Two factors here, caused by one major factor - college kids.
- Exit polls are to a large degree conducted by young college kids. This introduces several forms of potential systemic bias into the equation.
- There is usually some leeway for the interviewer to pick interview subjects. Studies (you will have to Google, but check out Mystery Pollster) show that the less leeway the interviewer is given when picking interview subjects, the higher the Bush vote. Not surprisingly, the Lib college kid is going to have an inclination to pick "friendlier" subjects if given a choice.
- Also, the subjects who voted for Bush might not like to say so to the college kid in the RATM T-shirt, and thus might lie/avoid the interviewer if given leeway.
"Why on earth do we need to abandon the Geneva conventions?"
Obvious reason: It gives more leeway in dealing with suspected terrorists, while costing only PR points. (It's not as if any enemy of the US has actually complied with Geneva since the Wehrmacht went out of business. Well, the Serbs might have occationally, but hey...)
Padilla is indeed the best example of Bush judicial overreach, although he has now been charged:
Well, sometimes quantity is a quality in itself.;)
"Tell me about that... I'm Croatian by citizenship, Slovenian by nationality..."
Well, that's a pretty first-hand experience.
Here it failed because of too many nationalists... nothing more, nothing less."
Oh yes - that's the usual reason nations fall apart. Or too many clans, tribes, or whatever. But my point is merely that if you have a stable, working nation in place, you should be very careful when disrupting it - even if that disruption takes the shape of "one-world" idealism.
"Yes... I just don't see the attraction of steamrolling other groups. Then again, I've never been into team sports."
You don't have to be into steamrolling - you just have to enjoy not being steamrolled yourself. And most people do.
I will happily accept likely scenarios where these infringements on freedom come to impact you in the future as well. My point being: arguing against the-world-is-falling-we-must-nuke-Iran-now-ism using your own semi-realistic (at best) hyperbole about the coming fascist night of oppression is a bit silly. Really.
"Well, sorry, I may be a moron, but I see no substantial difference between a clan and a nation."
Clan usually implies tighter kinship and closer relationships between members. Nationalism leverages feelings of clannishness and family to a broader group of people.
"Nationalism cannot be "destroyed""
I digress - nations can, and have been smashed into pieces, especially when the foundations was shaky from the start. (There was an attempt to form a Yugoslav nation, for instance, but that didn't work out too well after holding for a while. Belgium is another attempt to forge a nation that looks mighty shaky. Let's not even start on Africa. And so on.)
"But it can be grown out of. Just as soon as people realise that many conflicts would be resolved more quickly if people weren't bickering like kindergarten kids about who started it."
It can be "grown out of" indeed - but that is not a straightforward process, and one that is perilous, especially if the original state was stable and working out. At the heart of the attraction of nationhood is the simple fact that people with a great deal of cohesion and co-operation tend to steamroller groups that are divided.
Of course, if conflicts of interest, etc. dissipate, then broadening the national circle can be attractive, but that is far from certain.
"Except by the enlightened few."
I dunno - I take a rather instrumental view of these things, and thus do not consider holding pie-in-the-sky hopes for mankind "Enlightened". But to each his own.
"I'd say we are losing the freedom of speech (try speaking out against Bush and you are labelled pro-terrorist and possibly monitored)"
Last time I looked, you had to join a queue to "speak out against Bush", and that was just the line for Hollywooders.
"We are losing the 4th amendment (they can see who you are calling, record calls to foreign countries, and if you are suspected of being a terrorist can haul you off even if you are an American to undisclosed locations and torture you)"
Probably the strongest claim, but a claim with extremely marginal impact, unless you happen to be that poor guy who went off to Afghanistan to partake in peaceful Islamic study in Kabul, only to be sold to the Americans by the local warlord for no reason apart from Greed. Or something.
"And our president acts like an emperor or king instead of our elected prsident, ordering congess to pass his legislation so the cia can continue to torture people."
If he was a king he obviously wouldn't need congress to authorize it.
