You know. Star Wars came out when I was 12 and it was the coolest movie I'd ever seen by a light year. I still have fond memories of that movie and the two that followed, but I justy realized the other night I've watched "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (via MST3K) more times than I've seen "Star Wars". I don't what this says about my mental health but in the grand scheme of things it just hasn't been that big a thing in my life.
p.s. I'm still waiting for an apology from all those people who called me a conspiratorial nutbag for doubting the authenticity of those memos in the beginning. Of course I'll never get one, because it's against the Democrat code of honor to admit a mistake. "It's not our fault! Karl Rove did it!"
Just because they are out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid!;-)
It's against the Politician Code of Honor to admit a mistake, unless you are writing your memoirs after leaving office. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats (and their supporters) in this election is that the Democrats aren't even pretending to be honest any more. They are just making up promises out of thin air.
John Kerry is going to give health care to every child in the country from day 1. John Edwards is going to heal the sick and make the crippled walk. No wonder he's always waving those girly hands around... he's trying to show off the nail marks. John Kerry is going to magically produce two more Army divisions, while simultaneously cutting what we are spending on Iraq. John Kerry has insulted every country who is currently our ally yet claims every other country in the world will join him. His position on Iraq has been 100% consistent. He is consistently against what his opponent says (whether its Howard Dean or George Bush). If you put Bush and Dean in the same room with Kerry, he'd blow a gasket like one of Harry Mudd's malfunctioning Androids ("Carville... Please... Coordinate... Carville... error...!!$#^#&^#")
Yeah, I'll get modded about 15 miles into the mantle, but I've got karma coming out of my butt, and besides, it was fun. Mod away!
Well, it has in a big way, but so far, it hasn't stayed here. I believe that's in part because the bad guys are swarming like hornets in Iraq, because once a democracy is in place there, they've lost a huge ally and a place to work.
Regardless of what you have to say about President Bush, the word is that al-Qaeda is worried about losing terrorist credibility because they haven't pulled off anything big against the the U.S. in over 3 years. That doesn't mean they won't nuke one of our cities tomorrow (God forbid!), but so far someone's obviously doing their job.
Because it's the President's advisors' job to study EVERY possibility. I have no doubts that the Pentagon has plans on file to invade Canada, not because they plan on doing it, just because if something really crazy happens (like China takes over Canada for something), there's a plan they can look at.
The draft legislation was introduced by Charlie Rangel and other highly partisan and, well, intellectually-challenged Democrats in a transparent (and sleazy) attempt to get mileage out of the fact that they could say that there's draft legislation going through Congress to scare people into thinking Bush wants the draft. No one wants the draft, and as you've no doubt seen, Bush closed the debate (the first or second) by emphatically stating that there will be no draft, which Kerry echoed. I don't know what orifice Kerry's going to pull his "two new divisions" from, but it's not going be the draft.
By the way, that draft legislation was tossed out of Congress faster than the 2004 Tip O'Neill swimsuit calendar, it was nothing but more FUD from America's House of FUD.
1. You have to present appropriate ID to vote. It seems to me this is a reasonable alternative to present acceptable ID (Driver's License/ID Card, SS card, etc).
2. I don't think anyone is implying the vote itself isn't secret. That's a basic facet of our American system. But once you step out from behind the curtain, surely someone can watch that ballot as it is delivered to the box, and beyond.
3. I agree with you 100% here. The system Virginia has used for several years uses an optical sheet similar (but simpler) to the ones we have all used to take multiple choice tests.
I agree with your last statement as well. No electronic system should be used without a hardcopy paper trail.
Here in Virginia we use sheets of paper with the different choices very clearly labelled and you fill in the one you want with a black marker. It's extremely simple yet allows for machine counting.
Your method might be overkill, but I agree with you that it would be more secure than some (or all) of the systems they have now.
The thing is, the more thorough the system is, the more likely someone who is (or should be) eligible to vote cannot vote, and then all of a sudden you are accused of "disenfranchising a million voters" or something equally absurd.
