issue from the Iraq war. So you might want to scratch that one of your list before your next meeting at the docks.
Which is actually the reason why I think we'll ultimately win in Iraq (once the people in charge finish getting a clue). We have an incredible amount of money and resources. The average Iraqi is pretty damn poor. You mean to tell me we can't make it in their best interest to side with us? Our current problems have nothing to do with networked vs non-networked approaches to war. They just have to do with basic incompetence.
The Iraqis are hardly as monolithic as you imply. The majority of them are more interested in general quality of life issues than anything else, like whether they have a decent job, can go to the market safely, have clean water and electricity, and so on and so forth. It is true that the majority of them don't like Americans, even beyond the amount you might suspect given that we've killed a lot of them, but they don't hate us enough to stop being essentially utilitarian, which is what they are. That's what the Anbar Awakaning, the "Concerned Citizens" groups, and so on are all about.
The Iraqis are just people. As much as they might not like a foreign occupying force, they aren't going to die to the last man (as you suggest) to get rid of it. Would you? Would the people you know? Not if life was the least bit livable under the regime, and not if the alternative was worse. For a while, your average just looking out for his family and friends Iraqi thought the Islamists were the better choice. The evidence (and polling) suggests that that is no longer the case. So while I agree that all in all the whole thing may not have been worth it, Iraqis will almost certainly become our "friends" over the long term. Their only alternative is essentially nutcase religious warlords, and they just don't hate us that much. And as a final point, the U.S. Military hardly behaves like the crips, and don't compare the two.
In defense of the "ignorant" public, if I have no say in future policy, what really is the point in worrying about it? I don't hold it again Joe Public for not caring overmuch about the future health implications of emerging technology, because he really has no say in how those health issues are ultimately handled, and worrying about them really does gain him nothing. So complain about "ignorance is bliss" if you want, I just don't think your average going-to-work-at-the-plant Joe has a better option.
And I suppose you could argue that some education would allow him to personally mitigate certain problems (like ducttaping over the seals on his windows to keep nanoparticles from blowing in), but I think that really is in the minority of cases.
Actually, total knowledge would only need to shrink if the population level was static. Technically speaking, average knowledge could decrease while total knowledge increased so long as population increased faster than Kavg (as a percentage of course). I know it's kind of a trivial point, but you shouldn't discount the progress man has made simply by dint of having more people sitting around thinking, rather than people sitting around thinking better, as in we are not always so much smarter than our parents as we may think we are.
Should I be able to possess whatever hazardous materials I wish without respect to training or available equipment? Drive any way I please? What about owning explosives, or shooting at my neighbors? My point is that it should be obvious to you that there are plenty of liberties that deserve to be given up. The fact that you think it's entirely obvious that the liberties you like are in all matters a benefit to society, should worry you. That's a big red flag for the presence of cognitive dissonance. I'm not advocating tossing out the Bill of Rights (obviously), but the case for and against many of our liberties is hardly as clear as you make it.
The state could clearly make me safer by keeping me locked in my house with a bunch of armed guards protecting me, and carefully selecting my food and watching my health. The argument against that set-up is that it would suck, not that it wouldn't be safe. There are no physical laws that imply that the society with the most liberty will be safest (even if that's what you may desire), and using a bunch of governments that in no way had the safety of their citizens as a goal to prove otherwise is bad logic. I'm not sure you can make that case that their totalitarianism itself was entirely the root of their bad safety records.
In any case, the argument against the Nanny state and the Big Brother state needs to be the states themselves, not that they won't ever ever make us safer. Because in at least some (perhaps many) cases they will. The point needs to be that it's a very bad trade. If you try to argue the safety angle, you undermine yourself with those cases in which you are obviously wrong, and undermine your whole argument. The greater public would not have modded your comment +5, and it's them that really need to be convinced.
I won't throw any negatives at you (because you already said you agree with them), but you should still be aware that this in no way implies that socialized care is the best, or even close to the best system. I'm all for looking at better systems than the one we use now, but I'd rather not use the "it won a race of lame men" line of reasoning to decide on a replacement.
There are serious upheaval costs with the move to universal care, and because it's an entitlement system (everyone is entitled to care), it would become entrenched in society, and it might be unduly hard to switch away from if we so chose later on. Look for instance at the trouble we are having changing SS, even when the system is an obviously impending disaster.
Our medical system does need fixing, but I'm not so sure as you are that socialized medicine is such an obvious answer, and I think more public debate and general thinking is needed before we do anything hasty.
>>How useful is 1 million dollars if, in 5 years, the wealth of a nation can be wiped out by irresponsible government?
How useful is one vote?