Problem is, you don't have a lever to move anything with anymore. Nationalism is the (so far) by far most successful attempt at binding people together for large-scale collective action ever concieved.
I really don't see that changing anytime soon. Destroying nationalism is most likely just going to shift the loyalty hierarchy downwards, back to clan and family - entities that are notoriously difficult to "move forward". Why? Well, loyalty to everyone is loyalty to no-one. And that tends to be kind of a hard sell.
"filthy foreigners"
Well, Swedes are kind of well-showered and all, but I find standards of hygiene to be perfectly ok in most of the industrialized world.
Blasting the hell out of Manhattan is much more disruptive to society than snuffing out pensioners a tad early with their own consent is ever likely to be.
Also, using military force against RJ Reynolds is unnecessary as the US already have military control of that area, and they only need to dispatch lightly armed police to shut them down. The army is for violence outside of the country, and the police for violence inside the country. Of course, if RJ Reynolds attempts an armed rebellion, that is likely to change.
I really think you would want to check out what kinds of measures the British government took during the Blitz before making those kinds of statements.
"I think you're smart enough to see through it. It is my fervent hope that we (the true intellectual elite) can move this country forward without jingoism and without nationalism..."
Good luck - without nationalism, you don't have a country to move forward anymore.
Well, I guess that plenty of people who get the PS3 early will be just the kind of early-adopter tech geeks who also have HDTV sets. But that's just me. And yes, Sony hasn't excactly been running a tight ship recently, so who knows?
True, but unless I am misinformed, Microsoft does plenty of these via XBox Live. (Quick Google: http://videogames.yahoo.com/predownload?eid=460617) I don't own an XBox or a 360, however, so take this with a grain or two of salt.
My guess is that Sony will still win this one, thanks to the Umpteen PS3-installed BluRay players that will eventually fill the market.* Unless HD-DVD players become really cheap really fast, I can't see them matching the installed base that will rumble into place as soon as Sony get their act together.
* This does not imply that I believe the PS3 will crush the XBox360 - Microsoft will probably gain marketshare this generation. But Sony will still sell a bucketload of PS3:s, giving them the edge in the HD wars.
...considering that Sony has been touting the 25-ish Gigs of BluRay space as a must-have for next-generation gaming. This will, if I understand TFA correctly, make the gap between DVD and BlueRay considerably smaller, making it easier to fit XBox360 games onto one single disk.
I doubt it. WoW addiction fits a social profile that doesn't really overlap other drugs too much, nor is there a history of similar addictive products before it. (At least in degree, not kind)
Erm - I expect higher standards when it comes to "Neocon parody". "Ship em to Iraq" or "Import more cheap-wage mexicans" would have been more plausible and amusing responses. (Just helping out).
Individual thing, addiction. I have been addicted as hell to MMORPG:s in a few rounds (I.e. 1 round DAoC, 2 rounds of WoW - quit in the middle to avoid screwing up my professional / academic life completely.) Luckily, I find the endgame in WoW really dull, so I am now "clear" for the moment. The sense of knowing you are doing something rather destructive to yourself, thinking about it, and at the same time just not being able to stop is rather scary though. Certainly lent some support to modular modelling of the mind, if nothing else.
The social part reinforces the addictiveness, as it makes it harder to quit outright, due to bonds of friendship and, yes, a feeling of community. Still, fun game - glad I'm not playing it anymore though. Hopefully, I'll be able to steer clear of the expansion...
Aye, 100 000 units for Japan at launch? That's... craptastic to say the least. Most likely Sony feel that they have Japan up their sleeve in any case, and that the US is where they need to make a real effort to keep the 360 in place. (Which is probably a correct assessment).
Most hate speech laws in europe no longer require any incitement to violence or similar act to constitute a criminal act - merely expressing derision towards whatever group the left has given protected status for the moment.(In the case of Sweden, the threshold is the infinitely elastic "disrespect" (religious, sexual, ethnic, racial, whatever).
