"The upshot of this analysis is that it simply wasn't possible to execute "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan because the population was never going to be receptive to an American government. Government-by-forceful-imposition is doomed to fail."
Your conclusion makes no sense given that you stated it worked in Germany and Japan.
"1) there was little popular identification with the regime in charge, and 2) individuals felt little personal loss when Coalition forces toppled the government in a surgical way."
The first point should have made it easier. As for your second point, have you even bothered to look at the body count? Or the infrastructure? This was only surgical in the sense that we didn't carpet bomb entire cities.
I have no real doubt that we could impose a government if we committed the same amount of troops. But 3 million or so troops per country were never going to happen (about 1 per 20 civilians).
Which makes me wonder why we even bother to stay. We aren't going to commit the needed resources. We never were. At this point we are staying because we fear leaving might do more harm. Does pretending we care do anyone any good?
"It's still unfair and unjust for government employees to be paid so much more than the public."
Why is it unfair and unjust for people to be paid a living wage? Why is it that government employees are overpaid? Perhaps private sector employees are underpaid?
"However it happened, it needs to be corrected."
Absolutely. The private sector employees should be paid more. They have made massive productivity gains and have not been rewarded.
I reject the race to the bottom. It's only good for the wealthy and then only in the short term. People who buy into that crap are ignorant assholes.
"Frankly, I gloat over not having to pay sales taxes (when possible). That's the free market."
I'm sorry, but breaking the law is contrary to a free market. Free markets are not unregulated markets.
Here's the deal. If you live in a State with sales taxes and you order online or by phone or mail and don't pay the taxes, you are breaking the law. Most people don't pay because there is little to no risk of getting caught. The States would prefer the retailer remit the tax (easier for them). Or failing that, release the purchase records. Many online retailers, such as Amazon, refuse to do both. In those cases, I would consider Amazon party to tax evasion.
I live in a State where I have to pay taxes in when I order from Amazon. It doesn't affect my purchase decisions at all. Taxes virtually never alter my purchase decisions. Even when I have to pay taxes and shipping, ordering online offers better selection, service and price. It makes no sense to order online just to avoid sales tax.
"The government knows better than to enforce those taxes upon the citizenry as it only causes a minor inconvenience on a single online retailer, 300 million people are likely to be a lot more upset."
You might have a point if the States hadn't asked for the transaction records that would allow them to go after the people committing tax evasion. Amazon (and others) refused. At this point Amazon is actively involved in a crime. Or at least you can make that case.
I understand why Amazon and others are doing this from a business standpoint. But don't pretend they give a rat's ass about customer rights or are doing this for ethical or moral reasons. I think they have proven that they will screw over customers when convenient.
"Then there's the prohibition (at the state level) for accepting anything but gold or silver in payment of debts. Whoops."
Which has been superceded by case law. Whoops.
"On the contrary, just read the document -- these things are plain as day. How can you argue with phrasing like "No State shall..." Just read Article I, section 10, and you'll begin to get the idea."
There is a branch of the US Government called the Judicial branch which interprets the laws including the Constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it?
"I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a state has the right (or the feds, for that matter) to collect money to pay for acts forbidden to it."
But reasonable people can disagree about what is forbidden. People who believe in original intent need to get a clue. There is no such thing. The writers of the Constitution were not of one mind to begin with. They couldn't agree on the meaning of the Constitution while they were still alive. I don't know why anyone thinks we can determine their absolute intent well after their death. Sure, the words are important but they are often in conflict. And if the courts rule that States can accept paper money or collect inerstate sales taxes then they can. Until they rule otherwise. Those become part of Constitutional law. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for so many people to understand.
The Constitution (and laws and regulations) are not isolated unchanging things. It isn't sacred. They are a starting point for determing what is legal not the end. They are part of a complex web that includes court rulings and social norms.
"Try dropping the sexual scare words and perhaps a rational conversation can be had on this."
If you wanted to have a rational discussion you wouldn't dismiss valid claims. If any of these things were done by a normal citizen they would be charged with a crime. Yet we are allowing the government to do them without probable cause. Apparently our rights no longer apply at the airport. And most people don't care. I find this appalling.
