Pangloss

When you find a poll that says all that, you let me know.

Quite possibly the dumbest poll I've ever heard of. Shouldn't it actually read "100% of US troops want the war to end tomorrow?" I mean is there anybody in the entire world who won't read this poll and immediately say "DUH!"? If this were posted at FARK it would surely have an "Obvious" tag in front of it. (grin)

By the way, years ago I ran across something that someone had written up describing how much money Michael Jordan was going to make in his last year with the Bulls. They had it all divied up by the minute and second, with cute little phrases like how much money he makes every time he passes the ball, or sits down on the bench, etc. The punch line was that he would have to make that amount for 75 years to equal the net worth of Bill Gates. The point being that there are plenty of opportunities to make money in this country. Let the athletes have their money -- it's not like they're taking it by force. There's plenty of wealth to go around. The problem isn't where we SPEND it, but where we DON'T spend it.

I don't mind so much that popularism allows extreme examples of income. There are always going to be oddball examples like that in a free society. Good for them, I guess. What matters is that we don't put enough emphasis on education and other critical areas. I don't think teachers should make millions of publically-collected dollars per year, but they should make a lot more than they currently do. Oddly enough, the problem is not the amount of money we spend on public education in this country, which has grown steadily over the last 30 years. The problem is where we spend it, and the way we've shot ourselves in the foot with organized labor (teacher's unions).

One thing that I think might have gotten lost in the shuffle here is what I believe is a legitimate question, which is whether or not Islam, to some degree, is more inherently violent and inciteful of violence than other religions. I think there are valid points on both sides of this issue. You can definitely say that there are aspects of Islam that, if taken literally, seem to point followers towards a path of violence. And yes, you can find things like that in the Bible and other religious texts. But the question I'm asking here is a more subtle one: Is there a difference of degree? Conservative demogogue Ann Coulter has had some interesting things to say on this subject from time to time. (Hey, I may think she's a demogogue, but I have tons of respect for her way with the pen.) She more or less leads the right wing (but not exactly extreme) proponents of the "Islam is inherently violent" camp. One quote in particular that I found interesting:

Well if it's unconstitutional it certainly wouldn't be the first compromise we've made. But hey, far be it from me to stomp on your motivations and dash your hopes. I simply think you'll find as you investigate further that there's generally a reason why sweeping absolutes don't carry the day, and why old ways aren't always the best ways. But in the end that's probably a journey you're going to have to make on your own, just as I did. I know that Milton Friedman, the Cato Institute, and libertarians in general are basically carrying this banner today, and there's been some interesting writing on the subject that's definitely worth reading if you want to bolster your opinion. I also recommend reading some contrarian points of view. I've gradually come to the conclusion over the years that when it comes to economics, humanity bounces back and forth between extremes, gradually pulling out the best parts and working them into a centrist model that incorporates the best of all the extreme models. The shift from Keynsian to "market" economics lead by von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman in the latter quarter of the 20th century is a perfect example of this. AVOIDING the gold standard that segment wants us to switch to would be a good example of what I'm talking about. Let's cherry pick the good, and avoid the bad. Why not? It's called *learning*.

At significant cost. But the question is not whether it cost something, but whether there was benefit to go along with that cost . The flaw in the reasoning here is that just because a system has become more complex doesn't mean that it is completely intractible. Whether a system like the Federal Reserve works has mainly to do with the intelligence and dedication of the people who run it. One could similarly postulate that the problem with government spending is the influence of special interests groups, but as I just demonstrated in another thread, that's too simple an answer as well. The real dynamic is actually the dedication and motivation of the people who implement that system. If they're motivated only by money and power, the system will be terrible. So the system needs safeguards to prevent that from happening. Incidentally, arguing against the gold standard is nothing new. Ayn Rand's objectivism movement was greatly opposed to it and preached widely for a return. One of her most intelligent and well-published followers and preachers was none other than Alan Greenspan. How's that for an about-face?

Speaking of which, I thought P&O's legal moves were interesting. Living in South Florida as I do, I'm familiar with that company, as most Americans are, mainly through their ownership of "The Love Boat", aka Princess Cruise Lines. They're not a huge employer here (as compared with Carnival or Royal Carib) but it made the news pretty fast when they sued to stop the changover.

Those are some interesting points, and as I say I haven't made up my own mind on it, but I can tell you how this is playing out politically in Washington and on Main Street USA. It's not playing out anything like this thread, that's for sure. On Main Street it was seen initially as an obvious example of something 'falling through the cracks'. Then the spinmeisters stepped in and now we have the usual two points of view in conflict (obscuring the truth, as Bud pointed out above). In Washington it is a political firestorm, with leadership in both parties latching on and milking it for all its worth. The two sides are about as interested in the truth as Osama has good hair days. We'll be very lucky if any real-world issues actually make it to the debate table. More likely what will happen is some sort of political compromise will be hashed out, with the actual security aspects of the situation (if any) more or less completely ignored. After which the politicians will pat themselves on the back and call it a day. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for the Republican party's "replacement"/"better" assault weapons ban. There are roughly eight functional months left in the 109th congress.