My personal view of freedom of speech is based on the dual value of non-violent politics and reciprocity. Hence, I see no real principle-based problem in denying speech rights to groups who are themselves opposed to free speech. (I.e. why allow them to speak out when they would throw you in jail if they were in power?)
However, in practice, giving politicians the power to ban those who annoy them at will has a tendency of ending badly, with the politicians giving in to temptation. In practice, this means nazis get banned but communists get a pass, despite both being quite ready to seize power by force and silencing all opposition.
Finally - Free speech is valuable and a major civilizational achievement because it is at its core a cease-fire treaty between political actors not to use the power of the state (when in power) to silence minority opinions using force. In return, political minorites pledge not to use force if they grow into a majority, and to refrain from insurrection and subversion.
Sadly, this is often forgotten, especially by fanatical moralists.
Agreed, generally, although sometimes you have several significant effects moving in different directions, in which case a 'significant' effect might be drowned out.
Of course, my general impression so far on this issue is that the hugely increased availability of porn, and especially of extreme porn over the last ten years or so (most likely by several orders of magnitude), has not caused a torrent of sex crime in society.
What really drives these kinds of laws, however, is rarely very deep social analysis, but rather a desire to appear virtuous / not appear non-virtuous on an indivudual basis. And there I really can't fault the politicans - "I'm standing up for snuff films" just isn't a great re-election slogan... (Which is one of the reasons why strong constitutional protection for speech is a Good Thing (TM))
"Now, correlation does not always equal causation, but as far as I know causation will always include correlation. Ie, you cannot have A causing B without also having A correlating to B."
Well, you can have that situation, if the effect of A on B is drowned out by some other, more sigificant effect. Of course, you can try to filter that out, but disentanglement can often be the proverbial b*tch...
Slashdot Mirror
Two factors here, caused by one major factor - college kids.
- Exit polls are to a large degree conducted by young college kids. This introduces several forms of potential systemic bias into the equation.
- There is usually some leeway for the interviewer to pick interview subjects. Studies (you will have to Google, but check out Mystery Pollster) show that the less leeway the interviewer is given when picking interview subjects, the higher the Bush vote. Not surprisingly, the Lib college kid is going to have an inclination to pick "friendlier" subjects if given a choice.
- Also, the subjects who voted for Bush might not like to say so to the college kid in the RATM T-shirt, and thus might lie/avoid the interviewer if given leeway.
"Why on earth do we need to abandon the Geneva conventions?"
d ex.html
Obvious reason: It gives more leeway in dealing with suspected terrorists, while costing only PR points. (It's not as if any enemy of the US has actually complied with Geneva since the Wehrmacht went out of business. Well, the Serbs might have occationally, but hey...)
Padilla is indeed the best example of Bush judicial overreach, although he has now been charged:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/in
"As I said, I see no substantial difference."
;)
Well, sometimes quantity is a quality in itself.
"Tell me about that... I'm Croatian by citizenship, Slovenian by nationality..."
Well, that's a pretty first-hand experience.
Here it failed because of too many nationalists... nothing more, nothing less."
Oh yes - that's the usual reason nations fall apart. Or too many clans, tribes, or whatever. But my point is merely that if you have a stable, working nation in place, you should be very careful when disrupting it - even if that disruption takes the shape of "one-world" idealism.
"Yes... I just don't see the attraction of steamrolling other groups. Then again, I've never been into team sports."
You don't have to be into steamrolling - you just have to enjoy not being steamrolled yourself. And most people do.
Also, I am a Swede, not a Yank, so it's "football" all the way.
I will happily accept likely scenarios where these infringements on freedom come to impact you in the future as well. My point being: arguing against the-world-is-falling-we-must-nuke-Iran-now-ism using your own semi-realistic (at best) hyperbole about the coming fascist night of oppression is a bit silly. Really.
"Well, sorry, I may be a moron, but I see no substantial difference between a clan and a nation."