The screening methods are worthless according to security experts with no vested interests. We are wasting time and money on something that does not work. This decreases safety. We are violating the rights of citizens in the process. And traumatizing a portion. The screening will likely trigger people who have been raped (1 in 33 men, 1 in 6 women), people with anxiety, people with PTSD, etc. Some of these will be the screeners (TSA personnel). We are exposing passengers and screeners to additional unneeded radiation. This will lead to additional cancers and deaths on a population basis. How does killing people to protect them help?
"Then let them *do something* like spending all that money on medical scans for people who actually need them. Unlike the scans for terrorists, the medical scans might actually turn up something useful."
The key thing to remember about the TSA and Homeland Security is that they do not get rewarded for success, only penalized for failure. So they need to show they are doing something about their last failure. And have something to point to for the next failure. So this policy is a good solution for their problem. But that problem is not security.
"Underwear full of PETN [wikipedia.org], remember?"
And why should I be worried about a bomb that won't work?
The only impressive terrorist attacks on US soil were the bombing of the WTC in 1993 and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Because those were large bombs on US soil. That required talent. And one was done by a US citizen.
All the rest were pretty pathetic. Seriously, box cutters? Does anyone think it will happen again? Sure, they killed many people. But it was not terribly impressive. A car fire in Times Square? If that is the best the've got, we are in great shape.
I'd be more worried about toner cartridges myself.
"Exaggeration aside, however, if the DHS is basing its policies on (outdated) panic-driven poll results without regard to cost, liberty, or the reality that some attacks will get through, whatever they may do, then that is just one more example of the many things wrong with the DHS."
I have no idea if DHS believes the scanners and pat downs are really effective. I'm not sure which answer would be worse. But it is certainly true that one of the primary reasons for implementation of the new policies is CYA. Any procedures are going to fail at some point. But it is vitally important for DHS and whatever administration in power at the time to be able to say "We did everything possible (that the public would accept)". Regardless of effectiveness. They have to be seen as responding to threats. The public demands safety. In part because they were promised it. Oops.
"This ignores the 800-lb gorilla in the room: Islamic extremist terrorists for whom killing the infidels is a religious mandate in their minds. They are, in their minds, "on a mission from God" to quote the Blues Brothers. These people reject everything the West stands for. They will not be "invested in our civilization", ever. Their only goal is to kill all the Western infidels."
Yet here we are. And Israel is in no real danger of collapse either.
Yes, the people you mention are a threat. But they are only a threat if they can recruit a large following. By themselves they are rather insignificant. Suicide bombings and attacks are rather self limiting. Most people, regardless of their religion, just aren't motivated to go out and personally kill people. But invade a few countries and kill a few million people directly or indirectly and then you can be in a world of hurt....
"There is little wonder we're now dealing with bureaucrats who have a mandate to "protect" us but lack the understanding to actually do a good job at it and the inability to realize the fact."
I don't accept this for a second. What you are describing is WILLFUL ignorance. I've seen this in action. People at all levels in (and outside) the organization deliberately ignoring the obvious. And going to great lengths to do so.
It's security theater. It's obvious. The purpose is CYA (for various reasons). But most people in Homeland Security, in the media or the travelling public do not want to admit it. That's frustrating.
"A valid presentation as to why the expense is needed will, usually, get you the approval."
Did you even bother to read the summary? This is New Orleans. Louisiana.
Do you seriously think that a backup system for online real estate records is a priority expenditure when they don't have funds for basic public services?
They can always revert to the paper records. People managed just fine for hundreds of years with them. Or they could just pay more for title insurance. This falls into the category of inconvenience.
"....but that Social Security ain't gonna look so pretty if we keep running a big fat deficit..."
Social security has a dedicated funding source. Which is why people are trying to cut it or privatize it. They want access to the money.
"...to say nothing of the way that the public employee pension systems are built to assume 10% rates of return and contractually put the taxpayers on the hook for a shortfall."
And this is different from any other pension system how? Public pension systems are extremely well designed and run. It is the legislatures that fail to fund them or treat them like piggy banks that are the problems. People who are anti-pension are anti-worker. Pure and simple.
"Dumb laws and dumb servants block progress towards new ideas."
And who exactly would be funding the space program without the government? To date no private companies have developed space capabilities of any significance without government assistance (money, support, contracts, etc.). It's not like they haven't had the time, money and opportunity to do it themselves.
"Believe it or not suburbanites are NOT the center of the universe."
The problem is that even the city dwellers have bought into the concept of having an SUV that is off road capable and doubles as a house. The effective market is far smaller. Or you have to convince your actual market to behave rationally after spending decades convincing them not to....
