You know, I'll give you- the two parties are unfairly squashing third party candidates. But it just blows my mind that you think that the American people don't know what Ralph Nader stands for, or that you could even think FOR A SECOND that he would have a chance in a national election, or EVER will, EVEN if he was given full coverage. The American population is fairly conservative. Get that? Does that leave any sort of impression- suggest anything to you? I doubt it, but hey, I tried.
I think that analysis goes overboard. I think you're closer to the truth when you talk about him pandering to certain constituencies. I think "behavioral modification" is a little far fetched.
Your analysis of how to target certain brackets is only half true, for the reason I stated above- doing what you want to do to hit just the middle class is politically unfeasible.
You spouting nonsense. You actually think that Americans don't know what Nader supports? Forget even that- even if they knew his platform by heart, do you really think a far left party stands a chance in a national election? GORE is treading water, and he's gone about as far right as he can. Like all zealots, you would rather think that the people are all just brainwashed and sheltered- it couldn't POSSIBLY be that they have legitimate political positions of their own could it? No no- we lefties are gonna win simply because we shout louder. Good strategy, as always.
To bed? Like way too many Naderites, you can't even read for more than a few words at a time before blowing off onto an irrelevant point. I'm not claiming anything about Gore. I'm pointing out that the Green Party has NONE of the big endorsements of major left leaning groups. I think the willingness of Naderites to trade all the damage that Bush could do to the nation for a highly uncertain (of course, THEY think it's certain) chance at... what? Being righteous?
If you'd been paying attention, you'd notice that Clinton/Gore wasn't ABLE to do any of those things, not because it wasn't on the agenda, but because they had so little political capital. But of course, that's what happens when the left is continually engaged in petty squabling over who is the most "pure."
This is utter nonsense. Nader doesn't have a chance not because of two party monopoly, but because his platform is one that few Americans support. Do you really think any more than at MOST 11% of Americans will vote for a man who wants to tax stock trades? Or is even a little lefty? What's worse is that the Green Party isn't even a true left party. Where are the African Americans? THe Latinos? The feminists? The unions? How can one posssibly have a new left coalition without these groups? Nader thinks he can. He's wrong.
What's really sick is that most of the people voting for him really don't have much to lose. They're rich white college kids. If Bush wins, they'll probably BENEFIT, though they don't see it that way. They'll be disappointed, but they wont see their _personal_ interests torn to shreds. No, they can parade around their big moral victory of a Nader vote while gays, blacks, unionists and pretty much the recipients of progressive movement get screwed.
I've heard a lot of talk about the targeted tax cuts, but funnily enough, I've never heard anyone hit the nail on the head for exactly why Gore chose this plan. It's simple: it's very hard to simply cut taxes accross the board without mostly cutting the taxes of the wealthy people- any standard cut is going to benefit the rich disproportionaly more than the poor. That's just the way the math works. So Gore's cuts are complex and wacky precisely because it took so much effort and tweaking to come up with a tax plan that gave cuts primarily to the middle class. It really wsan't so much about "rewarding those who do what we wish" but rather trying to target an income range that's almost impossible to _solely_ target without implementing a tax scheme where different brackets pay different rates- which is politically unacceptable to most people.
The point here is that there are MANY bussiness processes. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. But for much of history, those processes which pollute have NOT paid their true cost. Essentially, that means they've been subsidized- they've been a market failure which has unbalenced the true costs of certain processes. It's like the fact that we subsidize the internet but heavily restrict the phone network. Many people would argue that the backbone technology ideas in the phone network are lots better, scalable, and more robust than the net- but the two technologies AREN'T able to properly compete to see which is better, because the phone network is crushed under massive regulation and enforced high costs. So the internet wins by default. This is economically inefficient way of choosing a bussiness process.
I must say, however, that though THIS point I'm making is, in my opinion, sound- I very much doubt the Nader campaign understands it, or any other complicated economic rationale. Undisciplined anti-corporate zealotry is only going to embarras progressives in the end.
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that things like pollution DO have a cost. Essentially, untaxed pollution is people using clean air without paying for it. It's a public reasource, and as any Economist can tell you, things that are public goods get way overused. Taxing things like pollution would actually simply charge peopel for the REAL cost of what they do, instead of, basically, subsidizing their actions.
