Economics is about decision making. A cost benefit analysis should be a true analysis of costs versus benefit. What you have described is a good way to make a determination of Expected Gain, but does not calculate expected costs. After doing the analysis you have above, you should then do a cost analysis, something like:
(monetary cost of getting into the business) + (Time associated with getting started) +
(Time associated with running said business) +
(Moral costs) +
(other stuff)
At that point, you can compare the costs vs benfits. In reality, you have lumped costs and benefits together, and they can be seperated out, so taking what I've totaled above, you can add your costs, which were:
[(Probability of being caught) * (Estimated monetary cost of penalty)] + (Opportunity Cost)
A cost benefit analysis is not restricted to only monetary costs/benefits. As I posted in another thread, a religous person would be concerned with what God thought about that action (assuming the "action" was something like stealing, etc.), which increases the total costs. Or, someone may just have a guilty consceince, again increasing the costs. There are other possibilities that would increase cost, but the important point to note is that the big variables are "moral costs" and "other costs" (as it pertains to this issue of spammers anyway). There are lots of reasons people may choose not to be a spammer. That doesn't mean those people are not making decisions, it's just that their decisions include things you haven't included in your formula.
Morality is part of the "cost" of an action. For someone who places no value on morality (morality in the very general sense that most of us accept, like fraud, theft, etc), that person would commit immoral actions if he saw the overall benefit as greater than the costs. On the other hand, someone who thinks he might spend eternity in hell (as an example, another example would simply be having a guilty consceince), would have additional costs to consider. So, the cost/benefit analysis isn't limited to cash in/out, but also other factors. And that's where people decide to do different things, we don't all have the same sense of morality. Almost everyone agrees (or most people anyway) that fraud is immoral, so most people don't do it. Not as many people believe spamming is immoral, so more people will participate in that (if all other factors remained the same).
in other words, they want to make the world safe for capitalism
Capitalism is an economy in which sources of production are controlled by private entities(instead of by the public/government). This shouldn't be confused with things like intellectual property rights, which isn't even a source of production, and really has little to do with wether you have a capitalist economy.
Sorry, I didn't realize "editing a film", was completely synonymous with "digital". I intend to copy film to my computer and burn to DVD, possibly send clips to folks I know (family and such).
I didn't mean to imply I wasn't interested in the computer interface abilites purely. I only was trying to specifically distinguish that I'm not making a great movie. While I intend to burn to DVD's and such, arguments like "No, you HAVE to get blah blah feature if you want to make it in Hollywood..." I was trying to avoid.
between "right" in the legal sense, and "right" in the moral/ethical sense. Saying we have the legal right (First Ammendment and all that) to complain isn't insightful, it's so obvious the parent post thought he didn't have to state that's wasn't what he was talking about.
On the other hand, if I were an engineer (which I'm not)
Clearly;-)
And neither are most people....which I'm not sure you are getting. This isn't just about science, engineers or international business, hopefully those people have been using SI for years now. This is MORE about everyday people doing daily tasks. They shouldn't be forced to have to re-educate themselves on all units. And by "reeducate", it's not simply a matter of knowing what the relationship between a Km and a mm is, but how much does this chunk of meat weigh (and by extension then, what is it worth to me), or how far is it from here to the next city.
I don't think it's emotional reasons at all (at least not in my case). I've got a CS degree, and as such, had to take plenty of science in college. So, it's not like I don't know anything about SI, or can't work with it. It's more an issue of convinience. Working with numbers (as in, solving problems) in one system or another is a bit like choosing one base over another, as long as you understand what you are working with, I can express a value in base 10 as readily as base 16. While there are certainly some things about SI that make it a bit easier to work with (I'm ok with that), it is quite another thing to start using it (given that you have used another system your entire life) on a daily basis for mundane things. Really, off hand how many people are there that know how many liters are in a gallon? (few outside scientific/engineer communities) And what is the point of really learning? Most people will never do business on an international level. Sure, I know that 100 C is 220 F (and the correlating freezing points), but I can't tell you at first look if 65 C is comfortable or not, and I don't need to, I have F.
Maybe it would be prudent to start teaching both methods in schools, but it seems kind of stupid to come to some forced method of change (like was done in Europe) where labels are restricted from having Imp units. They work in life.