It would in the case of places like Florida, which clearly didn't think through the rules they passed in 2000, and were totally screwed when those rules turned out to be grossly ineffective to deal with the problems that showed up. Whether or not changing bad or incomplete rules in the middle of the election was what the whole issue of the 2000 election in Florida was about. Hopefully those issues have now been addressed by the legislature after seeing what a mess they made.
I guess what I'm saying is that there should be a rule that election processes shouldn't be stupid, but that's just not possible. The states have no monopoly on stupid rules.
This has nothing to do with Bush, and I can't see how it would. This is about grotesquely exaggerating a science in its infancy. Edwards is saying that Kerry will (will!) allow us to cure diseases that we have no hope of curing in the near-term if ever.
The Federal Government is currently financing research with those cell lines that already exist. Bush correctly decided that government should not be in the business of harvesting human beings, but aside from this stem-cell research is going on full-bore and should.
I stand by my stance that Edwards (who made millions by being shamelessly manipulative) is throwing out false hopes, because as someone in a position ogf authority, when he says it _will_ happen, people, particularly ignorant ones, will take him at his words. Literally.
Stem-cell research is still at a very early stage. Scientists know that cool things happen with stem cells, but do not have a clue if or how these could be utilized. To translate that into definite cures for diseases, some of which aren't even related to the issue, is just horrible.
And quit assuming I defend all things Bush, this is just the typical knee-jerk attack that people like you love to make. Face the reality that objective people can find fault with your candidates.
There has got to be a way to standardize the election process in this country to help prevent this kind of fraud, or all the nonsense coming from the various kinds of voting machines.
How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution. Why does every jurisdiction have to do things in so many different ways. We have California, who has done everything they can but offer free beer to get illegal immigrants to vote. We have Florida that uses all those weird voting machines (which ironically don't see to be a problem in other states). We have millions being spent on electronic voting that's about as secure as Al Sharpton at a KKK meeting.
I have no doubt that these things are largely caused by crooked individuals and not some vast conspiracy on the part of the political parties involved (regardless of the shameless fear-mongering to the contrary).
I would think the richest and most powerful country in the world could do better.
You know, your analogy has a glaring flaw (well, many, but one in particular), citizens are not employees of the government.
That same situation might exist in other western countries, but their economies suck compared to the U.S. Rich people are not stealing from everyone. You've just been suckered in by the bigotry of class warfare, inflamed by the hypocritical Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle and John Kerry. As usual for the Democrats, they play on people's envy, jealousy, hatred and fear. Quit hating the rich and work to become one.
The fact of the matter is Edwards is talking out of his ass. No one knows what cures, if any, could come from this research, and if they do, those cures might not happen for decades.
Plain and simple, this is crass and cynical manipulation of people in need, and is low, even for a politician.
I don't understand what context doesn't make this an insane promise about the future. He's not saying it "could" help, he's saying it "will" help, and it "will" help "when" John Kerry is President.
The only context which would change this would be, "It would be incredible sleazy and manipulative if I were to make an insane promise like this...."
Well, he can channel dead children, maybe he can also prognosticate the future too.
Besides, Bush doesn't oppose stem cell research... his is the first Administration to finance it! He just opposes manufacturing human beings for slaughter for their body parts.
I'd rather not have more people be slaughtered on American soil by Islamic nutjobs, which is why I'm voting for President Bush. All Kerry seems to care about is his image in France or the U.N., and maintaining our safety only if it is their whim. He wants to outsource U.S. sovereignty. I want Americans deciding what America needs to do.
Please remit payment for the use of 1.75 x 10^39 kilowatt hours at $0.05.kWH for a total of 87.7 undecillion dollars by Monday, October 25, 2004. If your payment is late, the bill will be an additional $40. No stamps, please.
The hatchet job on Bush was called "Fahrenheit 9/11", it's just been released on DVD and they're trying to get it on TV before the election.