You of course have a valid rationale in the "government doesn't decide morals" line- but you have to admit that for some things, like traffic and pollution, that's basically a straw man argument- because the "public good" rationale is really the relevant one.
You forgot the wild popularity of tentacle rape. Seriously though, there's plenty of anime that doesn't devole into kiddy porn. Gundam Wing is just such a series. I just with the American professional dubs actually made an attempt to trasnlate the various speeches coherently. Too much of the American Gundam Wing sounds like they translated things word for word, and it ends up being a mismash of repetative nonsense, instead of poetic, as it's intended to be.
While true, it unfortunately is not good enough to map an entire sense from scratch after a certain age. Sight, and all the coordination that goes with it, is just way too complex to learn after a certain point. Think about it- when people talk about the brains amazing ability to remap new sense, we're usually talking about very simple things like motor switches- on/off- open closed. And even the brain's ability to adapt to serve these new functions is still limited- its never good as new. Sight, however, is immensely complex- it requires the coordination of millions of neurons and effects countless different parts of the brain. The person Oliver Sacks tested on wasn't even a good example- because he WENT blind early in his life- he at least had early experiences to start forming the pathways. And he couldn't make it.
You know, even though I've always been a "Pluto is not a fucking planet!" advocate, you have to wonder: why does it matter what we call a planet? I mean, precise classification is a good thing, but usually when people fight over classification, it's because of political reasons. But who benefits from something being a planet or not? I mean, it's not like anyone living on Jupiter gets more federal tax dollars money than those people living on Asteroid M- or Pluto.
As Dan Savage, has pointed out, his mother is a lot closer to his positions on the issues. But his mother isn't seriously running for president, and niether are you, Nader, or anyone on the Reform Party. Really trully running for president involves going as mainstream and centrist as possible, so obviously those of us on the fringes are going to feel left out (heh.) But vote anyway, for the person still closest to your positions. It makes more sense than not voting, or voting for a throwaway candidate. Democracy isn't about fun, or being able to get your pet issues front and center. It's about doing the best you can to get the policies you want implemented. The only confused, undecided person should be someone with political views in between Bush and Gore. (which, actually, is a lot of people) I also like how Dan Savage has pointed out that if Gore loses this election, and Nader picks up 2 or 3 %, the Democratic Party isn't going to go LEFT. It's going to go right, to compete for the bulk of votes, not the fringe votes. Nothing other than a Democratic victory could make the party head left. And if the Green Party gets funding- so what? Funding sure hasn't helped the Reform Party get anywhere. The problem is that parties like the Greens aren't serious. They aren't willing to compromise and moderate their positions to the point where they appeal to the wide swath of Americans. The are extremely poorly thought out- anti-corporatism, for instance, will win you many blue-collar worker's hearts, but promising to raise gas taxes will lose them again.
You have mistaken me for someone with a vested interest in claiming Prohibition was a good thing (or, like the source you cite, a bad thing). I'm not, I'm merely pointing out the effect it had.
Most of my sources come from historian Richard Shenkman's book "I love Paul Revere, Whether he rode or not." The point is not that Prohibition was a good thing, or that it had any of the promised social effects (reducing absenteeism, etc.)- simply that the case against it is often way overstated. As Einstien notes, a law that can't be enforced destroys respect for the law. But of course the government didn't try very hard to enforce the law, and it's just rather surprising how effective they were despite that. (which is not, you might note, the same thing as saying: "it was effective")
Interestingly enough, your link helps demonstrate that you've managed to bungle your own statistics: I claimed it had an effect on the amount of drinking overall (per capita, accounting for population growth), not neccesarily on how much alcohol the average drinker imbibes. You might notice that those aren't even remotely the same thing. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "legal" either, since age-minimums aren't consistent across the two periods, and one of the major factors of the first century of American drinking was that young children consumed alcohol as well (and not just upper level teens).
As Paul Krugman tries to point out in his New York Times collumns, in politics- when you lie a tiny bit, the press is all over you. But when you lie to hte tune of billions of dollars, no one catches it. Neither Gore nor Bush are proposing reasonable economic plans, and no one is calling them on it. Pathetic.