I'm not arguing agains SI. It has it's place. The thing is, we don't need to ALL use the same system all the time. For example, when I go to the store, I know I can buy a pound of ground beef. I know about how much of that I will eat, and I can make a judgement about prices, because I have a good visualization of what it is. The fact that some other pound in another place (such as the gallon being different in US and England) is irrevelant, because I'm not buying pounds of beef in other places, I only do it right here locally. I'm not buying gallons of gas in England, and if I were, I wouldn't really care what the difference was, when my tank gauge approached 'E', I would fill up (sooner depending if I was in the city or out in the country where I might not see a gas station for a while).
On the other hand, if I were an engineer (which I'm not), and I was working on a project with international implications, I would almost certainly use SI.
My biggest problem is with people who seem to think we (in the US) NEED to start using SI in our everyday lives (and no doubt many of those people would even support a compulsory action to do so). That's absurd. I assure you that all the houses built around here (using feet and inches) are just a good or bad quality as houses built elsewhere using SI.
There is nothing wrong with SI. There is also nothing (inherently in the system) wrong with Imperial measurements. They both work equally well for measuring things.
And as for the argument that SI makes it so much easier to convert from, say, cm's to km's, as opposed to converting inches to miles it's rubbish for a reason to convert everyday things to SI. Sure, it a lot easier to do, but honestly, how often (in everyday life) does one need to do that? I certainly never have. So, the net benefit to me (and most people in the country) approaches zero in that regard. I use measuring devices when I want exact (or close to) measurements. If I had instructions to measure out 5 gallons, I would get something that at least measured a gallon. If my instructions were 5 liters, then I would get something that measured (held) at least 5 liters. I would not get a mL measuring device and use it 5,000 times (because that would be so easy) any more than I would get a 1 oz. measuring device and use it how ever many of times I would need to use it to make a gallon. The fact that I don't know off hand how many ounces are in a gallon is irrelavent.
On the other hand, if I was doing something very precise, like designing a building, I would use a calculator, because as easy as converting 1 mm to.000001 km is, it's just as easy to make a mistake and convert it to.0000001 or some such.
This is just a way overblown "problem". I use things that measure miles when I'm interested in miles, I use things that measure feet when I'm interested in feet. It works for something like 270 million people, and used to work for much more. So, while I'm happy knowing that I drove 'X' miles, everyone in Europe can enjoy know that not only did they drive 'X' Km, they also drove 'XXX' mmm. I don't care. I didn't want to know how many inches it was from my house to some city I drove to, I just wanted to know about how many miles.
To put it another way, the advantage I did mention (working with other) is not inherent in the system itself. If everyone was using SI, then we gain that advantage. If everyone was using Imperial, we still gain that advantage.
My point was to counter a general perception that SI has inherent abilities that exceed those of Imperial, it doesn't. Mistakes can be made using both systems (assuming an environment where everyone is using the same system).
Not in my head. I used a calculator. Perhaps that's one advantage of the english system over the metric...fewer "simple" mistakes, since you almost always think to yourself "hmmm...I better actually check this".
I know that the metric system makes memorization easier. But I think that's rarely relavent to any actual applied sciences. When someone is designing a new , they aren't doing it all in their head.
Now, while the easy relation of dimensions is a slight benefit, does it outway the hardship associated with, say, if every company were (starting tomorrow) forced to use SI only? Suddenly people wouldn't have much idea of what they were buying (or at least not as good an idea).
Ironically, the US adopted the English measurment system in the early 1800's. I think it's reasonably safe to say that the reason for that was to "get in line" with what was probably the most widely used system at the time (not forseeing how the metric system would grow).
The problem had nothing to do with eglish->metric conversion.
Also, there is nothing inherently better about the metric system of measurement, vs. the english system of measurement vs. any other standardized system of measurment. If something is measured at 1.5 inches or 38.1 mm, it's the exact same length. The only advantage is commonality and not having to do conversions (which is an advantage, I admit). But there is no inherent advantage as to how well one system can perform over the other.
If you had read the article, you would know that the problem was, while converting to metric, they also changed the specification of the axle size, but didn't record the new axle size correctly. So, the problem really had nothing to do with any mathematical error, just an error in incorrect documentation.