It's simple fact that while it would be a problem if everyone realized their vote was worth squat and decided to stay home, that has no bearing on the fact that my individual vote counts for a vanishingly (emphasis on vanishing) small amount. I'd take the million dollars, not because I think it wouldn't be bad if everyone made that choice, but because I'm able to separate that issue in my mind from the fact that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning while getting hit by a bus than cast the deciding vote in any national or state issue.
>>then what is to stop other countries doing the same?
I don't disagree with the general slant of your post, but this part is wrong. What do you think stops them now? Hint: nothing. North Korea is in fact a sovereign nation, and does what it wants, just like pretty much everyone else. The reason they don't preemptively strike anyone (but particularly the US), is because such a move is very obviously not in their interest. It's not out of some respect for international law, or precedent, or what the US does. Let me repeat that: nothing stops North Korea, or any other country, from preemptively striking another country, other than their own self interest. Their tanks wouldn't magically run out of gas, or their guns of bullets, if they were to try. It's simply by choice that they do not.
Which means, of course, that whether or not the US chooses to attack others preemptively does not in any way imply that North Korea will suddenly attack us back because now nations have sudden;y realized that they can be the first to start wars (who would have thought), and the US is a threat to them. It will continue to be a bad idea for NK to attack the US, so they will continue not to.
Apparently it feels unfair to you on some level that the US can swing its dick around on the world stage and do what it wants, but guess what, life isn't fair and the US has the best war machine, and that's just how it goes. If it's in America's best interest to attack someone (and that's a very big "if"), America will do it. Not because it's right, but because they can. You can complain about it all you want, but that's just the way the world works. Don't contrive scenarios where now the sky falls down on them because other nations suddenly realize the hand of God does not stop them from behaving unethically. They already know, including Kim Jong Il, and they aren't suddenly go crazy and attack America because America broke some sacred (nonexistent) rule.
>>morally dishonest or technologically incompetent.
Can't I punish Seagate on behalf of the technologically incompetent? It's not morally dishonest for the police to be the ones to jail a robber, even when YOU were the one he robbed. And don't forget that the technologically incompetent encompass a huge swath of hard drive purchasers, so I wouldn't feel bad grabbing the rebate even if they didn't mislead you in particular. That their dishonesty was common, or easy to see through, doesn't seem like an adequate defense to me. So like I said, grab the rebate, and use it to buy someone you like a gift, or donate the money to charity. Even if you weren't PERSONALLY mislead.
It is the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy is that no one is better off after the commons is abused, and the commons is public perception of what GB (or MB) means, and the size of the drivers they are purchasing.
>>So the effect is that the lottery money goes to the pet projects of the legislature (in a roundabout-on-paper fashion).
No, the fungibility implies that the money is essentially evenly distributed over the state budget, and NOT tied to one category. That's the whole point.
Near-autonomous boats ARE a good idea though, in another example of very useful tech having to trickle down first from the military. There's really no compelling reason for shipping boats to be manned (and in fact a lot of compelling reasons not), other than the fact robots can't steer well enough yet. So I, for one, welcome our new seafaring robotic overlords.
>>People, and the media, aren't willing to hold candidates accountable for refusing to hold a real debate
Average people don't see it this way. One of the most enlightening things I saw recently was Frank Luntz doing a focus group after the last republican debate. When he asked members who they thought had won and why, all of their "whys" were things like "He came off as strong" "He seemed tough, and he stuck to his opinions" "He didn't back down, and he seemed very focused".
These were the entirety of what people were using to judge the presidential candidates! Crap character judgments about whether he always looks you in the eye or not! So the problem is that, unfortunately, your average voter (at least on the republican side) has no clue what makes a good president, and so these debates seem fine to them. It's not shirking duty, it's not knowing what the duty is in the first place. Bring back highschool civics!
You claim that we need to help with the instability by leaving troops there, which further increases the instability..
The troops don't increase instability. That's why everyone says there will be a civil war when we leave. Courage would involve doing something different, not following the same old methodology that has been proven a failure.
I don't like the war either, but we are NOT doing the same thing we were a year ago. A year ago (pre-Patraeus and "surge") we kept the majority of our troops on base, reasoning as you are now that their presence was causing instability, and that if we lowered their footprint, violence would go down. Didn't work. The new strategy puts troops much closer to the locals - as in increased presence - and the country is more stable.
Again, I'm not for the war, I don't like how it's being run, and I don't think we have a cost effective way to fix the place. But please don't spout general nonsense and stuff that hasn't been true for nearly a year.
>>No matter how much we spend (lives and money) in Iraq, when we leave it will be a civil war.
