Although this may seem hard for conservatives to believe, there is such a thing as a government program that does its job well: The VA, for instance, manages health care with less overhead than either private insurers or Medicare. The US Coast Guard does a great deal of lifesaving and policing while operating on a shoestring budget. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau recently published information on bad credit card companies with probably about 2-4 people (1 web developer, a webserver in a datacenter they probably already had, and a couple people to analyse the complaints).
Of course, contrary to what some liberals believe, not all government works well: DoD procurement is ridiculous ($5000 hammers aren't totally uncommon), highway projects are notoriously corrupt, and some agencies accomplish very little. But saying that all government is mismanaged is just as wrong as saying that all government is well-managed.
The interesting bit about the story of Gartner has always been how they continue to make money and be well-regarded as prognosticators while having a track record of being completely wrong and having opinions that are basically those of the highest bidder.
If people are interested in what it's like to travel Amtrak cross-country, the basic deal is that it can be quite pleasant so long as (1) you treat the trip as part of your vacation rather than what you do before and after your vacation, (2) you get a sleeper cabin, and (3) you bring along some variety of entertainment (books, laptop with some video games, cards, etc). About the only thing I missed was a lack of an Internet hookup.
I think it's also valuable for those who've never travelled across the country on the ground to do so at least once, so that they see what life looks like in "flyover country".
Breakfast: your best bet is buying one of the large cans of oatmeal and maybe some raisins, sugar, or other flavoring separately. Lunch: Those $2 can get you the ingrediants of a basic PB&J sandwich. Dinner: $2 can be up to 0.5 lb of pasta and still have a bit left over for some basic marinara sauce.
This is far from a pleasant existence, but it can be done (I know from experience: I was at one point eating on less than that)
My calculations quite explicitly excluded any public assistance, which the EITC, food stamps, school lunch and breakfast programs, and section 8 housing all fall into, because what the poverty line is supposed to measure is the bare minimum income somebody needs to survive without public assistance. As far as money earned on the side, that in theory is part of the $22K.
The argument here is not whether capitalism is bad, it's whether $22K is an unreasonably large number for what it costs to survive in the US. And while in your area $550 per month might be a very reasonable price for your rental home, in a lot of areas of the country $550 per month gets you a 1 bedroom apartment with no utilities.
According to the Department of Labor, the ratio of unemployed workers to available jobs is approximately 5:1. That means that if we assume a roughly even distribution of ability, willingness to work, clean record etc, 3 of those 5 are average or better, and 2/3 of those folks are outta luck, to say nothing of the slackers.
The other factor I'd raise here: If you're hiring people to do manual labor at what I'm guessing is probably somewhere around $8 per hour and no benefits, why does your employer care if they can pass a drug screen? I would think it would be cheaper to hire them and fire them if they show any signs of poor performance or illegal activity on the job. This isn't to say that drug use is OK, it's that it isn't really the employers' job to penalize people for using drugs. In other words, if you've got somebody who smokes pot on the weekends but is perfectly productive when he's working and never smokes on the job, why does it matter to you?
In this graph, the economic output is measured by productivity, while the benefits trickling down to the masses shows up as hourly compensation. Do you see a match between the higher economic output and higher pay for workers (which would also be a signal of higher demand for workers)? I sure can't.
An illustrative example of wealth not trickling down: Caterpillar Inc just announced record profits. The upper management, in response, gave their executives a giant bonus, then went to their employees and demanded they accept a 55% wage cut.
And a fourth alternative: Jill Stein. And depending on what state you're in, quite a few other choices. And if all else fails, write in yourself. You don't have to vote for either Romney or Obama, you know.
Of course, in Nevada, there's a big controversy because there's a chance that "none of the above" might win.
It doesn't say that the poverty line is much higher today than in 1960, so implying that people are worse off is nonsense.