As for Bush, I think it goes back to another post I made about bad decisions vs bad character. Did he really lie about WMD's, or was just just misinformed, or did Hussein just hide them really well or destroy them just in time? Whatever the case in Iraq, I don't think Bush had any bad intentions (I could easily be wrong about this). I've never been in the armed forces, but I can say that if I were (or had been) I can think of several Presidents I would think a lot worse about serving under than Bush.
And as for Clinton, I just want to clear up that getting a blow job doesn't interest me. Most people were divided into two camps on that issue "support BJ's vs. Oppose BJ's". I was concerned about the head of the executive office of the United States lying in a court room and getting away with it. He was part of a civil trial, and had no more right to lie than you or I would be given, but he walked away scot free. Paula Jones may be just been persuing a frivolous law suit, and I don't support the way law suits are used for every little problem someone has, but she had as much right to use the court system as anyone else, and until the rules are changed, she was absolutely stripped of those rights by the President himself not being honest and providing an environment in which a citizen of the country can have an honest court hearing.
Impeached for what exactly? I have to say, I'm dismayed. As I said, I'm not a fan of either party, I can take or leave any of them. Clinton getting elected was cool, because I live near Little Rock and downtown LR was a huge badass party that night...
But overall, I think Clinton did more to warrant impeachement. Now, I'm not saying Bush is a great President (I don't think he's much better or worse than any other...), but at least he didn't undermine the legal system by lying in front of a judge. And the article in no way implies that Bush is responsible for this particular thing. So, I'm curious, what should he be impeached for? That's a pretty extreme sentiment, one that I doubt you can support.
And as for you being a libertarian, I'm guessing you are one of those "Bill Maher style Libertarians" (I like Bill Maher as a comedian, a lot, but he's a political idiot and just another actor/famous-person who thinks his opinion is supremely important just because he's somewhat famous). Basically, a Democrat who REALLY-REALLY want's drugs to be legal. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting to legalize drugs, but it's a huge step from really be a libertarian.
It's true that I simplified it some. The "teams" are complicated. For example, watch a 3rd party candidate get in the mix and the two orginally opposing teams gang up on him, almost as if they are both on the same team...while simultaneously being on seperate teams.
As for the "rich and powerful" part, I think you're a little off on that. I think there are a lot of things that Bush wants for genuinely good reasons, wether those reasons are misguided/uninformed is debatble. No doubt, there are plenty of things he wants for his own good, or purely for the good of his team as well. As much as I dislike both major parties, very few politicians are truely evil, and most want at least some things because they really think it will be better for everyone, again, wether that thinking in a particular case is misguided/uninformed is debatable on a case by case basis.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending Bush, I just think one needs to be careful about distinguishing between bad policy and bad character. Just because someone wants to do something that you think would be terrible for the country, doesn't mean that their motives are bad. It's possible they just don't understand how something works, you don't understand how it works, or it's just a genuine disagreement among professionals (such as when two equally educated doctors may prescribe completely different things based on purely a difference in professional opinion).
My main point in the orignal post, was that people need to quit tying themselves to political parties and defending that party, or bashing the opposing, at all costs. Additionally, I wanted to communicate that for the most part (IMO) politicians (all politicians) are inherently looking for power, and they trade that power in order to either gain more power, or maintain the power they have. No matter what party you strongly associate yourself with (if indeed you do), that applies to your party as well.
Republicans love to talk about moral absolutes, and moral values - as long as it's someone else accused of doing the immoral acts, and not a bright, shiny spotlight on their own conduct.
Wow...you completely missed my point. The above italicized I agree with. The point is that the exact same is true for Dems as well. And it's not wether the Dems are right/wrong for objecting to what happened, the point is that it's rings hollow, given the fact that the Dems would do the exact same thing. More generally, when a Democrat does something wrong, you hear 0 moral outrage from Democrats. When a Republican does something wrong, you hear 0 moral outrage from Republicans.
You are clearly one of the Dems on the offensive right now (my point applies to average citizens who align with one party or the other equally as applying to actual politicians). The Republicans have done something wrong, and you are outraged by it. However (just as a counter point) when Clinton had all those FBI files pulled...I'm sure you didn't have much to say about that.