If everything in this can be claimed as true by someone independent then I don't have a problem with it. After all, I don't think anyone doubts there are questions about what John Kerry did back in the 70s (whether it's relevant is another matter). If it is a tenth as bad as what that hate-spewing, self-righteous, ego-masturbating Moore put out then I would not support it.
Of course, the Republicans will swear it's all true and the Democrats will swear it's all false and the truth will be somewhere in between. But after hearing that Senator Edwards made this quote, I have no sympathy for the Democrats regardless.
We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases... When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.
If I vote for Kerry will I also lose weight and regain my hair? Will I be sured of chilblains and gain the attraction of the opposite sex? Will my goiter shrink and my bank balance grow?
There's been sleazy comments on both sides, and sleazy attacks (and, yes, legitimate attacks) made by and on behalf of both sides, but this is beyond the pale. It's clear that in this election, nothing is too low.
It's not enough if you can get a system to do something - you need to make it reliable and scaleable.
Or at least make sure it's fitted out with lots of blue LED's.;-)
Yeah, You're absolutely right, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are underestimating the rate of progress. On the other hand, we've been 50 years away from affordable fusion power for 50 years.
Overall, I don't think that results from one state and one city give an accurate representation.
No, but it's more than you expected, now isn't it?
I wasn't able to find anything broader, but I have heard that statistic being cited numerous times. I apologize if I don't have the time to do more thorough research. I think you can admit I'm not just speaking out of my butt.
The OpinionJournal piece isn't objective, but it is citing something that is, the statistic from the Catalogue for Philanthropy, which is not overtly partisan, which shows that all the most generous (in comparison to income) states are red, and almost all of the least generous states were blue. I would take a citation from the Wall Street Journal as having merit, even in an opinion piece. This isn't ipso facto proof of my assertion either, but goes toward the trend.
If you insist I'll be happy to dig more when I have time, but I've got code to write right now. Considering I'm doing all the work here, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Before you put words in my mouth let me back it up. That's the problem with people like you, you have lots of glib but content-free comebacks that take little or no effort, but you have nothing to offer to the discussion.
Here are a few quotes I found with Google, but there's much more out there if you dig a little:
Some variation in volunteering rates emerged by political affiliation, with higher rates for Republicans (58.6%) than for Democrates (48.5%) or Independents (47.9%).
[T]he resulting index shows that the top 20 states all went for George W. Bush in the 2000 election--while 15 of the 20 least generous went for Al Gore.
Of course, I could just make stuff up, because I'm sure you are perfectly content to remain in your smug ignorance.
Wow, Karl. I thought you were dead. They tried it your way in a number of countries, most of which don't exist any more. From everyone according to their talent to everyone according to their need. This could have only worked in the Garden of Eden. Everywhere else, it's a lose-lose proposition where there is no incentive to succeed.
The American partnership, (although what you describe sounds more like the one-sided Soviet partnership to me), might work fine when I am paying for infrastructure and defense, etc., but that does not mean I am somehow morally obligated to pay for a whole generation of leeches who have been reduced to welfare slaves, being taught that they are helpless. Throwing money at our problems is what has caused most of the problems we have today.
Capitalism is not exploitation. You have some views, which while might be popular in Europe, who is quickly declining in world influence and relevance, and most of which is floundering in double-digit unemployment and low productivity, but it is very contrary to the American point-of-view, especially what existed before the government became this huge monlithic nanny-state that tries to control every aspect of our lives. When the government isn't there to bail out every person who decided he just doesn't feel like working, then most people deal with it. The problem is that people now expect it, and demand it whether they need it or not, and the last thing people will vote for is to take away their handouts. This has been the strategy of the Democratic party for years, bribing voters. The truly conservative, by which I mean the libertarian-leaning kind, want to leave people alone, unless there is a serious problem. The difference is between assuming you are better than everyone, and know what is best for them, and letting people make their own way and succeed on their own merits. Your philosophy only punishes the successful, and takes away their incentive to succeed. It is the recipe for failure that we've seen time and time again in places like the Soviet Union. I'm glad you aren't forcing your governmental umbilical cord into me... I want to succeed or fail (and I've done plenty of both) on my own. Any decent person does. But with an ever-increasing system of entitlements and the soft bigotry of low expectations, the worst self-fulfilling prophecy in public life, we will destroy everything that made us the most powerful country in the world. But then again, maybe you are someone who wants that too.