The poverty line for a family of 4 people is approximately $22K / year. Here are some basic expenses for a city-dwelling family of 4, assuming no public assistance: Housing: 2-bedroom apartment - $850 / month * 12 months per year = $10,200 Food: $2 per meal * 3 meals a day * 365 days a year * 4 people = $8,760 Transportation: $2.50 bus fare * 4 bus rides per work day (assuming 2 working adults) * 20 work days per month * 12 months = $2400.00 Utilities: $50 per month * 12 months = $600.00 You now have about $100 left to pay for anything else you'd like for the next year, including clothing and health care. Yes, I'd rather be impoverished in 2010 than in 1910, but it's hardly a pleasant existence.
I agree that not taking assets into account is silly, but the poverty line is not too high.
They should have made the announcement in the form of a crazy-looking C program in the shape of a smiley face that prints out the entire contest rules, but has a syntax error somewhere that causes a seg fault.
On the other, what happens when our relatively lack of accountability in using them takes a darker turn? What happens when a peacenik (as suggested by Goering at the nuremburg trials) is denounced at a traitor and subject to 'droning,' too? Who decides who is a terrorist?
Here's a crazy idea of how we might do this: 1. US executive branch comes up with evidence that somebody is a terrorist. 2. US executive branch presents that evidence to some sort of judicial body, such as a grand jury or panel of judges. 3. If that evidence is enough to sustain an indictment, there's now an attempt to capture that person. 4. If that person resists capture, then force may be used to capture or kill the bad guy. 5. If that person is captured, take them to a court where evidence for and against their guilt is presented to a jury. If they are found guilty, the judge determines the appropriate punishment.
That way, there's not just 1 person (currently Barack Obama) ultimately making the call, there's a lot of people involved, and a lot of checking that has to go on. Of course, that would be more-or-less following the Constitutional requirements, which I guess makes me some sort of wimp these days.
Incidentally, I don't entirely agree on the killing bin Laden thing: We might have done better to take him alive, sending the entire Al Qaida organization into panic about what bin Laden would tell us about their activities.
1. Please explain the difference between "terror" and "shock and awe" campaigns that hit civilians (accidentally or intentionally, there's no serious question as to whether civilians get hit) 2. Please explain how a totally innocent person on the ground in, say, Yemen, ensures that they won't be hit by a drone strike. Pretend that somebody who lives next door to that person gets accused of terrorism in complete secrecy - the innocent guy doesn't even know that the guy next door is a target. 3. By your understanding of the word, is the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism? How about a suicide bomber blowing up an IDF checkpoint? How about the attack on the USS Cole?
There have been many, many attempts to come up with a consistent definition of the word "terrorism", and they've all failed because it turns out the militaries of the world have done exactly the same thing.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
But you can deal with me by force. And me and my buddy can also deal with you by force, because if you shoot one of us the other one will shoot you. And I alone can also deal with you by force if I get my gun trained on you before you can draw your weapon.
Another perspective, from Geoffrey Canada, who grew up in the rough neighborhoods of New York.
The marine explained that he didn't fire because he was concerned about hitting another innocent bystander. The reason I brought up his combat experience was to point out that he knew how to react, and had reacted in precisely that kind of situation. He had a gun, he had the training and experience to use it effectively, and certainly would have had no qualms about shooting the guy if he'd thought it would help, but he did none of those things.
Also, some credit / blame should go to the governor who pioneered such a policy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, some fellow by the name of Mitt Romney.
Another incident I tend to bring up when this argument comes into play: During the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was a former US Marine who had been in combat in Iraq nearby with a gun in his pocket. He never even drew his weapon - he got behind cover, approached as closely as he could, waited until the shooter stopped to reload, and was part of the group that tackled him.
The idea that a more armed populace will prevent these kinds of massacres is just plain incorrect. It may serve other purposes, but it doesn't prevent a nutjob from attacking a crowd and killing a bunch of people.
Basic cognitive dissonance modelling has demonstrated repeatedly that when a person encounters incontrovertible facts that contradict deeply held beliefs, the facts are discarded.
You know, I think it would be kind of awesome to have a chorus of people in line for airport security to break out into a rousing chorus of Alice's Restaurant on Thanksgiving Day. I mean, if you did that, the "WTF?" factor would be high enough that people would take notice.