Clan usually implies tighter kinship and closer relationships between members. Nationalism leverages feelings of clannishness and family to a broader group of people.
"Nationalism cannot be "destroyed""
I digress - nations can, and have been smashed into pieces, especially when the foundations was shaky from the start. (There was an attempt to form a Yugoslav nation, for instance, but that didn't work out too well after holding for a while. Belgium is another attempt to forge a nation that looks mighty shaky. Let's not even start on Africa. And so on.)
"But it can be grown out of. Just as soon as people realise that many conflicts would be resolved more quickly if people weren't bickering like kindergarten kids about who started it."
It can be "grown out of" indeed - but that is not a straightforward process, and one that is perilous, especially if the original state was stable and working out. At the heart of the attraction of nationhood is the simple fact that people with a great deal of cohesion and co-operation tend to steamroller groups that are divided.
Of course, if conflicts of interest, etc. dissipate, then broadening the national circle can be attractive, but that is far from certain.
"Except by the enlightened few."
I dunno - I take a rather instrumental view of these things, and thus do not consider holding pie-in-the-sky hopes for mankind "Enlightened". But to each his own.
"I'd say we are losing the freedom of speech (try speaking out against Bush and you are labelled pro-terrorist and possibly monitored)"
Last time I looked, you had to join a queue to "speak out against Bush", and that was just the line for Hollywooders.
"We are losing the 4th amendment (they can see who you are calling, record calls to foreign countries, and if you are suspected of being a terrorist can haul you off even if you are an American to undisclosed locations and torture you)"
Probably the strongest claim, but a claim with extremely marginal impact, unless you happen to be that poor guy who went off to Afghanistan to partake in peaceful Islamic study in Kabul, only to be sold to the Americans by the local warlord for no reason apart from Greed. Or something.
"And our president acts like an emperor or king instead of our elected prsident, ordering congess to pass his legislation so the cia can continue to torture people."
If he was a king he obviously wouldn't need congress to authorize it.
Problem is, you don't have a lever to move anything with anymore. Nationalism is the (so far) by far most successful attempt at binding people together for large-scale collective action ever concieved.
I really don't see that changing anytime soon. Destroying nationalism is most likely just going to shift the loyalty hierarchy downwards, back to clan and family - entities that are notoriously difficult to "move forward". Why? Well, loyalty to everyone is loyalty to no-one. And that tends to be kind of a hard sell.
"filthy foreigners"
Well, Swedes are kind of well-showered and all, but I find standards of hygiene to be perfectly ok in most of the industrialized world.
Blasting the hell out of Manhattan is much more disruptive to society than snuffing out pensioners a tad early with their own consent is ever likely to be.
Also, using military force against RJ Reynolds is unnecessary as the US already have military control of that area, and they only need to dispatch lightly armed police to shut them down. The army is for violence outside of the country, and the police for violence inside the country. Of course, if RJ Reynolds attempts an armed rebellion, that is likely to change.
I really think you would want to check out what kinds of measures the British government took during the Blitz before making those kinds of statements.
So, what freedoms have you personally lost? Apart from the "gels-on-airplanes" thing.
"I think you're smart enough to see through it. It is my fervent hope that we (the true intellectual elite) can move this country forward without jingoism and without nationalism..."
Good luck - without nationalism, you don't have a country to move forward anymore.
I doubt they would have killed the European launch just to create hype.
Well, I guess that plenty of people who get the PS3 early will be just the kind of early-adopter tech geeks who also have HDTV sets. But that's just me. And yes, Sony hasn't excactly been running a tight ship recently, so who knows?
True, but unless I am misinformed, Microsoft does plenty of these via XBox Live. (Quick Google: http://videogames.yahoo.com/predownload?eid=460617 ) I don't own an XBox or a 360, however, so take this with a grain or two of salt.
My guess is that Sony will still win this one, thanks to the Umpteen PS3-installed BluRay players that will eventually fill the market.* Unless HD-DVD players become really cheap really fast, I can't see them matching the installed base that will rumble into place as soon as Sony get their act together.
