It seems like the odds of that happening democratically are pretty long, given that the US troops were greeted with IEDs instead of flowers...
Bah, this is only because Iraq was missing a functional cut flower market, like we found in Holland after WWII.
Not to mention, chocolate candy melts in the desert.
Without the functioning flower market, and availability of chocolates, the Iraqi people were unable to properly greet US soldiers with flowers and candy.
My girlfriend is originally from Russia, so I get all kinds of details. I'm basing my $200-300 approximation on what she said her friend who worked in a govt treasury dept was making.
That page is from 2001, and there's been an incredibly growth in inflation since. So it may very well have been around $50 back then.
The thing is, even though her friend made something like $250 a month. Apartment rent was $200/month. So you are right in your general point, that it's difficult to afford much in the way of luxury items.
Average Russian wage is more like $200-300 a month.
But it doesn't really matter. Russia is very open these days to foreign news. Telephone is open, internet is open. About the only media control is Putin doesn't like criticism of himself inside the country.
Although as the first post noted, it doesn't really matter as Putin has about 80% approval.
Republicans controlled the congress and their porkbarrel agendas were different from the Clintons porkbarrel agendas.
Guess that depends on how you define pork. The budget has grown in size under Bush, not simply because of bridges to nowhere.
No, it's mainly things like the Iraq war.
So yes, it IS the Dems who are addicted to spending. As are the Republicans. That is why we need a president who is not afraid to veto spending bills. That's why we need Mitt Romney in the White House.
When Mitt Romney talks about controlling spending, he always says... "Non-defense discretionary budget".
In other words, about $250 billion out of the $2.9 trillion budget.
And what Mitt is saying is nothing new. It's what every Republican has promised when running for office over the past several decades. And every time they get elected, everything works against them! Oh my god, it's so horrible! Reality gets in the way of school boy fantasy.
BMW offers the 1 series in Europe. It won't be available in the US until next year. Even then, there are different engines available in Europe versus US.
In Europe you can buy the 3-series with a 1.8L engine using either petro or diesel. The diesel model gets around 50 mpg.
As others have pointed out, US safety standards are more rigorous, and as such the cars tend to be heavier when coming to the states. Also our roads are built differently, and our driving styles tend to demand the larger engines.
In general though, I agree that the US could cut consumption if we wanted to. More smaller cars, etc. There's no real need for some of the vehicles people buy here, such as say a Hummer H2. That being said, I've noticed as cities become more crowded, parking is harder to come by and gas prices go up, there is a natural tendency towards buying the smaller vehicles.
The observers don't know where the source is coming from. It could very well be the same thing twice in a row. If they're recording a difference, that's noted and is part of the experimental data.
There were arguments in the audio rags years ago, and probably still are, that doing double-blind testing was not worthwhile, because to truly enjoy the sound you had to see which piece of equipment was being used. (See The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, etc) Those tests you can take with a pinch of salt.
In case you haven't been informed, "freedom" and "democracy" goes against Sharia law from the prospective of the Islamic extremists. Ergo, they HATE western civilization. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, or practice Buddhism. These radicals want you dead if you don't convert.
Good luck trying to get me to convert.
I find the cowardice of the GOP position on national security simply amazing. They run around screaming like the little chicken about the sky is falling. Given all we've went through in the last century, if the worst they can do to us is a bit of terrorism... I'd say we're in a pretty comfortable spot.
I'm more concerned right now with China and Russia. Not militarily, but rather influence wise. US incompetence under Bush has been so bad, that we are losing much influence to these other nations. That's not something you are going to fix with a missile shield, or buying more tanks.
I can't quite figure out how people demanding more competition in the market are anti-capitalistic.
But I'm looking at what you write, and looking at the reality of the marketplace. And I can't help but think that what you are really doing is highlighting the failure of Friedman style neo-classical economics.
Again, I think legislative efforts like this have it all wrong. I just object to the summary's use of "spying" as applied to what I call "responsible parenting."
One can hardly call this responsible parenting.
A responsible parent wouldn't have to worry about what their child was doing, because they would have already taught their child what is right.