"They have all of the advantages of cars (easy to drive, easy to park, affordable) combined with all of the advantages of SUVs (lots of cargo capacity, good visibility)."
You are joking? Right? I mean seriously?
Crossovers are glorified hatchbacks and station wagons that might have an inch or two of extra clearance and a high center of gravity. They certainly don't have much cargo capacity (check out their actual load capacity in addition to the space). They certainly aren't cheap (they cost more to maintain and run). And if you are concerned about visibility, might I suggest not tailgating the vehicle in front of you.
"If humans spread themselves to two planets, we'd be far safer from extinction by a major impact event."
But his point still stands. Why the fuck do I care? What's the point in spending large amounts of money to prevent something that might happen in the future that won't affect me? Expecially if you can spend that money on things that you know will make a difference now. In any case if you are really worried about a major impact event you would be spending a far smaller amount of money on detection and a method to divert or destroy the target. And a means to survive the impact.
The problem with a colony on Mars or anywhere else is that they would merely watch all the people on Earth die. Then they would suffer the same fate after they run out of critical supplies they rely on from Earth. They will probably never be self sufficient (until such time you can walk outside and farm....). Unless the goal is to recolonize the Earth and that could probably be done easier from some point on the Earth.
"It is those latter, broader interests that laws are supposed to serve, not the interests of any one individual. The concept is called "rule of law", to be contrasted with "rule of man". Personally, I think where we are is a fine place for us to be."
Really? If your view is common then we are truly screwed.
Because that's how we got decisions like Dred Scott and court support for discrimination in all aspects of our life. The rule of law is supposed to treat everyone equally not priviledge some at the expense of others. I think you have it exactly backwards.
Society favors the status quo. And the status quo is generally not favorable to large groups of individuals.
"You are welcome to suggest alternatives, but I think it's a good thing having a guide who has been specially trained on public policy, politics, and the history of thinking on how societies should progress (not to mention the mundane details, like the actual laws in your jurisdiction). Of course, I am a lawyer, so feel free to accuse me of bias."
You are biased. Never forget that. But everyone is. The concept you espouse is incredibly elitist, in the most negative sense of the word. It priviledges a few at the expense of the many. Lawyers should not be the gatekeepers of progress. No one group should be. Diversity of thought and experience is a good thing.
People are not interested in laws. They want justice. The problem is that lawyers deal with laws. Our system is not actually designed for a justice outcome as the primary event.
"The military and FAA stood up professional public-affairs personnel who, instead of saying "this is a commercial airliner that we knew was coming and have a track of in our logs", or "let me make a phone call", were prepared with and delivered "we don't know."
Which, come to think of it, bugs the fuck out of me."
It bothers you that professional public affairs personnel told the truth? You would have preferred that they speculate? Seriously?!?
I suggest that you watch less television. It's rotting your brain.
"I agree about military spending but Social Security is soon to be bankrupt."
You are lying.
Social security can pay 100% of benefits through 2037. After 2037 they can pay about 75% of benefits if no changes are made.
"In 1950 16 people paid into SS for every person collecting it. Today that ratio is 3 workers for every retiree, and in 10 year it may be 2 to 1."
Do you come from a long line of idiots? Or do you just try really hard? This is what a mature entittlement program looks like. It was predicted by those who designed the fucking program. It's not a failure, it's what was expected to happen. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fucking moron.
"Fact is when established under FDR SS was only supposed to be a safety net, people were expected to save for retirement. But now too many people depend on it, even those who made enough money still didn't save and invest enough."
And it is still only a safety net. People still have to save. If they don't, retirement will be unpleasant.
What exactly will cutting SS solve? It will make those peoples lives worse. Just so you can feel better. That's pretty much the definition of evil. It won't save any money. Because someone is still going to have to support them. SS has a dedicated funding stream. Those who want to cut SS want access to that stream. They want to redistribute the wealth from the working class to the wealthy.
"People like to bitch about how many large trucks and SUVs are on the road (and how fuel inefficient they are), but the reality is your own government is almost entirely responsible for that."
True, but not because of the reasons you state. We have them because gas is cheap, the roads are wide and people aren't very wise.
"The point is that 2% unemployment, which is what we had three years ago, is far too low for any demographic, meaning that we had too many job openings for college graduates and not enough people who were qualified for them."
