Pangloss

In my opinion the most important underlying problem is individual economic success. The religious stuff and the western intervention are just ingredients in an overall disease that is fundamentally based on economic success (or lack thereof). The great wealth of the middle east is not accessible to too many of its citizens. Note how little terrorism takes place in countries where the wealth IS accessible (Dubai, for example). Those countries may participate in terrorism to some lesser extent (Saudi Arabians providing funding and expertise and sometimes manpower, for example), but notice how in almost all of those cases the motivating factor is dealing with the impoverished -- either helping them find economic success (e.g. schools), or leveraging them in personal power games (e.g. Osama bin Laden). Poverty is the most powerful motivating factor in the modern world. Once the people of Iraq have flat-screen TVs, 24-hour electricity and decent jobs, their interest in Al Qaeda will fade like week-old mansaf. This is why stabilizing an Iraq democracy should be the #1 international priority FOR EVERY WESTERN NATION. Or we can sit around bickering about missing WMDs and those awful Republicans. You make the call.

The above two posts are perfectly valid, but I think there's also a real simple answer to the question: Yes. This sort of thing is done all the time as part of promotional campaigns. It's typically done by subject matter, so for example you'd see a study showing how the economy fared under Democrats versus Republicans, or tax revenues, or civil liberties, and so on. My suggestion would be to hit the web sites of some of the larger special interest groups, such as AARP, NOW, NRA, AAA (yes, the auto club -- they love statistics), AMA, etc. You can also hit some of the web sites for the federal agencies for corroberative historical data (some of them are remarkably easy to use). This page may be helpful: http://usspecialinterestgroups.com/ If you find anything interesting please feel free to pass it along here.

I guess the question that comes to my mind is, would that really be a bailout, or would it be an investment, stopping the paper from becoming worthless? And if so is that really just an excuse to promote another welfare program and bash Bush at the same time? Not saying you're wrong; I don't know enough about this. Can you provide more information?

We've been getting a number of these lately. I suspect we're on a list.

What do Chinese toy factory supervisors say to motivate their workers? "GET THE LEAD OUT!!!!!"

Chinese debt doesn't bother me too much, mainly because there's a lot of misconception about debt and what it means to the debters and debtees. The main problem there is perception, though I agree it's not just about the ABB crowd screaming "OMG!!!!111one". It's also about the fact that we're impatient and intolerant of minor fluctuations in the economy. We're not very good at ignoring the struggles of Jane Doe, a working mom with three kids in Des Moines, whose boss can't see fit to give her five years off with pay to give birth to her fourth. So I agree there's room there for China to crack the whip and have an impact that hurts us more than it hurts them. But there's a limit to the amount of whip-cracking they can get away with. They do have problems of their own, and they're not as far below the surface as some people think. But that's a side issue -- I agree with the majority of posters above. I wouldn't bail out the fewls who took the bad loans, but I might take actions to reduce the damage in the future. I believe in a managed market economy.

Well, that's fair enough, I withdraw that specific comment then. I can understand how that sort of thing can happen.

(shrug) I'll be happy to rephrase: Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find tarot cards and tea-leaf reading to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless". Clearly he wants you to know he's talking about organized, mainstream religion.

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find a few tarot cards and tea-leaf readers to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless". Clearly he wants you to know he's talking about organized, mainstream religion.

I agree that that's what he focuses on primarily in the show, but he definitely tackles mainstream religion as well, and the "harm" issue from mainstream religion is stated right up front as his premise for the entire show. Watch the opening segment again and note this quote: The direct assault on mainstream religion may not be actually there in so many words, but it's hovering just beneath the surface. After all, from his stated point of view, how can a few occultists possibly compare with the vast power and authority of the Roman Catholic Church? And, again from his viewpoint, aren't the two *exactly the same*? All of this is summed up in the very title of his book: "The GOD Delusion". Not "The Tarot Delusion". Not "The Astrology Delusion". Just god. All by himself. Last time I checked, tarot, palm reading, and psychic abilities aren't (for most of these delusional idiots) even related to belief in god.

"Well George I've just spent the last 45 minutes praying to the lord that you were going to call on me." -- Dennis Kucinich, during the debate Sunday, when asked whether he believes in god.