Watching you people amuses me.
To use your (incomplete, but I'll complete it for you) "poop" example, yes it was wrong, but to a third party bystander (that's me in this particular political argument) who has been watching you and I throw poop in each others lawns for years, you really have no credibility in regard to complaining that I threw poop in your yard yesterday, given the fact that you have no problem throwing poop in my yard on a daily basis.
The problem with a third party is that it only subdivides the activities further. The same type of power-hungry people would still be in power, just via 3 parties instead of 2.
The real solution, IMHO, is to remove the power they are looking for. Generally, if the total power of the Fed government were reduced by say 90%, there would be much less reason for power-hungry individuals to try to get into office. Further, if those power-hungry people DO still seek office, they could have a lesser impact on the nation with only 10% of power available than was before.
Politicians work for themselves. People in power (such as in congress) have something to trade. They trade the power they have through control of government in return for things. They trade some of that power to the masses, in the form of "social services", redistribution of wealth, and sometimes just empty promises. In return, they get votes that allows them to stay in power.
They also trade some of that power to corporations and rich individuals in return (generally) for money so that they can buy votes so they can continue to get more power (or maintain the power they have).
The republican's do something unethical, and Democrats around the country rally as if it is the most absurd and horrible thing they have ever heard of, while Republicans either remain fairly quiet or defensive.
The Democrats do something unethical, and Republicans around the country rally as if it is the most absurd and horrible thing they have ever heard of, while Democrats either remain fairly quiet or defensive.
Will the day ever come that people understand that politicians (Dems and Reps) are in it for the power? As long as all the power of the Federal government is available to be bartered, it will continue to be, and people will continue to do unethical things to gain advantage. Remove the power available for trade, and the unethical behavior becomes less impactful/significant.
Slashdot Mirror
Economics is about decision making. A cost benefit analysis should be a true analysis of costs versus benefit. What you have described is a good way to make a determination of Expected Gain, but does not calculate expected costs. After doing the analysis you have above, you should then do a cost analysis, something like:
(monetary cost of getting into the business) + (Time associated with getting started) + (Time associated with running said business) + (Moral costs) + (other stuff)
At that point, you can compare the costs vs benfits. In reality, you have lumped costs and benefits together, and they can be seperated out, so taking what I've totaled above, you can add your costs, which were:
[(Probability of being caught) * (Estimated monetary cost of penalty)] + (Opportunity Cost)
A cost benefit analysis is not restricted to only monetary costs/benefits. As I posted in another thread, a religous person would be concerned with what God thought about that action (assuming the "action" was something like stealing, etc.), which increases the total costs. Or, someone may just have a guilty consceince, again increasing the costs. There are other possibilities that would increase cost, but the important point to note is that the big variables are "moral costs" and "other costs" (as it pertains to this issue of spammers anyway). There are lots of reasons people may choose not to be a spammer. That doesn't mean those people are not making decisions, it's just that their decisions include things you haven't included in your formula.
Morality is part of the "cost" of an action. For someone who places no value on morality (morality in the very general sense that most of us accept, like fraud, theft, etc), that person would commit immoral actions if he saw the overall benefit as greater than the costs. On the other hand, someone who thinks he might spend eternity in hell (as an example, another example would simply be having a guilty consceince), would have additional costs to consider. So, the cost/benefit analysis isn't limited to cash in/out, but also other factors. And that's where people decide to do different things, we don't all have the same sense of morality. Almost everyone agrees (or most people anyway) that fraud is immoral, so most people don't do it. Not as many people believe spamming is immoral, so more people will participate in that (if all other factors remained the same).
in other words, they want to make the world safe for capitalism
Capitalism is an economy in which sources of production are controlled by private entities(instead of by the public/government). This shouldn't be confused with things like intellectual property rights, which isn't even a source of production, and really has little to do with wether you have a capitalist economy.
Sorry, I didn't realize "editing a film", was completely synonymous with "digital". I intend to copy film to my computer and burn to DVD, possibly send clips to folks I know (family and such).
Thanks for the lesson.
