|
@Arnstein, Veir, Recognizable, deathly rat
On the subject of Europe:
My comments regarding precariousness and restructuring are largely directed at Greece, Italy, Spain, and to somewhat of a lesser extent, Germany. I do not live in any of these places, but in Greece particularly, there have been fairly longstanding reports of violent responses to austerity measures from a portion of the public. Certainly in the financial world, most of the heavy traffic days in European bond markets occur immediately after there is news regarding either a new proposed structuring of pension debt, or an impending bailout by the EU as a whole. So, I feel comfortable in the precariousness comment, but perhaps merely hopeful in the restructuring aspect.
Whoever mentioned the US in terms of financial crisis is absolutely right. We have allowed ourselves to indulge in ridiculous fantasies of neverending paper money, and it has come back to bite us. Hopefully, we will learn the correct lessons. Also, I mentioned Sweden earlier because in the 80's, Sweden was often invoked as the perfect system in terms of pension and socialized medicine. And of course, there is some allure to that system in terms of security. But it comes down to this fundamental assumption that when the material incentives to excel, overproduce, or innovate are taken away by an increasingly heavy progressive tax, the US will still be able to rely on the production of its citizens to drive GDP. I don't think that assumption is correct, in a long term sense.
I'm not sure if this addresses what all of you were getting at, but I'm doing my best to field quite a few of these in the midst of working.
EDIT: @ Recognizable
You make a good point about my stating as fact what is actually suspicion in economics. I hope you'll understand, it is EXTREMELY difficult to go from playing the talking points game of my job to the more thoughtful discourse we have going here. I suppose the backlash from the general public in Greece has me thinking that the US is (so far) holding together a little more solidly. I'll back off my certainty on that a bit, but as a more general statement, I will stand by the notion that when government borrowing outpaces GDP growth, sooner or later something has to change or someone has to bail you out.
|
Hey again, just popping back in to say that I really like your answers to these questions  They're very well-constructed and clearly fleshed out. Thanks for responding to my questions as well!
I'm also eager to hear your opinions on American education, as Recognizable and Arnstein are as well. What are the biggest problems and most plausible solutions, in your opinion?
We need more gentle, open dialogue in general to clear up misconceptions about certain parties or groups of people
|
Why do poor people vote republican?
|
I think this is a great thread, but I feel like SaintBadger is a bit too centrist to really represent the core of conservatism as it is currently practiced in the United States. I mean, I think it would be great if the majority of republicans shared the belief system of SaintBadger, but that's not the world we're living in.
For example, the republican party has basically adopted no tax increases of any kind, ever, as a central philosophy in the last 10-15 years, which it seems SaintBadger isn't really on board with. Likewise, SaintBadger's flexibility on abortion is definitely a minority opinion among republican politicians (although not necessarily among republican voters). His view of same-sex marriage and transgender-ism throug a monetary prism is also a bit, um, unique? I mean, sure money is involved, but primarily it is an ethical issue. You don't have conservative republicans campaigining against same-sex marriage holding signs saying that the US can't afford the costs of extending benefits. They're holding signs saying that its a sin in the eyes of god.
Lastly, just a little thing that's been bugging me. Articles of faith are tenets, not tenants, those are renters.
Edit: spelling and grammar
|
Protesters are a sign of a healthy democracy, NOT political instability, particularly in European countries with large socialist histories. If you think the US is in a much better financial situation than most of Europe you are wrong. Yes, Greece and Spain have large national debts, that they were managing fine until the crisis in world lending confindence caused by subprime mortgages in the US. Germany, the UK and other countries are supporting these countries because they are part of the Eurozone, but this doesn't mean that the economies of the main countries in Europe are unstable. Indeed the UK and Germany have better credit ratings than the US.
List of credit ratings by country
|
Do you think women should be able to sue an employer for paying them less than a man for the same job?
As someone in favor of Mitt Romney, are you in favor in getting rid of planned parenthood?
Are you in favor of restricting women's reproductive rights to pressure and shame women into keeping children?
You mentioned financial implications of gay marriage. Are you aware of the massive booms to marriage industries that places with gay marriage have benefitted from? It also encourages more competitive employees because obviously gay people want to work in a state that they can get married in. The financial implications of gay marriage are overwhelmingly positive.
How do you feel about Eric Cantor? Do you think he betrayed the Party? Do you think he confronted some of the ugly antisemitism that is currently in the republican party?
|
On April 26 2012 22:29 alQahira wrote:
I think this is a great thread, but I feel like SaintBadger is a bit too centrist to really represent the core of conservatism as it is currently practiced in the United States. I mean, I think it would be great if the majority of republicans shared the belief system of SaintBadger, but that's not the world we're living in.