I'd participate, but I haven't taken a plane anywhere for several years precisely because I oppose the security measures.
In the US, self-described conservatives generally fall into at least 3 major groups: 1. Libertarians, who primarily believe that government should stay out of their business. Libertarian conservatives will oppose the TSA on the grounds that it infringes on personal liberty, and on the grounds that we have to pay for it. Other common libertarian-conservative positions include believing that taxes are too high and that people should be able to make any kind of contract that they want without government interference.
2. Authoritarians, who primarily believe that people who are in charge are in charge for good reason and should be followed. Major subgroups here would be the Religious Right, and military veterans who believe in the rightness of their cause. These folks generally support the TSA on the grounds that George W Bush was a good man and therefor must have been doing the right thing when he created it. Other common authoritarian-conservative positions include opposing abortion, and supporting the War on Drugs.
3. Group supremacists, who primarily believe that people who are like them are better than others and deserve to run things. These sometimes overlap with the authoritarians (e.g. Christian nationalists), but also include racists (which by most surveys comprise something like 10-15% of the US population). These folks vary: They like the fact that it's making life unpleasant for Arab Muslims, but dislike the fact that it's making life unpleasant for upstanding citizens like them. Other common group supremacist positions include support Christian prayers in public schools, English-only laws, and anti-Mexican immigration.
There are definitely overlaps between the groups, but you'll see arguments made from all 3 positions show up regularly in conservative circles.
And yes, liberals have similar divides. That's why boiling down all political positions to a 1-axis spectrum is stupid.
It's not an issue of putting the genie back in the bottle. We have rules about when law enforcement uses wiretapping.
I'd agree with your argument if I believed that law enforcement was following those rules. What evidence us members of the public have strongly suggests that (A) law enforcement routinely wiretaps all Internet and probably phone communications within the United States, and (B) charges with espionage those who tell the public about that.
One reason mass surveillance is working is that a lot of people think it's just targeting somebody else (e.g. Arab-American Muslims) rather than targeting them. Of course, "first they came for the Communists..." is true as always.
Basically, I ignore what politicians say, and follow very closely what sorts of policies they actually implement. For instance, if you followed the rhetoric, you might think that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney differ significantly on their desired health care policies, when in fact based on their track record they fundamentally agree on what's a good idea. If you followed the rhetoric, you might think that Republicans are against deficit spending, but when in office they deficit spend like crazy. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
The second key is the parents, since it is they who will impart the love of learning (or not) at an early age, and provide encouragement (or not) by the way they value their kids' achievements at school. This key is largely missing in the more deprived areas, and consequent problems involving discipline and rejection of authority can be contagious when large numbers of the kids are dismissive of education.
Having grown up around a lot of working-class kids, I understand it the lack of attention to education by many working-class families. Here's the basic problem: There's virtually no difference in the career prospects of a working-class kid who graduates with a 3.0 GPA in the basic education track they're usually in and a working-class kid who drops out of high school. A really bright working-class kid has a chance of getting a scholarship and getting through college. Some of the brighter ones will enter the military and get some job training there, or enter an apprenticeship program for a skilled trade. Most are going into unskilled work like retail and fast food. The unlucky or dumb ones will end up unemployed, hooked on drugs, in jail, etc. Typically, white upper- and middle-class people only hear the stories of the really bright kids, so they don't think about the fact that for every kid who makes it out of that community there are hundreds who will never make it.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, unless one adopts some kind of dispersal of the kids among other schools whose pupils are more attuned to learning (this is also not without drawbacks, and bussing has a poor reputation in the US).
The reason bussing has a "poor reputation" in the US is that white parents refused to have their (white) kids go to school with black kids back in the 1970's, and many decided to move to more expensive suburbs specifically to ensure their kids didn't end up in urban school districts with bussing. Which in turn left the city districts full of impoverished black students (who had the basic economic problem I described above) and a shrinking tax base.
Slashdot Mirror
Although this may seem hard for conservatives to believe, there is such a thing as a government program that does its job well: The VA, for instance, manages health care with less overhead than either private insurers or Medicare. The US Coast Guard does a great deal of lifesaving and policing while operating on a shoestring budget. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau recently published information on bad credit card companies with probably about 2-4 people (1 web developer, a webserver in a datacenter they probably already had, and a couple people to analyse the complaints).