Not just critics either. It's proven in study after study that treatment programs are far more effective, especially at prevent recidivism or moving on to real crimes.
Actualy, it's somewhat of a myth that Prohibition didn't work or that it created Organized Crime (which already existed and was near the peak of its rule BEFORE Prohibition- but alcohol was what got many figures popularized).
Believe it or not, Americans used to drink FAR more than they do now, and a good portion of that drop came during Prohibition, when alcohol consumption dropped by nearly 3/4s and never really recoverd.
What's really amazing about Prohibition was not that it failed, but that it was successful as it was consider how laxly it was enforced. The entire _country_ had only about hundred agents working on the law, for negible pay (making bribery easy). Overall, Prohibition was very sparsely enforced, and yet it had an astounding and lasting impact on American drnking habits.
Compare that to hundreds of highly paid thousands of anti-drug task force professionals today, and the total failure of similar cuts in drug use.
I'm not saying Prohibition was a good idea, it's just that bleary-eyed Hollywood retrospective seems to eclipsed historical fact.
What's truly amazing is that there's been so much focus on Gore's exagerations (a politician exagerating- what a story!) and virtualy none on Bush's straight out lies about his own budget. Lies spanning _billions_ of dollars of spending differences between what he says and what his own budget says. Misrepresentations about what Social Security even is (and complete neglect of the fact that there's a huge a DEBT owed to current retirees that has to be paid somehow) Anyne who's been following Paul Krugman's opinion collumn in the New York Times should know this, but apparently most people don't read that anymore.
Krugman stuff - needs a free registration to read if you haven't already.
I really don't know much about monitor technology, but what exactly is the story on why pixels AREN'T square? I mean, why aren't they? And what's the big deal about them becoming square? Is ti harder to accomplish technologicaly?
It may be changing, but there are plenty of constants that let people form fairly good pictures of what's going on. This was a surprise to some of those pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I'll give you- the two parties are unfairly squashing third party candidates. But it just blows my mind that you think that the American people don't know what Ralph Nader stands for, or that you could even think FOR A SECOND that he would have a chance in a national election, or EVER will, EVEN if he was given full coverage. The American population is fairly conservative. Get that? Does that leave any sort of impression- suggest anything to you? I doubt it, but hey, I tried.
I think that analysis goes overboard. I think you're closer to the truth when you talk about him pandering to certain constituencies. I think "behavioral modification" is a little far fetched. Your analysis of how to target certain brackets is only half true, for the reason I stated above- doing what you want to do to hit just the middle class is politically unfeasible.
You spouting nonsense. You actually think that Americans don't know what Nader supports? Forget even that- even if they knew his platform by heart, do you really think a far left party stands a chance in a national election? GORE is treading water, and he's gone about as far right as he can. Like all zealots, you would rather think that the people are all just brainwashed and sheltered- it couldn't POSSIBLY be that they have legitimate political positions of their own could it? No no- we lefties are gonna win simply because we shout louder. Good strategy, as always.
To bed? Like way too many Naderites, you can't even read for more than a few words at a time before blowing off onto an irrelevant point. I'm not claiming anything about Gore. I'm pointing out that the Green Party has NONE of the big endorsements of major left leaning groups. I think the willingness of Naderites to trade all the damage that Bush could do to the nation for a highly uncertain (of course, THEY think it's certain) chance at... what? Being righteous?
If you'd been paying attention, you'd notice that Clinton/Gore wasn't ABLE to do any of those things, not because it wasn't on the agenda, but because they had so little political capital. But of course, that's what happens when the left is continually engaged in petty squabling over who is the most "pure."
This is utter nonsense. Nader doesn't have a chance not because of two party monopoly, but because his platform is one that few Americans support. Do you really think any more than at MOST 11% of Americans will vote for a man who wants to tax stock trades? Or is even a little lefty? What's worse is that the Green Party isn't even a true left party. Where are the African Americans? THe Latinos? The feminists? The unions? How can one posssibly have a new left coalition without these groups? Nader thinks he can. He's wrong.
What's really sick is that most of the people voting for him really don't have much to lose. They're rich white college kids. If Bush wins, they'll probably BENEFIT, though they don't see it that way. They'll be disappointed, but they wont see their _personal_ interests torn to shreds. No, they can parade around their big moral victory of a Nader vote while gays, blacks, unionists and pretty much the recipients of progressive movement get screwed.