That is simply incorrect. Not all job openings that require a college degree actually need them.
Saying that the unemployment rate is 4.7% for college graduates and therefore there is no recession for them is just bullshit. They have many options. More schooling, FT jobs outside their field (Underemployment) and PT jobs. All of those reduce unemployment stats. But it hardly means that there are too many jobs. It merely means that they have wasted time and money going to college to get a degree they can't use.
"This would discourage a lot of the populist appealing to the extremes and bring politics closer to the center IMHO."
What fucking planet do you live on? You do realize that the center is to the left of the Democratic party and to the far left of the Republican party? Put another way, Obama is best described as a moderate conservative.
Proportional representation might or might not be a good idea. But don't think for second that it will bring politics closer to the center. It will do the opposite. If you think otherwise, look to Europe. Of course, that means there could actually be true liberals and socialists in the government in large numbers.
"I've seen left-leaning folks excoriate Rasmussen as just being a "mouthpiece" of the Right, but in fact, Pollster.com (now part of the Huffington Post) has acknowledged that they have generally been very accurate in the past few election cycles. Why? Because Scott Rasmussen knows how to... drum roll, please!... do demographic weighting, accurately determine who is, in fact, likely to vote, correct for cell phone usage and etc., etc."
And those are mutually exclusive why? Rasmussen does two types of polling. One is extremely biased and inaccurate. Basically the "mouthpiece" variety. But it also does some very accurate polling close to the election. That's why is has a poor reputation. They can do very good polling, it's just at times they chose not to.
The real problem with polling is figuring out who is going to vote. And that seems to be a problem this cycle. People are making assumptions of a large Republican wave. And if that assumption is used in most of the polling or most of the polling is done by one agency for much of the cycle (Rasmussen) you tend to create a narrative. It can create reality rather than reflect it. The problem is that no pollster actually knows what reality will look like. They might guess right but that will probably have ended up being a guess.
Polls are starting to be used as the final word on reality. This is really dangerous. Just like reporting the results of elections before polls close, it matters. Polls are becoming weapons. Just another campaign ad. But people don't realize it. Yet another failure of the media.
Slashdot Mirror
"The upshot of this analysis is that it simply wasn't possible to execute "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan because the population was never going to be receptive to an American government. Government-by-forceful-imposition is doomed to fail."
Your conclusion makes no sense given that you stated it worked in Germany and Japan.
"1) there was little popular identification with the regime in charge, and 2) individuals felt little personal loss when Coalition forces toppled the government in a surgical way."
The first point should have made it easier. As for your second point, have you even bothered to look at the body count? Or the infrastructure? This was only surgical in the sense that we didn't carpet bomb entire cities.
I have no real doubt that we could impose a government if we committed the same amount of troops. But 3 million or so troops per country were never going to happen (about 1 per 20 civilians).
Which makes me wonder why we even bother to stay. We aren't going to commit the needed resources. We never were. At this point we are staying because we fear leaving might do more harm. Does pretending we care do anyone any good?
"It's still unfair and unjust for government employees to be paid so much more than the public."
Why is it unfair and unjust for people to be paid a living wage? Why is it that government employees are overpaid? Perhaps private sector employees are underpaid?
"However it happened, it needs to be corrected."
Absolutely. The private sector employees should be paid more. They have made massive productivity gains and have not been rewarded.
I reject the race to the bottom. It's only good for the wealthy and then only in the short term. People who buy into that crap are ignorant assholes.
"Frankly, I gloat over not having to pay sales taxes (when possible). That's the free market."
I'm sorry, but breaking the law is contrary to a free market. Free markets are not unregulated markets.
Here's the deal. If you live in a State with sales taxes and you order online or by phone or mail and don't pay the taxes, you are breaking the law. Most people don't pay because there is little to no risk of getting caught. The States would prefer the retailer remit the tax (easier for them). Or failing that, release the purchase records. Many online retailers, such as Amazon, refuse to do both. In those cases, I would consider Amazon party to tax evasion.
I live in a State where I have to pay taxes in when I order from Amazon. It doesn't affect my purchase decisions at all. Taxes virtually never alter my purchase decisions. Even when I have to pay taxes and shipping, ordering online offers better selection, service and price. It makes no sense to order online just to avoid sales tax.
"The government knows better than to enforce those taxes upon the citizenry as it only causes a minor inconvenience on a single online retailer, 300 million people are likely to be a lot more upset."