Yes, and god help us all if cable companies end up without competition. That's where I agree with lawmakers, I just disagree with the way it's sold to the public -- as a good thing, instead of what it really is, which is the best option out of a very bad set of choices. But to be honest about it, though my ideological tendencies lean in that direction, I'm not sure the situation would be a whole lot better without regulation of any kind. I think we'd just have a different set of problems.

Keep it polite, folks.

In my opinion everyone is sorta beating around the bush here. Dawkins, the self-proclaimed champion of verifiable evidence and logical deduction, is essentially venturing -- wait for it! -- an OPINION! His opinion, which is absolutely that and not supportable on any other plane, is that religion is harmful to society. That opinion is certainly backed by all kinds of circumstantial evidence, and one could even see minor degrees of verifiable harm on a low level (individuals harmed, etc). But it's not verifiable at the society level. It can ONLY be viewed as opinion. No peer review could possibly pass this off as scientifically valid unless it decided to forgo science and make a political statement. I don't personally have a problem with it, and I have a high degree of respect for 99% of what he's saying. If he wants to selectively ignore the benefits that religion has had on society both currently and historically, well that's the man's right and he's also welcome to share that opinion with others. But to use his own stated "logic", there is also a danger here, and it is two fold: 1) That people will mistake his statements as science. (A greater ill.) 2) That people will agree with him. (A lesser ill that I mention *only* because it's exactly the same reasoning that he's asking us to use.) In the end, the sad thing is that as entertaining as it is, it is also a perfect example of what's wrong with modern investigatory journalism -- for lack of a better term -- I know he's not a journalist, but he's acting like one. He's acting EXACTLY like one, giving us single, microscopic examples to illustrate macroscopic events, completely contrary to common sense and scientific reasoning. He might as well be a network reporter telling us one day that the stock market is down and Jane Doe, a single mom with 3 kids in Dubuque, is struggling, then the next day telling us that the stock market is up, and Mary Smith, a single mom with 3 kids in Springfield, is succeeding. Of what possible use could this "evidence" really be? In short, he has a point, but that's it. End of story. There's nothing more to see here. Thank you, drive through to the second window please.

AT&T never actually disappeared. They were a long distance company after the breakup, and more recently a cellular provider after they bought out BellSouth's wireless service a couple of years ago. AT&T acquired the rest of BellSouth a few months ago. Ironically, the stated reason for the resurgence of AT&T is "competition". The feeling amongst lawmakers has been that this would be a viable means to provide consumers with alternatives to the growing entertainment megacorps that were starting to provide last-mile service via the cable companies and more recently through wireless services. My view is that the result has been a somewhat mixed bag. Prices continue to rise, but services rise as well. I have electricity, wireless phone service, regular telephone service, high-speed internet service, satellite television service, and HDTV service (yeah, they're separate for me). A couple of decades ago it was just power, telephone and TV, so it's hard to argue with that part of the equation. And given the sheer amount of service available (number of channels, speed of internet access, on-demand movies, etc), the price doesn't really seem to outrageous in the overall scheme of things. It certainly isn't a cause for budgetary concern for the average household (which is happy to order it, after all). Of more concern is the rising difficulty of achieving high service quality, contacting support representatives, and resolving billing disputes. These issues have been trending downward rather than upward, and decades of "public service" (i.e. local government) oversight to varying degrees doesn't seem to have resolved anything except for adding additional charges for mandatory this and regulatory that.

That's interesting; it would seem to answer (at least in part) my question about why a state doesn't push a primary up to (say) next Tuesday. It could be as simple as not wanting to PO New Hampshirites (New Hamphirees? New Hampsters??). The system has been broken for some time now, and never worked all that great to begin with. IMO parties should choose their candidate in a national election, all on the same day, dispensing with delegates altogether. I realize that slightly favors larger population areas over smaller ones, but not that much given the information age, and these particular candidates aren't supposed to represent specific geographical areas -- they represent the country as a whole. It's time we elected them in such a manner. Not only would that reduce the overwhelming power of small states over large ones, it would also reduce the influence of party extremists. The candidate would have to swing moderate even during the primary process, instead of the hypocritical pendulum swings we see now.