I didn't mean to imply I wasn't interested in the computer interface abilites purely. I only was trying to specifically distinguish that I'm not making a great movie. While I intend to burn to DVD's and such, arguments like "No, you HAVE to get blah blah feature if you want to make it in Hollywood..." I was trying to avoid.
between "right" in the legal sense, and "right" in the moral/ethical sense. Saying we have the legal right (First Ammendment and all that) to complain isn't insightful, it's so obvious the parent post thought he didn't have to state that's wasn't what he was talking about.
On the other hand, if I were an engineer (which I'm not) Clearly ;-)
And neither are most people....which I'm not sure you are getting. This isn't just about science, engineers or international business, hopefully those people have been using SI for years now. This is MORE about everyday people doing daily tasks. They shouldn't be forced to have to re-educate themselves on all units. And by "reeducate", it's not simply a matter of knowing what the relationship between a Km and a mm is, but how much does this chunk of meat weigh (and by extension then, what is it worth to me), or how far is it from here to the next city.
I don't think it's emotional reasons at all (at least not in my case). I've got a CS degree, and as such, had to take plenty of science in college. So, it's not like I don't know anything about SI, or can't work with it. It's more an issue of convinience. Working with numbers (as in, solving problems) in one system or another is a bit like choosing one base over another, as long as you understand what you are working with, I can express a value in base 10 as readily as base 16. While there are certainly some things about SI that make it a bit easier to work with (I'm ok with that), it is quite another thing to start using it (given that you have used another system your entire life) on a daily basis for mundane things. Really, off hand how many people are there that know how many liters are in a gallon? (few outside scientific/engineer communities) And what is the point of really learning? Most people will never do business on an international level. Sure, I know that 100 C is 220 F (and the correlating freezing points), but I can't tell you at first look if 65 C is comfortable or not, and I don't need to, I have F.
Maybe it would be prudent to start teaching both methods in schools, but it seems kind of stupid to come to some forced method of change (like was done in Europe) where labels are restricted from having Imp units. They work in life.
By that logic, Windows is undoubtedly the best OS on the market (for home/personal use).
I'm not arguing agains SI. It has it's place. The thing is, we don't need to ALL use the same system all the time. For example, when I go to the store, I know I can buy a pound of ground beef. I know about how much of that I will eat, and I can make a judgement about prices, because I have a good visualization of what it is. The fact that some other pound in another place (such as the gallon being different in US and England) is irrevelant, because I'm not buying pounds of beef in other places, I only do it right here locally. I'm not buying gallons of gas in England, and if I were, I wouldn't really care what the difference was, when my tank gauge approached 'E', I would fill up (sooner depending if I was in the city or out in the country where I might not see a gas station for a while).
.000001 km is, it's just as easy to make a mistake and convert it to .0000001 or some such.
On the other hand, if I were an engineer (which I'm not), and I was working on a project with international implications, I would almost certainly use SI.
My biggest problem is with people who seem to think we (in the US) NEED to start using SI in our everyday lives (and no doubt many of those people would even support a compulsory action to do so). That's absurd. I assure you that all the houses built around here (using feet and inches) are just a good or bad quality as houses built elsewhere using SI.
There is nothing wrong with SI. There is also nothing (inherently in the system) wrong with Imperial measurements. They both work equally well for measuring things.
And as for the argument that SI makes it so much easier to convert from, say, cm's to km's, as opposed to converting inches to miles it's rubbish for a reason to convert everyday things to SI. Sure, it a lot easier to do, but honestly, how often (in everyday life) does one need to do that? I certainly never have. So, the net benefit to me (and most people in the country) approaches zero in that regard. I use measuring devices when I want exact (or close to) measurements. If I had instructions to measure out 5 gallons, I would get something that at least measured a gallon. If my instructions were 5 liters, then I would get something that measured (held) at least 5 liters. I would not get a mL measuring device and use it 5,000 times (because that would be so easy) any more than I would get a 1 oz. measuring device and use it how ever many of times I would need to use it to make a gallon. The fact that I don't know off hand how many ounces are in a gallon is irrelavent.