WWII was a war of necessity. We were attacked, and the enemy was of such consequence that if we did nothing, they stood the potentional of overwhelming us. Let me make that more clear. There was a VERY BIG chance that we would LOSE BIG in WWII. Everybody understood that.
Which is why the full resources of this nation were directed towards the war effort. The bulk of our federal budget. The bulk of our industry. The bulk of our economy. Every man, woman and child was called to help in whatever way possible they could to build that war machine.
Vietnam... And most certainly Iraq... These aren't threats to our nation.
Want proof? When did the President call up the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies and ask them to shut down car factories and retool them to build tanks or planes.
Hasn't happened.
Hell, Bush is doing everything he can to make certain the American people don't feel anything from the war. No tax hikes. No rationing(well except the high price of gas). Nothing. Go about your business. IN FACT, GO SHOPPING!
Vietnam and Iraq and wars of that sort are what you call Elective Wars. They are fought not because we have to, but because some moron politician decided he wanted a war and that war will continue as long as he's got the support of the electorate. Who love victory, but don't have a strong tolerance for collosal bungled failures.
It's a plain simple fact. Don't go to war unles you HAVE TO. This has been the rule since at least Sun Tzu. If you are not willing to commit everything to the victory, it's not worth fighting.
What's even more pathetic is for a while there, this was called the Powell doctrine. That is, until the blowhard sent our soldiers off to die in Iraq without the support of a nation. Hard to believe, but given he ran away from his own self when it was convenient, one can hardly call it the Powell doctrine today.
And I've heard all of the excuses from the moron classes to last me a lifetime. Boo hoo, we lost vietnam/iraq because of the media. Boo hoo, it was because they don't fight fair. Boo hoo, it was the American people are defeatists who run in the face of danger.
Instead of excuses and blaming others, why not take a man's route and admit to being wrong?
It also never really worked against the early Romans. They were only too happy to slaughter entire villages. Kill every male of military age and sell the women and children into slavery. Yeah, it's not pretty, but by the rules of the day it worked quite well. Lay down your arms and you can join the empire, resist us and we will crush you utterly and enslave any survivors.
I was just going to say. Don't take yourself too seriously.
I intend on sending some money to Ron Paul's campaign, because there's nothing finer than tossing an anchor to the Republican party which is in the midst of a self-implosion because of the stupidity of their candidates.
It's okay if you disagree with Ron Paul's views. But arguing that he's a hypocrite and big government statist is just plain silly. Getting your nose out of joint for his not being a 100% ideologically pure candidate is naive to the point of childishness.
Whatever. I just point out the facts. And the facts are Ron Paul is a Big Government Statist.
He's a Republican. That's what the Republicans are all about. Anybody who claims otherwise is either lying to you, or trying to pander to you.
Why? Because the Germans claimed in their war-propaganda that Natural Selection and Darwin proved the German race was superior and they would defeat everybody else.
So Williams Jennings Bryan fought Evolution, because he was opposed to the notion of Darwinism in our human society.
In concluding that Darwinism was responsible for the immorality of the present age, Bryan was heavily influenced by two books: the first was Headquarters Nights: A Record of Conversations and Experiences at the Headquarters of the German Army in Belgium and France by Vernon Kellogg (1917), which forwarded that most German military leaders were committed Darwinists who were skeptical of Christianity. The second was The Science of Power by Benjamin Kidd (1918), which argued that German nationalism, materialism, and militarism could be attributed to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, which in turn was the logical outworking of the Darwinian hypothesis.
In 1920, Bryan told the World Brotherhood Congress that Darwinism was "the most paralyzing influence with which civilization has had to deal in the last century" and that Nietzsche, in carrying Darwinism to its logical conclusion, had "promulgated a philosophy that condemned democracy. . . denounced Christianity. . . denied the existence of God, overturned all concepts of morality. . . and endeavored to substitute the worship of the superhuman for the worship of Jehovah."