I'm always confused when people say this. You really think if we reinstated the draft and raised taxes to WWII levels we couldn't get that country in line? Saddam, ruler of a country much smaller and poorer than ours, was able to maintain order, so I suspect that we could to. What you mean to say is that we AREN'T going to spend the requisite blood and treasure to do a good job over there, so we should stop bullshitting around wasting money and lives doing a bad job.
My way recognizes that victory is essentially always available and we need to decide what's worth what and what's in our best interest. Your way makes something up that isn't true - that we can never win in Iraq no matter what - and works forward from there to make decisions without consequently considering all the options.
I'm not pro-Iraq war, but the reason we lose over there (and lost in Vietnam) is not because we can't win, it's because we can't win with the resources we decide to use. Anything else is simply an anti-war talking point, plainly not true, and lowers the quality of the debate.
Agreed. I can't shake the suspicion that the average value paid for the album simply reflects people doing a gut average of the normal amount an album costs and zero. I suspect the price would ultimately bottom out before it hit zero (as successive averages drove it lower and lower), but I'd still be stunned if the current price wasn't inflated by a guilt that proves transient should this practice become common.
Maybe this is still a superior system at 1$, but either way, we're almost certainly not seeing the equilibrium price here.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Besides, if were all supposed to be companions to God after we're dead, why the hell would he want to surround himself with stupid people?
You can't have your cake and eat it. That's a line from the bible. So throw it at religious folk if you want, but it doesn't actually advance your argument except in so far as it hurts theirs.
I think you underestimate how crazy the administration was that led us into that war. If they were out for money, there were far easy ways to get it than starting some stupid legacy ruining war. We have Hanlon's law for a reason, and I think all the evidence suggests that Bush, Rummy, et al, really thought they could do something great and just entirely fucked it up. That they did it for money via halliburton doesn't really make sense, if you stop and think about it for more than a minute. They'd have to be laundering money, because any gains they made from stock are public and small, and that would imply some really bizarre scenario with halliburton execs giving administration members briefcases of cash, or wiring money around through different countries, and stuff like that. And you have to ask yourself, why would they do any of that. Halliburton execs are risking life in jail for a gain not at all in proportion to that risk, and there are obviously better ways for members of the administration to take care of themselves financially. The halliburton stuff is almost certainly all skin deep, with Cheney and such having executive friends there, and making use of good old fashioned cronyism to get the job done. That's obviously bad in and of itself, but it's not the treasonous situation you make it out to be, and it's certainly not the reason the war was started.
You're forgetting the Air Force. They're aren't tied up, and if you'll recall Desert Storm, they're more than capable of handling any Middle Eastern nation that decides to make a land grab. My point is that army tied up != military tied up.
>>Pretext to torture and eliminate most of the Bill of Rights I think you're trying to strap together too many conspiracies here. The Iraq war has never been used as a justification for the erosion of the bill of rights or torturing U.S. citizens (which of course hasn't been done). The pretext was Islamic terrorism, which I'm surprised you of all people don't know is actually a separate issue from the Iraq war. So you might want to scratch that one of your list before your next meeting at the docks.
Which is actually the reason why I think we'll ultimately win in Iraq (once the people in charge finish getting a clue). We have an incredible amount of money and resources. The average Iraqi is pretty damn poor. You mean to tell me we can't make it in their best interest to side with us? Our current problems have nothing to do with networked vs non-networked approaches to war. They just have to do with basic incompetence.
The Iraqis are hardly as monolithic as you imply. The majority of them are more interested in general quality of life issues than anything else, like whether they have a decent job, can go to the market safely, have clean water and electricity, and so on and so forth. It is true that the majority of them don't like Americans, even beyond the amount you might suspect given that we've killed a lot of them, but they don't hate us enough to stop being essentially utilitarian, which is what they are. That's what the Anbar Awakaning, the "Concerned Citizens" groups, and so on are all about. The Iraqis are just people. As much as they might not like a foreign occupying force, they aren't going to die to the last man (as you suggest) to get rid of it. Would you? Would the people you know? Not if life was the least bit livable under the regime, and not if the alternative was worse. For a while, your average just looking out for his family and friends Iraqi thought the Islamists were the better choice. The evidence (and polling) suggests that that is no longer the case. So while I agree that all in all the whole thing may not have been worth it, Iraqis will almost certainly become our "friends" over the long term. Their only alternative is essentially nutcase religious warlords, and they just don't hate us that much. And as a final point, the U.S. Military hardly behaves like the crips, and don't compare the two.