Of course, contrary to what some liberals believe, not all government works well: DoD procurement is ridiculous ($5000 hammers aren't totally uncommon), highway projects are notoriously corrupt, and some agencies accomplish very little. But saying that all government is mismanaged is just as wrong as saying that all government is well-managed.
The interesting bit about the story of Gartner has always been how they continue to make money and be well-regarded as prognosticators while having a track record of being completely wrong and having opinions that are basically those of the highest bidder.
If people are interested in what it's like to travel Amtrak cross-country, the basic deal is that it can be quite pleasant so long as (1) you treat the trip as part of your vacation rather than what you do before and after your vacation, (2) you get a sleeper cabin, and (3) you bring along some variety of entertainment (books, laptop with some video games, cards, etc). About the only thing I missed was a lack of an Internet hookup.
I think it's also valuable for those who've never travelled across the country on the ground to do so at least once, so that they see what life looks like in "flyover country".
Breakfast: your best bet is buying one of the large cans of oatmeal and maybe some raisins, sugar, or other flavoring separately.
Lunch: Those $2 can get you the ingrediants of a basic PB&J sandwich.
Dinner: $2 can be up to 0.5 lb of pasta and still have a bit left over for some basic marinara sauce.
This is far from a pleasant existence, but it can be done (I know from experience: I was at one point eating on less than that)
My calculations quite explicitly excluded any public assistance, which the EITC, food stamps, school lunch and breakfast programs, and section 8 housing all fall into, because what the poverty line is supposed to measure is the bare minimum income somebody needs to survive without public assistance. As far as money earned on the side, that in theory is part of the $22K.
The argument here is not whether capitalism is bad, it's whether $22K is an unreasonably large number for what it costs to survive in the US. And while in your area $550 per month might be a very reasonable price for your rental home, in a lot of areas of the country $550 per month gets you a 1 bedroom apartment with no utilities.
According to the Department of Labor, the ratio of unemployed workers to available jobs is approximately 5:1. That means that if we assume a roughly even distribution of ability, willingness to work, clean record etc, 3 of those 5 are average or better, and 2/3 of those folks are outta luck, to say nothing of the slackers.
The other factor I'd raise here: If you're hiring people to do manual labor at what I'm guessing is probably somewhere around $8 per hour and no benefits, why does your employer care if they can pass a drug screen? I would think it would be cheaper to hire them and fire them if they show any signs of poor performance or illegal activity on the job. This isn't to say that drug use is OK, it's that it isn't really the employers' job to penalize people for using drugs. In other words, if you've got somebody who smokes pot on the weekends but is perfectly productive when he's working and never smokes on the job, why does it matter to you?
If trickle-down worked, explain this graph:
http://www.epi.org/m/?src=http://www.epi.org/files/2012/ib330-figureA.png&w=550
In this graph, the economic output is measured by productivity, while the benefits trickling down to the masses shows up as hourly compensation. Do you see a match between the higher economic output and higher pay for workers (which would also be a signal of higher demand for workers)? I sure can't.
An illustrative example of wealth not trickling down: Caterpillar Inc just announced record profits. The upper management, in response, gave their executives a giant bonus, then went to their employees and demanded they accept a 55% wage cut.
And a fourth alternative: Jill Stein. And depending on what state you're in, quite a few other choices. And if all else fails, write in yourself. You don't have to vote for either Romney or Obama, you know.
Of course, in Nevada, there's a big controversy because there's a chance that "none of the above" might win.
It doesn't say that the poverty line is much higher today than in 1960, so implying that people are worse off is nonsense.