On the other hand, if I was doing something very precise, like designing a building, I would use a calculator, because as easy as converting 1 mm to
This is just a way overblown "problem". I use things that measure miles when I'm interested in miles, I use things that measure feet when I'm interested in feet. It works for something like 270 million people, and used to work for much more. So, while I'm happy knowing that I drove 'X' miles, everyone in Europe can enjoy know that not only did they drive 'X' Km, they also drove 'XXX' mmm. I don't care. I didn't want to know how many inches it was from my house to some city I drove to, I just wanted to know about how many miles.
To put it another way, the advantage I did mention (working with other) is not inherent in the system itself. If everyone was using SI, then we gain that advantage. If everyone was using Imperial, we still gain that advantage.
My point was to counter a general perception that SI has inherent abilities that exceed those of Imperial, it doesn't. Mistakes can be made using both systems (assuming an environment where everyone is using the same system).
Not in my head. I used a calculator. Perhaps that's one advantage of the english system over the metric...fewer "simple" mistakes, since you almost always think to yourself "hmmm...I better actually check this".
You got the metric conversion wrong (off by one zero) and the other one right.
I know that the metric system makes memorization easier. But I think that's rarely relavent to any actual applied sciences. When someone is designing a new , they aren't doing it all in their head.
Now, while the easy relation of dimensions is a slight benefit, does it outway the hardship associated with, say, if every company were (starting tomorrow) forced to use SI only? Suddenly people wouldn't have much idea of what they were buying (or at least not as good an idea).
Ironically, the US adopted the English measurment system in the early 1800's. I think it's reasonably safe to say that the reason for that was to "get in line" with what was probably the most widely used system at the time (not forseeing how the metric system would grow).
The problem had nothing to do with eglish->metric conversion.
Also, there is nothing inherently better about the metric system of measurement, vs. the english system of measurement vs. any other standardized system of measurment. If something is measured at 1.5 inches or 38.1 mm, it's the exact same length. The only advantage is commonality and not having to do conversions (which is an advantage, I admit). But there is no inherent advantage as to how well one system can perform over the other.
If you had read the article, you would know that the problem was, while converting to metric, they also changed the specification of the axle size, but didn't record the new axle size correctly. So, the problem really had nothing to do with any mathematical error, just an error in incorrect documentation.
It seems we may have a lot in common then...
As for Bush, I think it goes back to another post I made about bad decisions vs bad character. Did he really lie about WMD's, or was just just misinformed, or did Hussein just hide them really well or destroy them just in time? Whatever the case in Iraq, I don't think Bush had any bad intentions (I could easily be wrong about this). I've never been in the armed forces, but I can say that if I were (or had been) I can think of several Presidents I would think a lot worse about serving under than Bush.
And as for Clinton, I just want to clear up that getting a blow job doesn't interest me. Most people were divided into two camps on that issue "support BJ's vs. Oppose BJ's". I was concerned about the head of the executive office of the United States lying in a court room and getting away with it. He was part of a civil trial, and had no more right to lie than you or I would be given, but he walked away scot free. Paula Jones may be just been persuing a frivolous law suit, and I don't support the way law suits are used for every little problem someone has, but she had as much right to use the court system as anyone else, and until the rules are changed, she was absolutely stripped of those rights by the President himself not being honest and providing an environment in which a citizen of the country can have an honest court hearing.
Impeached for what exactly? I have to say, I'm dismayed. As I said, I'm not a fan of either party, I can take or leave any of them. Clinton getting elected was cool, because I live near Little Rock and downtown LR was a huge badass party that night...
But overall, I think Clinton did more to warrant impeachement. Now, I'm not saying Bush is a great President (I don't think he's much better or worse than any other...), but at least he didn't undermine the legal system by lying in front of a judge. And the article in no way implies that Bush is responsible for this particular thing. So, I'm curious, what should he be impeached for? That's a pretty extreme sentiment, one that I doubt you can support.
And as for you being a libertarian, I'm guessing you are one of those "Bill Maher style Libertarians" (I like Bill Maher as a comedian, a lot, but he's a political idiot and just another actor/famous-person who thinks his opinion is supremely important just because he's somewhat famous). Basically, a Democrat who REALLY-REALLY want's drugs to be legal. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting to legalize drugs, but it's a huge step from really be a libertarian.
One other point:
"because anyone who's a Republican aspires to be one of them"
There are LOTS of rich and powerful Democrats. Again, it goes both ways.