In defense of the "ignorant" public, if I have no say in future policy, what really is the point in worrying about it? I don't hold it again Joe Public for not caring overmuch about the future health implications of emerging technology, because he really has no say in how those health issues are ultimately handled, and worrying about them really does gain him nothing. So complain about "ignorance is bliss" if you want, I just don't think your average going-to-work-at-the-plant Joe has a better option.
And I suppose you could argue that some education would allow him to personally mitigate certain problems (like ducttaping over the seals on his windows to keep nanoparticles from blowing in), but I think that really is in the minority of cases.
Actually, total knowledge would only need to shrink if the population level was static. Technically speaking, average knowledge could decrease while total knowledge increased so long as population increased faster than Kavg (as a percentage of course). I know it's kind of a trivial point, but you shouldn't discount the progress man has made simply by dint of having more people sitting around thinking, rather than people sitting around thinking better, as in we are not always so much smarter than our parents as we may think we are.
Should I be able to possess whatever hazardous materials I wish without respect to training or available equipment? Drive any way I please? What about owning explosives, or shooting at my neighbors? My point is that it should be obvious to you that there are plenty of liberties that deserve to be given up. The fact that you think it's entirely obvious that the liberties you like are in all matters a benefit to society, should worry you. That's a big red flag for the presence of cognitive dissonance. I'm not advocating tossing out the Bill of Rights (obviously), but the case for and against many of our liberties is hardly as clear as you make it.
The state could clearly make me safer by keeping me locked in my house with a bunch of armed guards protecting me, and carefully selecting my food and watching my health. The argument against that set-up is that it would suck, not that it wouldn't be safe. There are no physical laws that imply that the society with the most liberty will be safest (even if that's what you may desire), and using a bunch of governments that in no way had the safety of their citizens as a goal to prove otherwise is bad logic. I'm not sure you can make that case that their totalitarianism itself was entirely the root of their bad safety records.
In any case, the argument against the Nanny state and the Big Brother state needs to be the states themselves, not that they won't ever ever make us safer. Because in at least some (perhaps many) cases they will. The point needs to be that it's a very bad trade. If you try to argue the safety angle, you undermine yourself with those cases in which you are obviously wrong, and undermine your whole argument. The greater public would not have modded your comment +5, and it's them that really need to be convinced.
>>still better than what we have now
I won't throw any negatives at you (because you already said you agree with them), but you should still be aware that this in no way implies that socialized care is the best, or even close to the best system. I'm all for looking at better systems than the one we use now, but I'd rather not use the "it won a race of lame men" line of reasoning to decide on a replacement.
There are serious upheaval costs with the move to universal care, and because it's an entitlement system (everyone is entitled to care), it would become entrenched in society, and it might be unduly hard to switch away from if we so chose later on. Look for instance at the trouble we are having changing SS, even when the system is an obviously impending disaster.
Our medical system does need fixing, but I'm not so sure as you are that socialized medicine is such an obvious answer, and I think more public debate and general thinking is needed before we do anything hasty.
>>How useful is 1 million dollars if, in 5 years, the wealth of a nation can be wiped out by irresponsible government?
How useful is one vote?
It's simple fact that while it would be a problem if everyone realized their vote was worth squat and decided to stay home, that has no bearing on the fact that my individual vote counts for a vanishingly (emphasis on vanishing) small amount. I'd take the million dollars, not because I think it wouldn't be bad if everyone made that choice, but because I'm able to separate that issue in my mind from the fact that I'm more likely to be struck by lightning while getting hit by a bus than cast the deciding vote in any national or state issue.
Isn't that what I said?
>>then what is to stop other countries doing the same?
I don't disagree with the general slant of your post, but this part is wrong. What do you think stops them now? Hint: nothing. North Korea is in fact a sovereign nation, and does what it wants, just like pretty much everyone else. The reason they don't preemptively strike anyone (but particularly the US), is because such a move is very obviously not in their interest. It's not out of some respect for international law, or precedent, or what the US does. Let me repeat that: nothing stops North Korea, or any other country, from preemptively striking another country, other than their own self interest. Their tanks wouldn't magically run out of gas, or their guns of bullets, if they were to try. It's simply by choice that they do not.
Which means, of course, that whether or not the US chooses to attack others preemptively does not in any way imply that North Korea will suddenly attack us back because now nations have sudden;y realized that they can be the first to start wars (who would have thought), and the US is a threat to them. It will continue to be a bad idea for NK to attack the US, so they will continue not to.