The problem is that we are treating the truly in-need with the simply lazy or corrupt the same way, and we get more of what we pay for. We teach people to be dependent, and it's a lesson they learn well. It's a small logical step from favoring the disadvantage to punishing the advantaged. Under your way of thinking, I'd expect sandbags tied to my arms and loud buzzer in my ear a la Vonnegut, because "How dare I have an advantage over someone?"
The philosophy of equal outcomes guarantees failure for all.
If that's true, then I oughta be practically immortal!
Seriously, this science is clearly in its infancy. It will be great when (if) cures are developed from it, but I suspect it will be a while before any concrete applications start showing up.
The irony is that the same group of people who insist we must forcibly take money from the rich and redistribute it are also statistically less likely to contribute to charities themselves. We can allow people who can afford to pay more do so without being punative about it.
I'm tired of people acting all morally superior by pretending that redistributing other people's money is charity. I'm tired of hearing that the government is giving you something by taxing you less. I get tired of hearing how the rich don't pay their share. The rich are the ones fueling the engine of our great economy, as well as our big, bloated government.
"Fair" would be if everyone paid the exact same amount, say $10000 per annum, for all the services our government provides. We are not one level removed from this level (which could be considered a certain percentage of income, say 17% across the board). We are not two levels removed from "fair" which would be a progressive tax where the richer pay a higher percentage. We are three levels removed because people are exempt from taxes for a good chunk of the average citizen's income. I'm all for closing loopholes, but it's rich people that make jobs, not the government, let's stop punishing the successful, especially those who take risks, succeeds and employ others as a result.
The government wastes more money than it would take to pay a decent salary to every poor person in the country, and there is no politician out there who seems to be seriously working to combat that. If we overthrew the education monopoly that forces poor people to remain poor by not allowing them a decent education we could put a huge dent in poverty by allowing the people who _want_ to work their way out every chance to do so. I'm lucky. I live in a town where the schools are excellent and teachers are professional and competent. Special education services, which my family has required, are well-funded and staffed by professionals who very effective, as well as being caring. I can't see how any student in this system, with a modicum of parental involvement, couldn't succeed.
But I can afford to live where the schools are good. It's funny that the same people who insist we need to throw more money at schools run by incompetant and corrupt bureaucracies and unions would deny those students affected the opportunity to change schools? If throwing money at the problem worked, Washington, DC would have the best schools in the country, perhaps the world, instead of being that city a borderline third-world country. How many members of Congress who have children in the Washington have them in public schools there? I wouldn't be surprised if it was zero. We can see that sons of Senators often become senators, and sons of Presidents can become Presidents, but it would be also nice for more people to have a chance to rise up from more humble origins by having that good first step. We need to quit chasing the false and destructive dream of equal outcomes (achieved by jiggering the criteria we measure) and focus on equal opportunity. Some people will fail no matter what because they lack will even without handouts sapping it away, but with the right opportunities, most people can succeed. You're not entitled to a good living, you're entitled to bust your ass and have a decent opportunity to make a good living.
That's because Reagan dodged that bullet... literally and figuratively.
Besides, these days, I suspect everyone is a little sensitive about the idea. A little superstition like this seems really immature in this context (as if it ever didn't).
Slashdot Mirror
You know. Star Wars came out when I was 12 and it was the coolest movie I'd ever seen by a light year. I still have fond memories of that movie and the two that followed, but I justy realized the other night I've watched "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (via MST3K) more times than I've seen "Star Wars". I don't what this says about my mental health but in the grand scheme of things it just hasn't been that big a thing in my life.
/. talking about it.