However, it was not until 1921 that Bryan saw the threat to morality posed by Darwinism as a major internal threat to the US. The major study which seemed to convince Bryan of this was James Henry Leuba's The Belief in God and Immortality, a Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (1916). In this study, Leuba showed that a considerable number of college students lost their faith during the four years they spent in college. Bryan was horrified that the next generation of American leaders might have the degraded sense of morality which had prevailed in Germany and caused the Great War. Bryan decided it was time to act and launched his massive anti-evolution campaign.
I guess what I just find so ironic is how 80 years later, the people arguing this stupid battle... the ones arguing against Evolution because of a belief that it will undermine the moral fabric of the society... are the people with no morals.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, this is only because Iraq was missing a functional cut flower market, like we found in Holland after WWII.
Not to mention, chocolate candy melts in the desert.
Without the functioning flower market, and availability of chocolates, the Iraqi people were unable to properly greet US soldiers with flowers and candy.
so they substituted with what they had available.
Since you are so bright and obviously know so much more than all of us clods, perhaps you could educate us all.
Could you please provide links to all these studies that show the only ones benefiting are attorneys?
Thanks
My girlfriend is originally from Russia, so I get all kinds of details. I'm basing my $200-300 approximation on what she said her friend who worked in a govt treasury dept was making.
That page is from 2001, and there's been an incredibly growth in inflation since. So it may very well have been around $50 back then.
The thing is, even though her friend made something like $250 a month. Apartment rent was $200/month. So you are right in your general point, that it's difficult to afford much in the way of luxury items.
Average Russian wage is more like $200-300 a month.
But it doesn't really matter. Russia is very open these days to foreign news. Telephone is open, internet is open. About the only media control is Putin doesn't like criticism of himself inside the country.
Although as the first post noted, it doesn't really matter as Putin has about 80% approval.
I'm pretty certain it was late 2001.
And this guy has only been using XP for four months?
Call me unimpressed with his "great position" to evaluate software.
Guess that depends on how you define pork. The budget has grown in size under Bush, not simply because of bridges to nowhere.
No, it's mainly things like the Iraq war.
When Mitt Romney talks about controlling spending, he always says... "Non-defense discretionary budget".
In other words, about $250 billion out of the $2.9 trillion budget.
And what Mitt is saying is nothing new. It's what every Republican has promised when running for office over the past several decades. And every time they get elected, everything works against them! Oh my god, it's so horrible! Reality gets in the way of school boy fantasy.
Personally, I think it's time we elect an adult.
Let's correct the record...
Annual budget increases under Clinton - ~3%
Annual budget increases under Bush the Lessor - ~8%
It's not the Dems who are addicted to spending.
BMW offers the 1 series in Europe. It won't be available in the US until next year. Even then, there are different engines available in Europe versus US.
In Europe you can buy the 3-series with a 1.8L engine using either petro or diesel. The diesel model gets around 50 mpg.
As others have pointed out, US safety standards are more rigorous, and as such the cars tend to be heavier when coming to the states. Also our roads are built differently, and our driving styles tend to demand the larger engines.
In general though, I agree that the US could cut consumption if we wanted to. More smaller cars, etc. There's no real need for some of the vehicles people buy here, such as say a Hummer H2. That being said, I've noticed as cities become more crowded, parking is harder to come by and gas prices go up, there is a natural tendency towards buying the smaller vehicles.
SDI is the modern day version of the Maginot line. A gigantic waste of money.
Russia is blustering right now because there is a new rise in nationalism within the country and this boosts Putin's popularity. That's all.
I can't RTFM because their website is down, but in theory this is what double-blind is supposed to address.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind
The observers don't know where the source is coming from. It could very well be the same thing twice in a row. If they're recording a difference, that's noted and is part of the experimental data.
There were arguments in the audio rags years ago, and probably still are, that doing double-blind testing was not worthwhile, because to truly enjoy the sound you had to see which piece of equipment was being used. (See The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, etc) Those tests you can take with a pinch of salt.
Good luck trying to get me to convert.
I find the cowardice of the GOP position on national security simply amazing. They run around screaming like the little chicken about the sky is falling. Given all we've went through in the last century, if the worst they can do to us is a bit of terrorism... I'd say we're in a pretty comfortable spot.