The poverty line for a family of 4 people is approximately $22K / year. Here are some basic expenses for a city-dwelling family of 4, assuming no public assistance:
Housing: 2-bedroom apartment - $850 / month * 12 months per year = $10,200
Food: $2 per meal * 3 meals a day * 365 days a year * 4 people = $8,760
Transportation: $2.50 bus fare * 4 bus rides per work day (assuming 2 working adults) * 20 work days per month * 12 months = $2400.00
Utilities: $50 per month * 12 months = $600.00
You now have about $100 left to pay for anything else you'd like for the next year, including clothing and health care. Yes, I'd rather be impoverished in 2010 than in 1910, but it's hardly a pleasant existence.
I agree that not taking assets into account is silly, but the poverty line is not too high.
They should have made the announcement in the form of a crazy-looking C program in the shape of a smiley face that prints out the entire contest rules, but has a syntax error somewhere that causes a seg fault.
On the other, what happens when our relatively lack of accountability in using them takes a darker turn? What happens when a peacenik (as suggested by Goering at the nuremburg trials) is denounced at a traitor and subject to 'droning,' too? Who decides who is a terrorist?
Here's a crazy idea of how we might do this:
1. US executive branch comes up with evidence that somebody is a terrorist.
2. US executive branch presents that evidence to some sort of judicial body, such as a grand jury or panel of judges.
3. If that evidence is enough to sustain an indictment, there's now an attempt to capture that person.
4. If that person resists capture, then force may be used to capture or kill the bad guy.
5. If that person is captured, take them to a court where evidence for and against their guilt is presented to a jury. If they are found guilty, the judge determines the appropriate punishment.
That way, there's not just 1 person (currently Barack Obama) ultimately making the call, there's a lot of people involved, and a lot of checking that has to go on. Of course, that would be more-or-less following the Constitutional requirements, which I guess makes me some sort of wimp these days.
Incidentally, I don't entirely agree on the killing bin Laden thing: We might have done better to take him alive, sending the entire Al Qaida organization into panic about what bin Laden would tell us about their activities.
1. Please explain the difference between "terror" and "shock and awe" campaigns that hit civilians (accidentally or intentionally, there's no serious question as to whether civilians get hit)
2. Please explain how a totally innocent person on the ground in, say, Yemen, ensures that they won't be hit by a drone strike. Pretend that somebody who lives next door to that person gets accused of terrorism in complete secrecy - the innocent guy doesn't even know that the guy next door is a target.
3. By your understanding of the word, is the Fort Hood shooting an act of terrorism? How about a suicide bomber blowing up an IDF checkpoint? How about the attack on the USS Cole?
There have been many, many attempts to come up with a consistent definition of the word "terrorism", and they've all failed because it turns out the militaries of the world have done exactly the same thing.
/. editors need to edit
You must be new here - that's really expecting far too much.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
But you can deal with me by force. And me and my buddy can also deal with you by force, because if you shoot one of us the other one will shoot you. And I alone can also deal with you by force if I get my gun trained on you before you can draw your weapon.
Another perspective, from Geoffrey Canada, who grew up in the rough neighborhoods of New York.
The marine explained that he didn't fire because he was concerned about hitting another innocent bystander. The reason I brought up his combat experience was to point out that he knew how to react, and had reacted in precisely that kind of situation. He had a gun, he had the training and experience to use it effectively, and certainly would have had no qualms about shooting the guy if he'd thought it would help, but he did none of those things.
I doubt it - The Austrians didn't have earls, they had counts and barons. Earls were English or Scandanavian.
Also, some credit / blame should go to the governor who pioneered such a policy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, some fellow by the name of Mitt Romney.
Another incident I tend to bring up when this argument comes into play: During the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was a former US Marine who had been in combat in Iraq nearby with a gun in his pocket. He never even drew his weapon - he got behind cover, approached as closely as he could, waited until the shooter stopped to reload, and was part of the group that tackled him.
The idea that a more armed populace will prevent these kinds of massacres is just plain incorrect. It may serve other purposes, but it doesn't prevent a nutjob from attacking a crowd and killing a bunch of people.
Basic cognitive dissonance modelling has demonstrated repeatedly that when a person encounters incontrovertible facts that contradict deeply held beliefs, the facts are discarded.
You know, I think it would be kind of awesome to have a chorus of people in line for airport security to break out into a rousing chorus of Alice's Restaurant on Thanksgiving Day. I mean, if you did that, the "WTF?" factor would be high enough that people would take notice.