Of course, I AM here on
p.s. I'm still waiting for an apology from all those people who called me a conspiratorial nutbag for doubting the authenticity of those memos in the beginning. Of course I'll never get one, because it's against the Democrat code of honor to admit a mistake. "It's not our fault! Karl Rove did it!"
;-)
Just because they are out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid!
It's against the Politician Code of Honor to admit a mistake, unless you are writing your memoirs after leaving office. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats (and their supporters) in this election is that the Democrats aren't even pretending to be honest any more. They are just making up promises out of thin air.
John Kerry is going to give health care to every child in the country from day 1. John Edwards is going to heal the sick and make the crippled walk. No wonder he's always waving those girly hands around... he's trying to show off the nail marks. John Kerry is going to magically produce two more Army divisions, while simultaneously cutting what we are spending on Iraq. John Kerry has insulted every country who is currently our ally yet claims every other country in the world will join him. His position on Iraq has been 100% consistent. He is consistently against what his opponent says (whether its Howard Dean or George Bush).
If you put Bush and Dean in the same room with Kerry, he'd blow a gasket like one of Harry Mudd's malfunctioning Androids ("Carville... Please... Coordinate... Carville... error...!!$#^#&^#")
Yeah, I'll get modded about 15 miles into the mantle, but I've got karma coming out of my butt, and besides, it was fun. Mod away!
Well, it has in a big way, but so far, it hasn't stayed here. I believe that's in part because the bad guys are swarming like hornets in Iraq, because once a democracy is in place there, they've lost a huge ally and a place to work.
Regardless of what you have to say about President Bush, the word is that al-Qaeda is worried about losing terrorist credibility because they haven't pulled off anything big against the the U.S. in over 3 years. That doesn't mean they won't nuke one of our cities tomorrow (God forbid!), but so far someone's obviously doing their job.
Because it's the President's advisors' job to study EVERY possibility. I have no doubts that the Pentagon has plans on file to invade Canada, not because they plan on doing it, just because if something really crazy happens (like China takes over Canada for something), there's a plan they can look at.
The draft legislation was introduced by Charlie Rangel and other highly partisan and, well, intellectually-challenged Democrats in a transparent (and sleazy) attempt to get mileage out of the fact that they could say that there's draft legislation going through Congress to scare people into thinking Bush wants the draft. No one wants the draft, and as you've no doubt seen, Bush closed the debate (the first or second) by emphatically stating that there will be no draft, which Kerry echoed. I don't know what orifice Kerry's going to pull his "two new divisions" from, but it's not going be the draft.
By the way, that draft legislation was tossed out of Congress faster than the 2004 Tip O'Neill swimsuit calendar, it was nothing but more FUD from America's House of FUD.
We've tried, but right now we've got a choice between big gubmint and huge gubmint. I'm voting for big, but I want to vote for small.
"You ain't wunna them revenooers? I cain't abide no revenooers."
-- Boggy Creek II, The Legend Continues...
My response to your problems:
1. You have to present appropriate ID to vote. It seems to me this is a reasonable alternative to present acceptable ID (Driver's License/ID Card, SS card, etc).
2. I don't think anyone is implying the vote itself isn't secret. That's a basic facet of our American system. But once you step out from behind the curtain, surely someone can watch that ballot as it is delivered to the box, and beyond.
3. I agree with you 100% here. The system Virginia has used for several years uses an optical sheet similar (but simpler) to the ones we have all used to take multiple choice tests.
I agree with your last statement as well. No electronic system should be used without a hardcopy paper trail.
Here in Virginia we use sheets of paper with the different choices very clearly labelled and you fill in the one you want with a black marker. It's extremely simple yet allows for machine counting.
Your method might be overkill, but I agree with you that it would be more secure than some (or all) of the systems they have now.
The thing is, the more thorough the system is, the more likely someone who is (or should be) eligible to vote cannot vote, and then all of a sudden you are accused of "disenfranchising a million voters" or something equally absurd.