I've heard a lot of talk about the targeted tax cuts, but funnily enough, I've never heard anyone hit the nail on the head for exactly why Gore chose this plan. It's simple: it's very hard to simply cut taxes accross the board without mostly cutting the taxes of the wealthy people- any standard cut is going to benefit the rich disproportionaly more than the poor. That's just the way the math works. So Gore's cuts are complex and wacky precisely because it took so much effort and tweaking to come up with a tax plan that gave cuts primarily to the middle class. It really wsan't so much about "rewarding those who do what we wish" but rather trying to target an income range that's almost impossible to _solely_ target without implementing a tax scheme where different brackets pay different rates- which is politically unacceptable to most people.
The point here is that there are MANY bussiness processes. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. But for much of history, those processes which pollute have NOT paid their true cost. Essentially, that means they've been subsidized- they've been a market failure which has unbalenced the true costs of certain processes. It's like the fact that we subsidize the internet but heavily restrict the phone network. Many people would argue that the backbone technology ideas in the phone network are lots better, scalable, and more robust than the net- but the two technologies AREN'T able to properly compete to see which is better, because the phone network is crushed under massive regulation and enforced high costs. So the internet wins by default. This is economically inefficient way of choosing a bussiness process.
I must say, however, that though THIS point I'm making is, in my opinion, sound- I very much doubt the Nader campaign understands it, or any other complicated economic rationale. Undisciplined anti-corporate zealotry is only going to embarras progressives in the end.
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that things like pollution DO have a cost. Essentially, untaxed pollution is people using clean air without paying for it. It's a public reasource, and as any Economist can tell you, things that are public goods get way overused. Taxing things like pollution would actually simply charge peopel for the REAL cost of what they do, instead of, basically, subsidizing their actions. You of course have a valid rationale in the "government doesn't decide morals" line- but you have to admit that for some things, like traffic and pollution, that's basically a straw man argument- because the "public good" rationale is really the relevant one.
You forgot the wild popularity of tentacle rape. Seriously though, there's plenty of anime that doesn't devole into kiddy porn. Gundam Wing is just such a series. I just with the American professional dubs actually made an attempt to trasnlate the various speeches coherently. Too much of the American Gundam Wing sounds like they translated things word for word, and it ends up being a mismash of repetative nonsense, instead of poetic, as it's intended to be.
While true, it unfortunately is not good enough to map an entire sense from scratch after a certain age. Sight, and all the coordination that goes with it, is just way too complex to learn after a certain point. Think about it- when people talk about the brains amazing ability to remap new sense, we're usually talking about very simple things like motor switches- on/off- open closed. And even the brain's ability to adapt to serve these new functions is still limited- its never good as new. Sight, however, is immensely complex- it requires the coordination of millions of neurons and effects countless different parts of the brain. The person Oliver Sacks tested on wasn't even a good example- because he WENT blind early in his life- he at least had early experiences to start forming the pathways. And he couldn't make it.
You know, even though I've always been a "Pluto is not a fucking planet!" advocate, you have to wonder: why does it matter what we call a planet? I mean, precise classification is a good thing, but usually when people fight over classification, it's because of political reasons. But who benefits from something being a planet or not? I mean, it's not like anyone living on Jupiter gets more federal tax dollars money than those people living on Asteroid M- or Pluto.
As Dan Savage, has pointed out, his mother is a lot closer to his positions on the issues. But his mother isn't seriously running for president, and niether are you, Nader, or anyone on the Reform Party. Really trully running for president involves going as mainstream and centrist as possible, so obviously those of us on the fringes are going to feel left out (heh.) But vote anyway, for the person still closest to your positions. It makes more sense than not voting, or voting for a throwaway candidate.