You might have a point if the States hadn't asked for the transaction records that would allow them to go after the people committing tax evasion. Amazon (and others) refused. At this point Amazon is actively involved in a crime. Or at least you can make that case.
I understand why Amazon and others are doing this from a business standpoint. But don't pretend they give a rat's ass about customer rights or are doing this for ethical or moral reasons. I think they have proven that they will screw over customers when convenient.
"Then there's the prohibition (at the state level) for accepting anything but gold or silver in payment of debts. Whoops."
Which has been superceded by case law. Whoops.
"On the contrary, just read the document -- these things are plain as day. How can you argue with phrasing like "No State shall..." Just read Article I, section 10, and you'll begin to get the idea."
There is a branch of the US Government called the Judicial branch which interprets the laws including the Constitution. Perhaps you have heard of it?
"I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a state has the right (or the feds, for that matter) to collect money to pay for acts forbidden to it."
But reasonable people can disagree about what is forbidden. People who believe in original intent need to get a clue. There is no such thing. The writers of the Constitution were not of one mind to begin with. They couldn't agree on the meaning of the Constitution while they were still alive. I don't know why anyone thinks we can determine their absolute intent well after their death. Sure, the words are important but they are often in conflict. And if the courts rule that States can accept paper money or collect inerstate sales taxes then they can. Until they rule otherwise. Those become part of Constitutional law. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for so many people to understand.
The Constitution (and laws and regulations) are not isolated unchanging things. It isn't sacred. They are a starting point for determing what is legal not the end. They are part of a complex web that includes court rulings and social norms.
"Simple, we go to Def Con 5!"
We already are at DefCon 5.
Please turn in your Geek card now.
"Try dropping the sexual scare words and perhaps a rational conversation can be had on this."
If you wanted to have a rational discussion you wouldn't dismiss valid claims. If any of these things were done by a normal citizen they would be charged with a crime. Yet we are allowing the government to do them without probable cause. Apparently our rights no longer apply at the airport. And most people don't care. I find this appalling.
The screening methods are worthless according to security experts with no vested interests. We are wasting time and money on something that does not work. This decreases safety.
We are violating the rights of citizens in the process. And traumatizing a portion. The screening will likely trigger people who have been raped (1 in 33 men, 1 in 6 women), people with anxiety, people with PTSD, etc. Some of these will be the screeners (TSA personnel).
We are exposing passengers and screeners to additional unneeded radiation. This will lead to additional cancers and deaths on a population basis. How does killing people to protect them help?
"Then let them *do something* like spending all that money on medical scans for people who actually need them. Unlike the scans for terrorists, the medical scans might actually turn up something useful."
The key thing to remember about the TSA and Homeland Security is that they do not get rewarded for success, only penalized for failure. So they need to show they are doing something about their last failure. And have something to point to for the next failure. So this policy is a good solution for their problem. But that problem is not security.
"Underwear full of PETN [wikipedia.org], remember?"
And why should I be worried about a bomb that won't work?
The only impressive terrorist attacks on US soil were the bombing of the WTC in 1993 and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Because those were large bombs on US soil. That required talent. And one was done by a US citizen.
All the rest were pretty pathetic. Seriously, box cutters? Does anyone think it will happen again? Sure, they killed many people. But it was not terribly impressive. A car fire in Times Square? If that is the best the've got, we are in great shape.
I'd be more worried about toner cartridges myself.
"Exaggeration aside, however, if the DHS is basing its policies on (outdated) panic-driven poll results without regard to cost, liberty, or the reality that some attacks will get through, whatever they may do, then that is just one more example of the many things wrong with the DHS."
I have no idea if DHS believes the scanners and pat downs are really effective. I'm not sure which answer would be worse. But it is certainly true that one of the primary reasons for implementation of the new policies is CYA. Any procedures are going to fail at some point. But it is vitally important for DHS and whatever administration in power at the time to be able to say "We did everything possible (that the public would accept)". Regardless of effectiveness. They have to be seen as responding to threats. The public demands safety. In part because they were promised it. Oops.
"This ignores the 800-lb gorilla in the room: Islamic extremist terrorists for whom killing the infidels is a religious mandate in their minds. They are, in their minds, "on a mission from God" to quote the Blues Brothers. These people reject everything the West stands for. They will not be "invested in our civilization", ever. Their only goal is to kill all the Western infidels."