It would in the case of places like Florida, which clearly didn't think through the rules they passed in 2000, and were totally screwed when those rules turned out to be grossly ineffective to deal with the problems that showed up. Whether or not changing bad or incomplete rules in the middle of the election was what the whole issue of the 2000 election in Florida was about. Hopefully those issues have now been addressed by the legislature after seeing what a mess they made.
I guess what I'm saying is that there should be a rule that election processes shouldn't be stupid, but that's just not possible. The states have no monopoly on stupid rules.
This has nothing to do with Bush, and I can't see how it would. This is about grotesquely exaggerating a science in its infancy. Edwards is saying that Kerry will (will!) allow us to cure diseases that we have no hope of curing in the near-term if ever.
The Federal Government is currently financing research with those cell lines that already exist. Bush correctly decided that government should not be in the business of harvesting human beings, but aside from this stem-cell research is going on full-bore and should.
I stand by my stance that Edwards (who made millions by being shamelessly manipulative) is throwing out false hopes, because as someone in a position ogf authority, when he says it _will_ happen, people, particularly ignorant ones, will take him at his words. Literally.
Stem-cell research is still at a very early stage. Scientists know that cool things happen with stem cells, but do not have a clue if or how these could be utilized. To translate that into definite cures for diseases, some of which aren't even related to the issue, is just horrible.
And quit assuming I defend all things Bush, this is just the typical knee-jerk attack that people like you love to make. Face the reality that objective people can find fault with your candidates.
There has got to be a way to standardize the election process in this country to help prevent this kind of fraud, or all the nonsense coming from the various kinds of voting machines.
How hard can it be to come up with a simple, standard solution. Why does every jurisdiction have to do things in so many different ways. We have California, who has done everything they can but offer free beer to get illegal immigrants to vote. We have Florida that uses all those weird voting machines (which ironically don't see to be a problem in other states). We have millions being spent on electronic voting that's about as secure as Al Sharpton at a KKK meeting.
I have no doubt that these things are largely caused by crooked individuals and not some vast conspiracy on the part of the political parties involved (regardless of the shameless fear-mongering to the contrary).
I would think the richest and most powerful country in the world could do better.
You know, your analogy has a glaring flaw (well, many, but one in particular), citizens are not employees of the government.
That same situation might exist in other western countries, but their economies suck compared to the U.S. Rich people are not stealing from everyone. You've just been suckered in by the bigotry of class warfare, inflamed by the hypocritical Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle and John Kerry. As usual for the Democrats, they play on people's envy, jealousy, hatred and fear. Quit hating the rich and work to become one.
The fact of the matter is Edwards is talking out of his ass. No one knows what cures, if any, could come from this research, and if they do, those cures might not happen for decades.
Plain and simple, this is crass and cynical manipulation of people in need, and is low, even for a politician.
But feel free to excuse it anyway.
I don't understand what context doesn't make this an insane promise about the future. He's not saying it "could" help, he's saying it "will" help, and it "will" help "when" John Kerry is President.
The only context which would change this would be, "It would be incredible sleazy and manipulative if I were to
make an insane promise like this...."
Well, he can channel dead children, maybe he can also prognosticate the future too.
Besides, Bush doesn't oppose stem cell research... his is the first Administration to finance it! He just opposes manufacturing human beings for slaughter for their body parts.
I'd rather not have more people be slaughtered on American soil by Islamic nutjobs, which is why I'm voting for President Bush. All Kerry seems to care about is his image in France or the U.N., and maintaining our safety only if it is their whim. He wants to outsource U.S. sovereignty. I want Americans deciding what America needs to do.
I just hope we don't suddenly get a power bill:
Dear Customer:
Please remit payment for the use of 1.75 x 10^39 kilowatt hours at $0.05.kWH for a total of 87.7 undecillion dollars by Monday, October 25, 2004. If your payment is late, the bill will be an additional $40. No stamps, please.
Thank you,
God
If everything in this can be claimed as true by someone independent then I don't have a problem with it. After all, I don't think anyone doubts there are questions about what John Kerry did back in the 70s (whether it's relevant is another matter). If it is a tenth as bad as what that hate-spewing, self-righteous, ego-masturbating Moore put out then I would not support it.