* This does not imply that I believe the PS3 will crush the XBox360 - Microsoft will probably gain marketshare this generation. But Sony will still sell a bucketload of PS3:s, giving them the edge in the HD wars.
...considering that Sony has been touting the 25-ish Gigs of BluRay space as a must-have for next-generation gaming. This will, if I understand TFA correctly, make the gap between DVD and BlueRay considerably smaller, making it easier to fit XBox360 games onto one single disk.
Still a bit off - that's more of a libertarian course of reasoning.
I doubt it. WoW addiction fits a social profile that doesn't really overlap other drugs too much, nor is there a history of similar addictive products before it. (At least in degree, not kind)
"neo con"
Erm - I expect higher standards when it comes to "Neocon parody". "Ship em to Iraq" or "Import more cheap-wage mexicans" would have been more plausible and amusing responses. (Just helping out).
Individual thing, addiction. I have been addicted as hell to MMORPG:s in a few rounds (I.e. 1 round DAoC, 2 rounds of WoW - quit in the middle to avoid screwing up my professional / academic life completely.) Luckily, I find the endgame in WoW really dull, so I am now "clear" for the moment. The sense of knowing you are doing something rather destructive to yourself, thinking about it, and at the same time just not being able to stop is rather scary though. Certainly lent some support to modular modelling of the mind, if nothing else.
The social part reinforces the addictiveness, as it makes it harder to quit outright, due to bonds of friendship and, yes, a feeling of community. Still, fun game - glad I'm not playing it anymore though. Hopefully, I'll be able to steer clear of the expansion...
Aye, 100 000 units for Japan at launch? That's... craptastic to say the least. Most likely Sony feel that they have Japan up their sleeve in any case, and that the US is where they need to make a real effort to keep the 360 in place. (Which is probably a correct assessment).
Most hate speech laws in europe no longer require any incitement to violence or similar act to constitute a criminal act - merely expressing derision towards whatever group the left has given protected status for the moment.(In the case of Sweden, the threshold is the infinitely elastic "disrespect" (religious, sexual, ethnic, racial, whatever).
My personal view of freedom of speech is based on the dual value of non-violent politics and reciprocity. Hence, I see no real principle-based problem in denying speech rights to groups who are themselves opposed to free speech. (I.e. why allow them to speak out when they would throw you in jail if they were in power?)
However, in practice, giving politicians the power to ban those who annoy them at will has a tendency of ending badly, with the politicians giving in to temptation. In practice, this means nazis get banned but communists get a pass, despite both being quite ready to seize power by force and silencing all opposition.
Finally - Free speech is valuable and a major civilizational achievement because it is at its core a cease-fire treaty between political actors not to use the power of the state (when in power) to silence minority opinions using force. In return, political minorites pledge not to use force if they grow into a majority, and to refrain from insurrection and subversion.
Sadly, this is often forgotten, especially by fanatical moralists.
Agreed, generally, although sometimes you have several significant effects moving in different directions, in which case a 'significant' effect might be drowned out.
Of course, my general impression so far on this issue is that the hugely increased availability of porn, and especially of extreme porn over the last ten years or so (most likely by several orders of magnitude), has not caused a torrent of sex crime in society.
What really drives these kinds of laws, however, is rarely very deep social analysis, but rather a desire to appear virtuous / not appear non-virtuous on an indivudual basis. And there I really can't fault the politicans - "I'm standing up for snuff films" just isn't a great re-election slogan... (Which is one of the reasons why strong constitutional protection for speech is a Good Thing (TM))
"Now, correlation does not always equal causation, but as far as I know causation will always include correlation. Ie, you cannot have A causing B without also having A correlating to B."
Well, you can have that situation, if the effect of A on B is drowned out by some other, more sigificant effect. Of course, you can try to filter that out, but disentanglement can often be the proverbial b*tch...