It's true that I simplified it some. The "teams" are complicated. For example, watch a 3rd party candidate get in the mix and the two orginally opposing teams gang up on him, almost as if they are both on the same team...while simultaneously being on seperate teams.
As for the "rich and powerful" part, I think you're a little off on that. I think there are a lot of things that Bush wants for genuinely good reasons, wether those reasons are misguided/uninformed is debatble. No doubt, there are plenty of things he wants for his own good, or purely for the good of his team as well. As much as I dislike both major parties, very few politicians are truely evil, and most want at least some things because they really think it will be better for everyone, again, wether that thinking in a particular case is misguided/uninformed is debatable on a case by case basis.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending Bush, I just think one needs to be careful about distinguishing between bad policy and bad character. Just because someone wants to do something that you think would be terrible for the country, doesn't mean that their motives are bad. It's possible they just don't understand how something works, you don't understand how it works, or it's just a genuine disagreement among professionals (such as when two equally educated doctors may prescribe completely different things based on purely a difference in professional opinion).
My main point in the orignal post, was that people need to quit tying themselves to political parties and defending that party, or bashing the opposing, at all costs. Additionally, I wanted to communicate that for the most part (IMO) politicians (all politicians) are inherently looking for power, and they trade that power in order to either gain more power, or maintain the power they have. No matter what party you strongly associate yourself with (if indeed you do), that applies to your party as well.
Republicans love to talk about moral absolutes, and moral values - as long as it's someone else accused of doing the immoral acts, and not a bright, shiny spotlight on their own conduct.
Wow...you completely missed my point. The above italicized I agree with. The point is that the exact same is true for Dems as well. And it's not wether the Dems are right/wrong for objecting to what happened, the point is that it's rings hollow, given the fact that the Dems would do the exact same thing. More generally, when a Democrat does something wrong, you hear 0 moral outrage from Democrats. When a Republican does something wrong, you hear 0 moral outrage from Republicans.
You are clearly one of the Dems on the offensive right now (my point applies to average citizens who align with one party or the other equally as applying to actual politicians). The Republicans have done something wrong, and you are outraged by it. However (just as a counter point) when Clinton had all those FBI files pulled...I'm sure you didn't have much to say about that.
Watching you people amuses me.
To use your (incomplete, but I'll complete it for you) "poop" example, yes it was wrong, but to a third party bystander (that's me in this particular political argument) who has been watching you and I throw poop in each others lawns for years, you really have no credibility in regard to complaining that I threw poop in your yard yesterday, given the fact that you have no problem throwing poop in my yard on a daily basis.
You either use Linux or you use Windows.
Wow, I think this actually sums up our current political environment exceptionally well...if I could, I would mod you up just for that.
The problem with a third party is that it only subdivides the activities further. The same type of power-hungry people would still be in power, just via 3 parties instead of 2.
The real solution, IMHO, is to remove the power they are looking for. Generally, if the total power of the Fed government were reduced by say 90%, there would be much less reason for power-hungry individuals to try to get into office. Further, if those power-hungry people DO still seek office, they could have a lesser impact on the nation with only 10% of power available than was before.
Politicians work for themselves. People in power (such as in congress) have something to trade. They trade the power they have through control of government in return for things. They trade some of that power to the masses, in the form of "social services", redistribution of wealth, and sometimes just empty promises. In return, they get votes that allows them to stay in power.
They also trade some of that power to corporations and rich individuals in return (generally) for money so that they can buy votes so they can continue to get more power (or maintain the power they have).
The republican's do something unethical, and Democrats around the country rally as if it is the most absurd and horrible thing they have ever heard of, while Republicans either remain fairly quiet or defensive.
The Democrats do something unethical, and Republicans around the country rally as if it is the most absurd and horrible thing they have ever heard of, while Democrats either remain fairly quiet or defensive.
Will the day ever come that people understand that politicians (Dems and Reps) are in it for the power? As long as all the power of the Federal government is available to be bartered, it will continue to be, and people will continue to do unethical things to gain advantage. Remove the power available for trade, and the unethical behavior becomes less impactful/significant.
Democrats recently temporarily suspended efforts to spy on Republican electronic information...