Of course, the Republicans will swear it's all true and the Democrats will swear it's all false and the truth will be somewhere in between. But after hearing that Senator Edwards made this quote, I have no sympathy for the Democrats regardless.
If I vote for Kerry will I also lose weight and regain my hair? Will I be sured of chilblains and gain the attraction of the opposite sex? Will my goiter shrink and my bank balance grow?
There's been sleazy comments on both sides, and sleazy attacks (and, yes, legitimate attacks) made by and on behalf of both sides, but this is beyond the pale. It's clear that in this election, nothing is too low.
It's not enough if you can get a system to do something - you need to make it reliable and scaleable.
Or at least make sure it's fitted out with lots of blue LED's.
Yeah, You're absolutely right, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are underestimating the rate of progress. On the other hand, we've been 50 years away from affordable fusion power for 50 years.
So, we're what 10 - 20 years away from a QC that both gives you your answer and blue screens at the same time?
I started a book on QC and it's a mind-shredding topic.
Overall, I don't think that results from one state and one city give an accurate representation.
No, but it's more than you expected, now isn't it?
I wasn't able to find anything broader, but I have heard that statistic being cited numerous times. I apologize if I don't have the time to do more thorough research. I think you can admit I'm not just speaking out of my butt.
The OpinionJournal piece isn't objective, but it is citing something that is, the statistic from the Catalogue for Philanthropy, which is not overtly partisan, which shows that all the most generous (in comparison to income) states are red, and almost all of the least generous states were blue. I would take a citation from the Wall Street Journal as having merit, even in an opinion piece. This isn't ipso facto proof of my assertion either, but goes toward the trend.
If you insist I'll be happy to dig more when I have time, but I've got code to write right now. Considering I'm doing all the work here, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Before you put words in my mouth let me back it up. That's the problem with people like you, you have lots of glib but content-free comebacks that take little or no effort, but you have nothing to offer to the discussion.
7 35-35396--,00.html
l anthropyPatterns.pdf
n erosity.php?year=2003
Here are a few quotes I found with Google, but there's much more out there if you dig a little:
http://www.michigan.gov/mcsc/0,1607,7-137-6118_11
Excerpt:
Some variation in volunteering rates emerged by political affiliation, with higher rates for Republicans (58.6%) than for Democrates (48.5%) or Independents (47.9%).
http://www.researchatlanta.org/FullReports/01_Phi
Excerpt:
Republicans give and volunteer more than Democrats and those who did not identify a political affiliation.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004271
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/ge
Excerpt:
[T]he resulting index shows that the top 20 states all went for George W. Bush in the 2000 election--while 15 of the 20 least generous went for Al Gore.
Of course, I could just make stuff up, because I'm sure you are perfectly content to remain in your smug ignorance.
Wow, Karl. I thought you were dead. They tried it your way in a number of countries, most of which don't exist any more. From everyone according to their talent to everyone according to their need. This could have only worked in the Garden of Eden. Everywhere else, it's a lose-lose proposition where there is no incentive to succeed.
The American partnership, (although what you describe sounds more like the one-sided Soviet partnership to me), might work fine when I am paying for infrastructure and defense, etc., but that does not mean I am somehow morally obligated to pay for a whole generation of leeches who have been reduced to welfare slaves, being taught that they are helpless. Throwing money at our problems is what has caused most of the problems we have today.