Yet here we are. And Israel is in no real danger of collapse either.
Yes, the people you mention are a threat. But they are only a threat if they can recruit a large following. By themselves they are rather insignificant. Suicide bombings and attacks are rather self limiting. Most people, regardless of their religion, just aren't motivated to go out and personally kill people. But invade a few countries and kill a few million people directly or indirectly and then you can be in a world of hurt....
"There is little wonder we're now dealing with bureaucrats who have a mandate to "protect" us but lack the understanding to actually do a good job at it and the inability to realize the fact."
I don't accept this for a second. What you are describing is WILLFUL ignorance. I've seen this in action. People at all levels in (and outside) the organization deliberately ignoring the obvious. And going to great lengths to do so.
It's security theater. It's obvious. The purpose is CYA (for various reasons). But most people in Homeland Security, in the media or the travelling public do not want to admit it. That's frustrating.
And it has real implications for privacy rights.
"A valid presentation as to why the expense is needed will, usually, get you the approval."
Did you even bother to read the summary? This is New Orleans. Louisiana.
Do you seriously think that a backup system for online real estate records is a priority expenditure when they don't have funds for basic public services?
They can always revert to the paper records. People managed just fine for hundreds of years with them. Or they could just pay more for title insurance. This falls into the category of inconvenience.
"....but that Social Security ain't gonna look so pretty if we keep running a big fat deficit..."
Social security has a dedicated funding source. Which is why people are trying to cut it or privatize it. They want access to the money.
"...to say nothing of the way that the public employee pension systems are built to assume 10% rates of return and contractually put the taxpayers on the hook for a shortfall."
And this is different from any other pension system how? Public pension systems are extremely well designed and run. It is the legislatures that fail to fund them or treat them like piggy banks that are the problems. People who are anti-pension are anti-worker. Pure and simple.
"Dumb laws and dumb servants block progress towards new ideas."
And who exactly would be funding the space program without the government? To date no private companies have developed space capabilities of any significance without government assistance (money, support, contracts, etc.). It's not like they haven't had the time, money and opportunity to do it themselves.
"Believe it or not suburbanites are NOT the center of the universe."
The problem is that even the city dwellers have bought into the concept of having an SUV that is off road capable and doubles as a house. The effective market is far smaller. Or you have to convince your actual market to behave rationally after spending decades convincing them not to....
Oops.
"They have all of the advantages of cars (easy to drive, easy to park, affordable) combined with all of the advantages of SUVs (lots of cargo capacity, good visibility)."
You are joking? Right? I mean seriously?
Crossovers are glorified hatchbacks and station wagons that might have an inch or two of extra clearance and a high center of gravity. They certainly don't have much cargo capacity (check out their actual load capacity in addition to the space). They certainly aren't cheap (they cost more to maintain and run). And if you are concerned about visibility, might I suggest not tailgating the vehicle in front of you.
"If humans spread themselves to two planets, we'd be far safer from extinction by a major impact event."
But his point still stands. Why the fuck do I care? What's the point in spending large amounts of money to prevent something that might happen in the future that won't affect me? Expecially if you can spend that money on things that you know will make a difference now. In any case if you are really worried about a major impact event you would be spending a far smaller amount of money on detection and a method to divert or destroy the target. And a means to survive the impact.
The problem with a colony on Mars or anywhere else is that they would merely watch all the people on Earth die. Then they would suffer the same fate after they run out of critical supplies they rely on from Earth. They will probably never be self sufficient (until such time you can walk outside and farm....). Unless the goal is to recolonize the Earth and that could probably be done easier from some point on the Earth.
"It is those latter, broader interests that laws are supposed to serve, not the interests of any one individual. The concept is called "rule of law", to be contrasted with "rule of man". Personally, I think where we are is a fine place for us to be."
Really? If your view is common then we are truly screwed.
Because that's how we got decisions like Dred Scott and court support for discrimination in all aspects of our life. The rule of law is supposed to treat everyone equally not priviledge some at the expense of others. I think you have it exactly backwards.
Society favors the status quo. And the status quo is generally not favorable to large groups of individuals.
"You are welcome to suggest alternatives, but I think it's a good thing having a guide who has been specially trained on public policy, politics, and the history of thinking on how societies should progress (not to mention the mundane details, like the actual laws in your jurisdiction). Of course, I am a lawyer, so feel free to accuse me of bias."