For example, the republican party has basically adopted no tax increases of any kind, ever, as a central philosophy in the last 10-15 years, which it seems SaintBadger isn't really on board with. Likewise, SaintBadger's flexibility on abortion is definitely a minority opinion among republican politicians (although not necessarily among republican voters). His view of same-sex marriage and transgender-ism throug a monetary prism is also a bit, um, unique? I mean, sure money is involved, but primarily it is an ethical issue. You don't have conservative republicans campaigining against same-sex marriage holding signs saying that the US can't afford the costs of extending benefits. They're holding signs saying that its a sin in the eyes of god.
Lastly, just a little thing that's been bugging me. Articles of faith are tenets, not tenants, those are renters.
Edit: spelling and grammar
I'd say he represents mainstream conservatism pretty well. The majority are not no tax religious zealots. Conservatives in genneral are a fairly agreeable bunch.
|
@ Recognizable, Arnstein, DarkPlasmaBall
On Education:
In a nutshell, over the past 30-40 years, for every new dollar spent in education, the average US highschooler's test scores in math and reading have dropped a fraction of a point. That is . . . problematic, to say the least. A lot of people who are much smarter than me have tried and failed to fix this issue. I think conservatives only focus on part of the actual problem. To borrow a line from Gov. Christie (R-NJ), "there are only two areas of employment where accomplishment is in no way recognized, and failure is in no way punished: Weathermen and public school teachers."
My mother teaches 7th grade, and has done so for many years. I remember meeting a friend of hers who taught 8th grade math and argued with me for five minutes, claiming the angles of a triangle added up to 360 degrees (for those who don't remember, it's actually 180). I think that moment was when I first realized the deep-seated cancer in American education. It's not that teachers are not good at their job. It's that we have no idea whether a teacher is good at his or her job, and the teachers themselves fight against any mechanism which would award pay and incentives (not to mention jobs) based on merit. The most frustrating thing about it is those good teachers who we all remember from our own school experiences. They stand right next to the idiots who don't know a triangle from a circle when it comes time to protest spending cuts or support Democrats. That drives me insane.
I said conservatives don't focus on all of the actual problem here, and this is why. It's easy to point the finger at teachers' unions and say, "here's the problem!" You know what the real problem is?
Parents
Yup, I said it. Parents of all sorts. The absentee double-career folks who let the nanny raise the kids and only have a passing idea whether their child can read or write. The helicopter parents who drive good teachers out of the profession by threatening to sue everytime their child gets a B+. Perhaps worst of all, the homeschoolers who choose to homeschool not because they're going to do a better job of educating, but because they're afraid to let their child break out of whichever idealogical bubble in which the family lives. As a general rule, parents are just flatly less involved in and feel less responsibility for educating children than in past generations. I think the nation suffers for it.
Unfortunately, lecturing parents is not a particularly smart political move, and so we focus all attention on teachers and certain schemes to promote privatization. The school voucher concept is obviously targetted at bringing private schools a larger market share, but that is not yet a legitimate option for the majority of children. Also, it should be noted that President Bush and Senator Kennedy didn't do us any favors with No Child Left Behind. If you want an interesting read, Steven Levitt's "Freakanomics" goes into a lot of what that legislation has done to our country, and it is not pretty.
I'm sorry I don't have better answers. We're honestly working on it. I foresee that this is one area where we may still find some bipartisan cooperation as soon as someone comes up with a workable idea, but so far, attempts have fallen flat.
|
@ AlQahira
DAMN IT DAMN IT DAMN IT. Tenents. You have no idea how hard I was trying not to do something stupid like that in this blog. Thank you for not letting me do that much longer. Will return to you in a bit.
|
@archon00id
1. Global Warming
I was sort of wondering how long this would take to come up. First of all, we should just decide whether we can agree to the following statement: Anyone who tells you they know with certainty how atmospheric conditions will change based on man-made pollutants is lying regardless of which way they claim it will go. If we can't agree to that, then you might as well stop reading this response.
I know there was a comic going around depicting a bunch of scientists at a climate convention where one stands up and says, "What if it was all a hoax and we created a better world for nothing?" I would respectfully submit that IF it were to turn out that global warming would not occur in any relevant levels if we keep on the current fossil fuel consumption path, then by comparison, abstaining from fossil fuels would not in any way result in a better world. At least, not for many generations. It would require massive sacrifice, both in the developing world and right here at home.