I'm more concerned right now with China and Russia. Not militarily, but rather influence wise. US incompetence under Bush has been so bad, that we are losing much influence to these other nations. That's not something you are going to fix with a missile shield, or buying more tanks.
I can't quite figure out how people demanding more competition in the market are anti-capitalistic.
But I'm looking at what you write, and looking at the reality of the marketplace. And I can't help but think that what you are really doing is highlighting the failure of Friedman style neo-classical economics.
Supervision is substantially different from spying, or requiring permission before they can do every little thing like go to the bathroom.
The funny thing is, it's the kids who grow up with the overbearing parents who turn out the worst.
One can hardly call this responsible parenting.
A responsible parent wouldn't have to worry about what their child was doing, because they would have already taught their child what is right.
You morons make me laugh!
WWII was a war of necessity. We were attacked, and the enemy was of such consequence that if we did nothing, they stood the potentional of overwhelming us. Let me make that more clear. There was a VERY BIG chance that we would LOSE BIG in WWII. Everybody understood that.
Which is why the full resources of this nation were directed towards the war effort. The bulk of our federal budget. The bulk of our industry. The bulk of our economy. Every man, woman and child was called to help in whatever way possible they could to build that war machine.
Vietnam... And most certainly Iraq... These aren't threats to our nation.
Want proof? When did the President call up the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies and ask them to shut down car factories and retool them to build tanks or planes.
Hasn't happened.
Hell, Bush is doing everything he can to make certain the American people don't feel anything from the war. No tax hikes. No rationing(well except the high price of gas). Nothing. Go about your business. IN FACT, GO SHOPPING!
Vietnam and Iraq and wars of that sort are what you call Elective Wars. They are fought not because we have to, but because some moron politician decided he wanted a war and that war will continue as long as he's got the support of the electorate. Who love victory, but don't have a strong tolerance for collosal bungled failures.
It's a plain simple fact. Don't go to war unles you HAVE TO. This has been the rule since at least Sun Tzu. If you are not willing to commit everything to the victory, it's not worth fighting.
What's even more pathetic is for a while there, this was called the Powell doctrine. That is, until the blowhard sent our soldiers off to die in Iraq without the support of a nation. Hard to believe, but given he ran away from his own self when it was convenient, one can hardly call it the Powell doctrine today.
And I've heard all of the excuses from the moron classes to last me a lifetime. Boo hoo, we lost vietnam/iraq because of the media. Boo hoo, it was because they don't fight fair. Boo hoo, it was the American people are defeatists who run in the face of danger.
Instead of excuses and blaming others, why not take a man's route and admit to being wrong?
This worked so effectively for us in Vietnam.
Oh wait...
What do you expect to win?
I was just going to say. Don't take yourself too seriously.
I intend on sending some money to Ron Paul's campaign, because there's nothing finer than tossing an anchor to the Republican party which is in the midst of a self-implosion because of the stupidity of their candidates.
Whatever. I just point out the facts. And the facts are Ron Paul is a Big Government Statist.
He's a Republican. That's what the Republicans are all about. Anybody who claims otherwise is either lying to you, or trying to pander to you.
Which is it that you are doing?
Standard of living, life expectancy... Availability of /.
you know all the usual stuff.
Why? Because the Germans claimed in their war-propaganda that Natural Selection and Darwin proved the German race was superior and they would defeat everybody else.
So Williams Jennings Bryan fought Evolution, because he was opposed to the notion of Darwinism in our human society.
From wikipedia
I guess what I just find so ironic is how 80 years later, the people arguing this stupid battle... the ones arguing against Evolution because of a belief that it will undermine the moral fabric of the society... are the people with no morals.
The United States might have got by fine prior to 1913... But we've gotten along a lot better since.
Wow.
Ron Paul's supporters can sure spin like the rest of the Republicans.
You guys just have yourself convinced that smaller government means banning more things.
You explain that one to me.
As a libertarian, that's my position. But Ron Paul does not share it.