I've linked below a fascinating op/ed piece by a Washington lobbyist that I think everyone should read. Of course you want to read this with a grain of salt -- his position is self-serving, no doubt about it. But he is producing an alternate opinion that you will read in very few other places. What you're mostly hearing these days is that the problem with lobbyists is the practice of "earmarking". But, and I've heard this in a couple of places recently, there is a murmuring undercurrent that says that the real problem is not earmarking, but rather the fact that it's the lobbyists that, increasingly, are what get congresscritters re-elected. The fundraisers they host are the main vehicles for producing the large sums of cash needed to stage the media campaigns they need to beat their opponents. I read this in Zell Miller's book, I read it recently in a piece somewhere by John McCain, and it's present in this piece as well. I think that fact may be the missing link, if you will, to discovering the real problem with Washington. At any rate, here's a fascinating quote from the piece I think you guys should read: The guy can turn a phrase, huh? Read the whole thing here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101146.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Here's an interesting side-note to the discussion: Apparently the way this story is playing in the Middle East is that people are seeing it as an example of racial/religious fear. They see that company as a legitimate arab business (as opposed to, say, terrorism), and something that Americans should recognize, respect and support. If the deal is scuttled, and scuttled solely because the company is arab it will likely be used by America's enemies as yet another example of western anti-arab/anti-muslim prejudice.

An excellent point.

The Catch-22 here is that "lines" have to be defined. And once they're defined, Congress can simply write "lines" with riders attached to them. And they will feel like they HAVE to do that in order to get "what the people want" when the president doesn't want it. So we're right back to where we started. There's a reason why the Constitution was constructed in the way that it is.

The case for the line item veto has its merits, but the problem ultimately lies not in the inability for the chief executive to remove pork, but in the propensity of the legislators to introduce it. We need to focus on treating the disease with prevention and vaccine, not fret and fuss about over tumor-cutting surgery.

That's very clever, Sis. You're double-entendring off on one of Bush's old interview quotes, I believe. I got a chuckle out of it.

I see nothing about Saryctos' post that indicates a failure to understand how the system works, and I believe his point is a legitimate one. People SHOULD be upset about the way Social Security has been handled, and the fact that the system both fails to reflect reality and performs poorly compared with even modest investments. I also happen to disagree with the current administration's plan, but not because I harbor any illusions about the sanctity of the program, the intelligence of the people running it, or the fatally flawed reasoning behind it.

We have discussions here about terrorism and insurgency in a number of threads. Can you give us a more specific idea of what you're looking for?

I could have done without that last sentence. I see no reason for you to be speak to me as if I am a child. I simply didn't understand what you were saying. I agree that if private interests are going to be involved in the rebuilding of the gulf coast then they should assume some of the risk. The degree of that, however, is debatable, and since the rebuilding of the gulf coast serves the rest of the country in a number of ways, some degree of federal funding is a reasonable thing to expect.

So what?

I think we speculated on this right after the SOTU didn't we? Maybe I'm thinking of a different board. That bit and the "animal-human hybrids" quote had me in stitches. This one will rank right up there with Clinton's stock market investment scheme as "craziest State of the Union Speaches".

Not all of the New Orleans area is below sea level, so even if we abandoned those places too low to protect without major expense we'd still be looking at a fairly sizable city. I wouldn't have any problem with some sort of compromise in this area, and in fact it seems likely that no matter what is done, the city will be smaller anyway, just due to the natural attrition that's already happening/happened. But in general it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to abandon everything that happens to be on a coastline threatened by hurricanes. That would be everything from Portland to San Antonio.

Makes sense to me.

You could well be right, Dak. But I think it's erroneous to assign altruistic/moralistic motives to a corporation. What people are basically saying here is that they think it's okay for Google to compromise with China because they're still warning users about the filtering, and that they think it's not okay to comply with the US Justice Department because that involves release of personal information. Well people may indeed be getting the affect right, but they're misunderstanding the cause. These are not the kinds of reasons why corporations make decisions. They're not concerned about compliance with government demands. They're concened with how the surfing public will perceive their compliance with government demands. So if people get out of this that Google is making some kind of good faith effort to not be evil, and that the next time something like this comes up then Google will somehow, altruistically, do what's right for people, then in my view they're just setting themselves up for disappointment. I can't help but wonder if this is one of the reasons people hate corporations so much. They acquire some sort of misplaced faith about their purpose, and then get disappointed when the corporation acts in its best interest instead of theirs.