This is actually a perfect example of how partisanship for the sake of partisanship is detrimental, taking what may be a viable solution and causing it to be discarded not because there are better ideas but because no solution that allows any kind of potential for success can be allowed to move forward. The Americans want it, therefore it has to be wrong. The three-state solution is not an American idea, it's an international one, with support amongst all three of the major factions in Iraq. It also satisfies the United Nations requirement that Iraqi oil production be controlled nationally (to guarantee factionless control) before it can be distributed on the open market. Aside from "stay the course", it is the ONLY plan that brings that about. And it is THE only plan that enjoys broad international support. That doesn't mean it's perfect or even that it would work. But YOU would chuck it out the window not because you have a better idea, or even because you think it's flawed, but (by your own statement) because it's Americans who would be doing it. That speaks volumes about whether your interest here is Iraq's welfare or America's failure.

No, you still haven't answered my question. Do you feel that the air quality standards set in the 1970s made a difference? Did they, or did they not, improve the air? If I go to Los Angeles or New York City today, for example, am I breathing cleaner air than I was 35 years ago, or am I not, and is the difference due to clean air standards?

They do?!?! Holy cow, I've been using mozerella.... Oh man....

Jackson, doesn't that make your previous point (about how all pollution controls are a mistake) a contradiction? Oh well, I'm still hoping for a substantive response from someone in the opposition about the box scenario. I'd much rather be wrong about global warming and air pollution than right.

Those bloody Americans, never doing what they're told. What they're supposed to do. Of course, one can always blast them on the Internet. Meanwhile one can just sit back, all warm and comfy. No 9/11 to worry about. No Kyoto accords to step on the economy. No unfair trade practices to worry about. All one's ills one can just blame on those awful Americans. What an easy target -- everybody hates them anyway. Even if they do something to defend themselves one can still make them wrong, because then they're the Big Bad Evil Empire picking on the little guy. And if a real evil empire gets out of control well we'll just blame that on Americans too. And all the while we can make them pay for our roads, our schools, our food and our entertainment. What's not to like? What could possibly go wrong? Must be nice. Sure beats having to actually make these decisions, actually figure out which one of a bad crop of career politicians is the least dangerous and unfaithful. Which one is going to kill our children. Which one is going to destroy our homes. Why deal with any of that when one can just sit back with 20/20 hindsight and lob grenades over the fence? It's easy, and you never have to suffer being wrong!

So you're saying that pollution control has made no difference, Jackson? That would be the logical inferrence of your statement above. If that's not how you feel, however, then doesn't that render your point moot and irrelevent? If the relatively tiny amount of pollution that was invading the atmosphere in the 1960s and 1970s compared with the planetary whole made that much difference (enough to justify air quality legislation at that time), then why assume that the VAST increase since that time cannot possibly have made any difference?

Oh I still think you had a valid point there -- the Earth isn't really a box, I agree. It can clean itself up to a certain extent, as I understand it, over time. But I think IA is right in that it's a closed system with a specific limit to the amount of self-cleaning it can do, which I guess returns us to a box analogy, right? I realize it's an oversimplification but I really want to hear from opponents as to where they think this analogy fundamentally breaks down. There's no question the population has grown tremendously over the last 30 years, both in the US and globally. There's no question the number of cars on the road and the amount of electricity we generate has also grown. Isn't it pretty obvious that the same percentages that seemed okay 30 years ago would need to be questioned and reanalyzed today, given that the container hasn't grown?

I saw the news today as well and it seemed clear that the attack in the north was deliberately aimed at avoiding areas where "surging" (for lack of a more appropriate term, since IMO it's not really that much of a surge) was going on. Which really raises the question of whether those two columnists were just jumping the gun to get some press or what. Sarcasm and mean-spiritedness of this thread aside, I'm more than willing to agree that the surge isn't working. I can even understand the reason for the sarcasm and mean-spiritedness, in so far as the announcement of the surge eight months ago was met by any intelligent person with, at the very least, a jaundiced eye, so for those who're already predisposed to be hopping mad at the administration, it must have been like a big stick in the eye. I empathize. But not much. Partisans have only themselves to blame for their maddening frustrations. OH MY GOD THOSE AMERICANS OHMYGOD OHMYGOD (spew spew spew). What-the-frack-ever.

I've heard about that one, and if memory serves the Iowa Caucus has to run X number of days before New Hampshire, also by state law. But don't quote me on it. This fight to move primaries forward is going to have some blowback, sooner or later, and one thing to watch for will be what George Will calls "Buyer's Remorse". The religious right, for example, is so sour on the current crop of candidates that it may not get around to picking its man until after New Hampshire, and that could really throw a monkey wrench into the traditional prognosticating.