I'd participate, but I haven't taken a plane anywhere for several years precisely because I oppose the security measures.
In the US, self-described conservatives generally fall into at least 3 major groups:
1. Libertarians, who primarily believe that government should stay out of their business. Libertarian conservatives will oppose the TSA on the grounds that it infringes on personal liberty, and on the grounds that we have to pay for it. Other common libertarian-conservative positions include believing that taxes are too high and that people should be able to make any kind of contract that they want without government interference.
2. Authoritarians, who primarily believe that people who are in charge are in charge for good reason and should be followed. Major subgroups here would be the Religious Right, and military veterans who believe in the rightness of their cause. These folks generally support the TSA on the grounds that George W Bush was a good man and therefor must have been doing the right thing when he created it. Other common authoritarian-conservative positions include opposing abortion, and supporting the War on Drugs.
3. Group supremacists, who primarily believe that people who are like them are better than others and deserve to run things. These sometimes overlap with the authoritarians (e.g. Christian nationalists), but also include racists (which by most surveys comprise something like 10-15% of the US population). These folks vary: They like the fact that it's making life unpleasant for Arab Muslims, but dislike the fact that it's making life unpleasant for upstanding citizens like them. Other common group supremacist positions include support Christian prayers in public schools, English-only laws, and anti-Mexican immigration.
There are definitely overlaps between the groups, but you'll see arguments made from all 3 positions show up regularly in conservative circles.
And yes, liberals have similar divides. That's why boiling down all political positions to a 1-axis spectrum is stupid.
It's not an issue of putting the genie back in the bottle. We have rules about when law enforcement uses wiretapping.
I'd agree with your argument if I believed that law enforcement was following those rules. What evidence us members of the public have strongly suggests that (A) law enforcement routinely wiretaps all Internet and probably phone communications within the United States, and (B) charges with espionage those who tell the public about that.
One reason mass surveillance is working is that a lot of people think it's just targeting somebody else (e.g. Arab-American Muslims) rather than targeting them. Of course, "first they came for the Communists ..." is true as always.
Here here.
Basically, I ignore what politicians say, and follow very closely what sorts of policies they actually implement. For instance, if you followed the rhetoric, you might think that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney differ significantly on their desired health care policies, when in fact based on their track record they fundamentally agree on what's a good idea. If you followed the rhetoric, you might think that Republicans are against deficit spending, but when in office they deficit spend like crazy. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
The second key is the parents, since it is they who will impart the love of learning (or not) at an early age, and provide encouragement (or not) by the way they value their kids' achievements at school. This key is largely missing in the more deprived areas, and consequent problems involving discipline and rejection of authority can be contagious when large numbers of the kids are dismissive of education.
Having grown up around a lot of working-class kids, I understand it the lack of attention to education by many working-class families. Here's the basic problem: There's virtually no difference in the career prospects of a working-class kid who graduates with a 3.0 GPA in the basic education track they're usually in and a working-class kid who drops out of high school. A really bright working-class kid has a chance of getting a scholarship and getting through college. Some of the brighter ones will enter the military and get some job training there, or enter an apprenticeship program for a skilled trade. Most are going into unskilled work like retail and fast food. The unlucky or dumb ones will end up unemployed, hooked on drugs, in jail, etc. Typically, white upper- and middle-class people only hear the stories of the really bright kids, so they don't think about the fact that for every kid who makes it out of that community there are hundreds who will never make it.
It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, unless one adopts some kind of dispersal of the kids among other schools whose pupils are more attuned to learning (this is also not without drawbacks, and bussing has a poor reputation in the US).
The reason bussing has a "poor reputation" in the US is that white parents refused to have their (white) kids go to school with black kids back in the 1970's, and many decided to move to more expensive suburbs specifically to ensure their kids didn't end up in urban school districts with bussing. Which in turn left the city districts full of impoverished black students (who had the basic economic problem I described above) and a shrinking tax base.
You're forgetting one important fact though: OCT 26 = DEC 22