Apparently it feels unfair to you on some level that the US can swing its dick around on the world stage and do what it wants, but guess what, life isn't fair and the US has the best war machine, and that's just how it goes. If it's in America's best interest to attack someone (and that's a very big "if"), America will do it. Not because it's right, but because they can. You can complain about it all you want, but that's just the way the world works. Don't contrive scenarios where now the sky falls down on them because other nations suddenly realize the hand of God does not stop them from behaving unethically. They already know, including Kim Jong Il, and they aren't suddenly go crazy and attack America because America broke some sacred (nonexistent) rule.
Whether violent fantasies are cathartic has nothing to do with whether they are risk factors or not (which they are).
>>morally dishonest or technologically incompetent.
Can't I punish Seagate on behalf of the technologically incompetent? It's not morally dishonest for the police to be the ones to jail a robber, even when YOU were the one he robbed. And don't forget that the technologically incompetent encompass a huge swath of hard drive purchasers, so I wouldn't feel bad grabbing the rebate even if they didn't mislead you in particular. That their dishonesty was common, or easy to see through, doesn't seem like an adequate defense to me. So like I said, grab the rebate, and use it to buy someone you like a gift, or donate the money to charity. Even if you weren't PERSONALLY mislead.
It is the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy is that no one is better off after the commons is abused, and the commons is public perception of what GB (or MB) means, and the size of the drivers they are purchasing.
>>So the effect is that the lottery money goes to the pet projects of the legislature (in a roundabout-on-paper fashion).
No, the fungibility implies that the money is essentially evenly distributed over the state budget, and NOT tied to one category. That's the whole point.
Near-autonomous boats ARE a good idea though, in another example of very useful tech having to trickle down first from the military. There's really no compelling reason for shipping boats to be manned (and in fact a lot of compelling reasons not), other than the fact robots can't steer well enough yet. So I, for one, welcome our new seafaring robotic overlords.
I'm mad about the chemistry sets too, but didn't we already debunk the idea that the terrorists hate us for our freedom?
God dammit not floor tiles again! I knew that cereal box felt too heavy...
>>People, and the media, aren't willing to hold candidates accountable for refusing to hold a real debate
Average people don't see it this way. One of the most enlightening things I saw recently was Frank Luntz doing a focus group after the last republican debate. When he asked members who they thought had won and why, all of their "whys" were things like "He came off as strong" "He seemed tough, and he stuck to his opinions" "He didn't back down, and he seemed very focused".
These were the entirety of what people were using to judge the presidential candidates! Crap character judgments about whether he always looks you in the eye or not! So the problem is that, unfortunately, your average voter (at least on the republican side) has no clue what makes a good president, and so these debates seem fine to them. It's not shirking duty, it's not knowing what the duty is in the first place. Bring back highschool civics!
You claim that we need to help with the instability by leaving troops there, which further increases the instability..
The troops don't increase instability. That's why everyone says there will be a civil war when we leave.
Courage would involve doing something different, not following the same old methodology that has been proven a failure.
I don't like the war either, but we are NOT doing the same thing we were a year ago. A year ago (pre-Patraeus and "surge") we kept the majority of our troops on base, reasoning as you are now that their presence was causing instability, and that if we lowered their footprint, violence would go down. Didn't work. The new strategy puts troops much closer to the locals - as in increased presence - and the country is more stable.
Again, I'm not for the war, I don't like how it's being run, and I don't think we have a cost effective way to fix the place. But please don't spout general nonsense and stuff that hasn't been true for nearly a year.
>>No matter how much we spend (lives and money) in Iraq, when we leave it will be a civil war.
I'm always confused when people say this. You really think if we reinstated the draft and raised taxes to WWII levels we couldn't get that country in line? Saddam, ruler of a country much smaller and poorer than ours, was able to maintain order, so I suspect that we could to. What you mean to say is that we AREN'T going to spend the requisite blood and treasure to do a good job over there, so we should stop bullshitting around wasting money and lives doing a bad job.
My way recognizes that victory is essentially always available and we need to decide what's worth what and what's in our best interest. Your way makes something up that isn't true - that we can never win in Iraq no matter what - and works forward from there to make decisions without consequently considering all the options.
I'm not pro-Iraq war, but the reason we lose over there (and lost in Vietnam) is not because we can't win, it's because we can't win with the resources we decide to use. Anything else is simply an anti-war talking point, plainly not true, and lowers the quality of the debate.
Agreed. I can't shake the suspicion that the average value paid for the album simply reflects people doing a gut average of the normal amount an album costs and zero. I suspect the price would ultimately bottom out before it hit zero (as successive averages drove it lower and lower), but I'd still be stunned if the current price wasn't inflated by a guilt that proves transient should this practice become common.
Maybe this is still a superior system at 1$, but either way, we're almost certainly not seeing the equilibrium price here.
Whats the moral of the story though? You're still using Comcast!