You are biased. Never forget that. But everyone is. The concept you espouse is incredibly elitist, in the most negative sense of the word. It priviledges a few at the expense of the many. Lawyers should not be the gatekeepers of progress. No one group should be. Diversity of thought and experience is a good thing.
People are not interested in laws. They want justice. The problem is that lawyers deal with laws. Our system is not actually designed for a justice outcome as the primary event.
"The military and FAA stood up professional public-affairs personnel who, instead of saying "this is a commercial airliner that we knew was coming and have a track of in our logs", or "let me make a phone call", were prepared with and delivered "we don't know."
Which, come to think of it, bugs the fuck out of me."
It bothers you that professional public affairs personnel told the truth? You would have preferred that they speculate? Seriously?!?
I suggest that you watch less television. It's rotting your brain.
"I agree about military spending but Social Security is soon to be bankrupt."
You are lying.
Social security can pay 100% of benefits through 2037. After 2037 they can pay about 75% of benefits if no changes are made.
"In 1950 16 people paid into SS for every person collecting it. Today that ratio is 3 workers for every retiree, and in 10 year it may be 2 to 1."
Do you come from a long line of idiots? Or do you just try really hard? This is what a mature entittlement program looks like. It was predicted by those who designed the fucking program. It's not a failure, it's what was expected to happen. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fucking moron.
"Fact is when established under FDR SS was only supposed to be a safety net, people were expected to save for retirement. But now too many people depend on it, even those who made enough money still didn't save and invest enough."
And it is still only a safety net. People still have to save. If they don't, retirement will be unpleasant.
What exactly will cutting SS solve? It will make those peoples lives worse. Just so you can feel better. That's pretty much the definition of evil. It won't save any money. Because someone is still going to have to support them. SS has a dedicated funding stream. Those who want to cut SS want access to that stream. They want to redistribute the wealth from the working class to the wealthy.
"People like to bitch about how many large trucks and SUVs are on the road (and how fuel inefficient they are), but the reality is your own government is almost entirely responsible for that."
True, but not because of the reasons you state. We have them because gas is cheap, the roads are wide and people aren't very wise.
"The point is that 2% unemployment, which is what we had three years ago, is far too low for any demographic, meaning that we had too many job openings for college graduates and not enough people who were qualified for them."
That is simply incorrect. Not all job openings that require a college degree actually need them.
Saying that the unemployment rate is 4.7% for college graduates and therefore there is no recession for them is just bullshit. They have many options. More schooling, FT jobs outside their field (Underemployment) and PT jobs. All of those reduce unemployment stats. But it hardly means that there are too many jobs. It merely means that they have wasted time and money going to college to get a degree they can't use.
"This would discourage a lot of the populist appealing to the extremes and bring politics closer to the center IMHO."
What fucking planet do you live on? You do realize that the center is to the left of the Democratic party and to the far left of the Republican party? Put another way, Obama is best described as a moderate conservative.
Proportional representation might or might not be a good idea. But don't think for second that it will bring politics closer to the center. It will do the opposite. If you think otherwise, look to Europe. Of course, that means there could actually be true liberals and socialists in the government in large numbers.
"I've seen left-leaning folks excoriate Rasmussen as just being a "mouthpiece" of the Right, but in fact, Pollster.com (now part of the Huffington Post) has acknowledged that they have generally been very accurate in the past few election cycles. Why? Because Scott Rasmussen knows how to ... drum roll, please! ... do demographic weighting, accurately determine who is, in fact, likely to vote, correct for cell phone usage and etc., etc."
And those are mutually exclusive why? Rasmussen does two types of polling. One is extremely biased and inaccurate. Basically the "mouthpiece" variety. But it also does some very accurate polling close to the election. That's why is has a poor reputation. They can do very good polling, it's just at times they chose not to.
The real problem with polling is figuring out who is going to vote. And that seems to be a problem this cycle. People are making assumptions of a large Republican wave. And if that assumption is used in most of the polling or most of the polling is done by one agency for much of the cycle (Rasmussen) you tend to create a narrative. It can create reality rather than reflect it. The problem is that no pollster actually knows what reality will look like. They might guess right but that will probably have ended up being a guess.
Polls are starting to be used as the final word on reality. This is really dangerous. Just like reporting the results of elections before polls close, it matters. Polls are becoming weapons. Just another campaign ad. But people don't realize it. Yet another failure of the media.