Democracy isn't about fun, or being able to get your pet issues front and center. It's about doing the best you can to get the policies you want implemented. The only confused, undecided person should be someone with political views in between Bush and Gore. (which, actually, is a lot of people)
I also like how Dan Savage has pointed out that if Gore loses this election, and Nader picks up 2 or 3 %, the Democratic Party isn't going to go LEFT. It's going to go right, to compete for the bulk of votes, not the fringe votes. Nothing other than a Democratic victory could make the party head left. And if the Green Party gets funding- so what? Funding sure hasn't helped the Reform Party get anywhere. The problem is that parties like the Greens aren't serious. They aren't willing to compromise and moderate their positions to the point where they appeal to the wide swath of Americans. The are extremely poorly thought out- anti-corporatism, for instance, will win you many blue-collar worker's hearts, but promising to raise gas taxes will lose them again.
You have mistaken me for someone with a vested interest in claiming Prohibition was a good thing (or, like the source you cite, a bad thing). I'm not, I'm merely pointing out the effect it had. Most of my sources come from historian Richard Shenkman's book "I love Paul Revere, Whether he rode or not." The point is not that Prohibition was a good thing, or that it had any of the promised social effects (reducing absenteeism, etc.)- simply that the case against it is often way overstated. As Einstien notes, a law that can't be enforced destroys respect for the law. But of course the government didn't try very hard to enforce the law, and it's just rather surprising how effective they were despite that. (which is not, you might note, the same thing as saying: "it was effective")
Interestingly enough, your link helps demonstrate that you've managed to bungle your own statistics: I claimed it had an effect on the amount of drinking overall (per capita, accounting for population growth), not neccesarily on how much alcohol the average drinker imbibes. You might notice that those aren't even remotely the same thing. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "legal" either, since age-minimums aren't consistent across the two periods, and one of the major factors of the first century of American drinking was that young children consumed alcohol as well (and not just upper level teens).
No, because whether or not Prohibition had an effect isn't directly relevant to the question of whether or not it should have been law.
As Paul Krugman tries to point out in his New York Times collumns, in politics- when you lie a tiny bit, the press is all over you. But when you lie to hte tune of billions of dollars, no one catches it. Neither Gore nor Bush are proposing reasonable economic plans, and no one is calling them on it. Pathetic.
Not just critics either. It's proven in study after study that treatment programs are far more effective, especially at prevent recidivism or moving on to real crimes.
Actualy, it's somewhat of a myth that Prohibition didn't work or that it created Organized Crime (which already existed and was near the peak of its rule BEFORE Prohibition- but alcohol was what got many figures popularized). Believe it or not, Americans used to drink FAR more than they do now, and a good portion of that drop came during Prohibition, when alcohol consumption dropped by nearly 3/4s and never really recoverd. What's really amazing about Prohibition was not that it failed, but that it was successful as it was consider how laxly it was enforced. The entire _country_ had only about hundred agents working on the law, for negible pay (making bribery easy). Overall, Prohibition was very sparsely enforced, and yet it had an astounding and lasting impact on American drnking habits. Compare that to hundreds of highly paid thousands of anti-drug task force professionals today, and the total failure of similar cuts in drug use. I'm not saying Prohibition was a good idea, it's just that bleary-eyed Hollywood retrospective seems to eclipsed historical fact.
Maybe he just has sand in his ears. Somehow, I think this post sounds more coherent on a first read than it actually is on close analysis.
What's truly amazing is that there's been so much focus on Gore's exagerations (a politician exagerating- what a story!) and virtualy none on Bush's straight out lies about his own budget. Lies spanning _billions_ of dollars of spending differences between what he says and what his own budget says. Misrepresentations about what Social Security even is (and complete neglect of the fact that there's a huge a DEBT owed to current retirees that has to be paid somehow) Anyne who's been following Paul Krugman's opinion collumn in the New York Times should know this, but apparently most people don't read that anymore. Krugman stuff - needs a free registration to read if you haven't already.
Yeah, but I can't seem to get the old gif capable gd library to compile.
I really don't know much about monitor technology, but what exactly is the story on why pixels AREN'T square? I mean, why aren't they? And what's the big deal about them becoming square? Is ti harder to accomplish technologicaly?
I don't wnat to sound like a smarty pants either, but it comes as no surprise to me that you posted this exact post.
It may be changing, but there are plenty of constants that let people form fairly good pictures of what's going on. This was a surprise to some of those pictures.
gravity.
Geez, sorry. The last thing we want to do is offend people who are fluent in Greek. They might discus us to death!