Capitalism is not exploitation. You have some views, which while might be popular in Europe, who is quickly declining in world influence and relevance, and most of which is floundering in double-digit unemployment and low productivity, but it is very contrary to the American point-of-view, especially what existed before the government became this huge monlithic nanny-state that tries to control every aspect of our lives. When the government isn't there to bail out every person who decided he just doesn't feel like working, then most people deal with it. The problem is that people now expect it, and demand it whether they need it or not, and the last thing people will vote for is to take away their handouts. This has been the strategy of the Democratic party for years, bribing voters. The truly conservative, by which I mean the libertarian-leaning kind, want to leave people alone, unless there is a serious problem. The difference is between assuming you are better than everyone, and know what is best for them, and letting people make their own way and succeed on their own merits. Your philosophy only punishes the successful, and takes away their incentive to succeed. It is the recipe for failure that we've seen time and time again in places like the Soviet Union. I'm glad you aren't forcing your governmental umbilical cord into me... I want to succeed or fail (and I've done plenty of both) on my own. Any decent person does. But with an ever-increasing system of entitlements and the soft bigotry of low expectations, the worst self-fulfilling prophecy in public life, we will destroy everything that made us the most powerful country in the world. But then again, maybe you are someone who wants that too.
The problem is that we are treating the truly in-need with the simply lazy or corrupt the same way, and we get more of what we pay for. We teach people to be dependent, and it's a lesson they learn well. It's a small logical step from favoring the disadvantage to punishing the advantaged. Under your way of thinking, I'd expect sandbags tied to my arms and loud buzzer in my ear a la Vonnegut, because "How dare I have an advantage over someone?"
The philosophy of equal outcomes guarantees failure for all.
If that's true, then I oughta be practically immortal!
Seriously, this science is clearly in its infancy. It will be great when (if) cures are developed from it, but I suspect it will be a while before any concrete applications start showing up.
Whoops! I should have slammed President Bush first to get the karma bonus.
Well said, Anonymous.
The irony is that the same group of people who insist we must forcibly take money from the rich and redistribute it are also statistically less likely to contribute to charities themselves. We can allow people who can afford to pay more do so without being punative about it.
I'm tired of people acting all morally superior by pretending that redistributing other people's money is charity. I'm tired of hearing that the government is giving you something by taxing you less. I get tired of hearing how the rich don't pay their share. The rich are the ones fueling the engine of our great economy, as well as our big, bloated government.
"Fair" would be if everyone paid the exact same amount, say $10000 per annum, for all the services our government provides. We are not one level removed from this level (which could be considered a certain percentage of income, say 17% across the board). We are not two levels removed from "fair" which would be a progressive tax where the richer pay a higher percentage. We are three levels removed because people are exempt from taxes for a good chunk of the average citizen's income. I'm all for closing loopholes, but it's rich people that make jobs, not the government, let's stop punishing the successful, especially those who take risks, succeeds and employ others as a result.
The government wastes more money than it would take to pay a decent salary to every poor person in the country, and there is no politician out there who seems to be seriously working to combat that. If we overthrew the education monopoly that forces poor people to remain poor by not allowing them a decent education we could put a huge dent in poverty by allowing the people who _want_ to work their way out every chance to do so. I'm lucky. I live in a town where the schools are excellent and teachers are professional and competent. Special education services, which my family has required, are well-funded and staffed by professionals who very effective, as well as being caring. I can't see how any student in this system, with a modicum of parental involvement, couldn't succeed.
But I can afford to live where the schools are good. It's funny that the same people who insist we need to throw more money at schools run by incompetant and corrupt bureaucracies and unions would deny those students affected the opportunity to change schools? If throwing money at the problem worked, Washington, DC would have the best schools in the country, perhaps the world, instead of being that city a borderline third-world country. How many members of Congress who have children in the Washington have them in public schools there? I wouldn't be surprised if it was zero. We can see that sons of Senators often become senators, and sons of Presidents can become Presidents, but it would be also nice for more people to have a chance to rise up from more humble origins by having that good first step. We need to quit chasing the false and destructive dream of equal outcomes (achieved by jiggering the criteria we measure) and focus on equal opportunity. Some people will fail no matter what because they lack will even without handouts sapping it away, but with the right opportunities, most people can succeed. You're not entitled to a good living, you're entitled to bust your ass and have a decent opportunity to make a good living.
That's because Reagan dodged that bullet... literally and figuratively.
Besides, these days, I suspect everyone is a little sensitive about the idea. A little superstition like this seems really immature in this context (as if it ever didn't).