The obvious counter to that is that IF global warming on the order of "An Inconvenient Truth" magnitude is on the horizon, then there is no sacrifice involved in changing course. Ok, so nothing new there. I am not a meteorologist. I do not have the expertise to make an independent judgment. I know that the majority of authorities on the matter seem to agree that some level of warming is or will take place due to man-made causes. However, they are in extreme disagreement as to the extent of the present danger. I would also point out that if one were to go back 30 years, one would hear doomsday predictions from the same general group of experts about the second Ice Age. It is difficult for a non-expert to parse the cacophony of voices on the issue, particularly when some of the main proponents and opponents of climate change - oriented energy policies all have profit motives for their perspective.
Ultimately, I suspect that the same oil companies the current administration loves to scapegoat will be the ones who own the proprietary technology of whatever fossil fuel alternative we end up settling upon for the majority of our energy needs. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to read about a company called Intellectual Ventures based out of Bellevue, Washington. IV swears up and down that they have two quick and cheap fixes for the greenhouse gas problem, and are ready to deploy them whenever their is sufficient reason for alarm. I don't know if their ideas will work, but it's interesting stuff and it's far cheaper and more efficient (allegedly) than 5,000 square miles of solar panels covering las vegas and a decent chunk of the western US (to borrow another West Wing suggestion).
|
On April 26 2012 22:42 SaintBadger wrote:
Yup, I said it. Parents of all sorts. The absentee double-career folks who let the nanny raise the kids and only have a passing idea whether their child can read or write. The helicopter parents who drive good teachers out of the profession by threatening to sue everytime their child gets a B+. Perhaps worst of all, the homeschoolers who choose to homeschool not because they're going to do a better job of educating, but because they're afraid to let their child break out of whichever idealogical bubble in which the family lives. As a general rule, parents are just flatly less involved in and feel less responsibility for educating children than in past generations. I think the nation suffers for it
This reads like you are trying to mesh together points that don't mesh. How can you blame helicopter parents or homeschoolers for being less involved and feeling less responsibility than past generations? If anything this is an example of the opposite.
If you want to blame parents of all sorts you need a different general rule.
|
Yes the Conservative US position is to undermine "Scientists", "Science"and "Experts", and just say they don't believe it, or point to the one religious scientist (lol) who will agree with whatever it is they want him to say.
On April 26 2012 23:05 SaintBadger wrote:
It is difficult for a non-expert to parse the cacophony of voices on the issue, particularly when some of the main proponents and opponents of climate change - oriented energy policies all have profit motives for their perspective.
.
Which is the bigger industry. The oil industry or the alternative energy industry? Also, how are academic researchers at universities who are notoriously independent motivated by their own economic greed. The idea is preposterous.
|
@archon00id
2. Response to suffering infrastructure?
Unlike many of the somewhat outlandish spending priorities our federal govrernment manages to find, there is a pretty clearcut authorization for the feds to levy taxes to facilitate interstate commerce. In my mind, that covers the interstate systems, ocean docks, rail lines, and various inland navigable waterways. As much as I don't like these words leaving my mouth, this is the sort of thing for which taxes should be paid and paid willingly. I don't think many conservatives will disagree with that general point. Now, I could write for an hour about the corruption in the process by which the feds award contracts, but that's another story.
3. Gun Control
The Second Amendment is probably the single biggest lightning rod for debates between people who want to read the Constitution literally and those who basically say, "the thing was written in 1776 . . . we don't have standing state militias anymore." My first response to those people is that it was actually the Declaration of Independence that was written in 1776 (ZING!). Beyond that, I'd point out that the Amendment doesn't say, "the right to keep and bear arms by members of militias shall not be infringed." It says the right shall not be infringed, after obviously indicating that the intention is to protect the right to assemble for protection against the government.
If the writers of the Constitution had it to do all over again, they might word that a bit differently. But they don't. There is a process by which the Constitution can be amended, but as to this point, it hasn't been changed. I don't really see the argument for the legality of federal gun laws. And since the 14th Amendment has been read to apply freedom of speech, speedy trial, and all the other Bill of Rights protections to state governments as well, consistency suggests the right to bear arms is also protected from the states.
I don't pass judgment on whether that's good or bad. I do own a gun and enjoy shooting it. I was happy that I owned said gun during Katrina, though I did not end up with reason to use it. If only for peace of mind, I was happy to have a chance to protect myself in a situation where law enforcement was unavailable. As a side note, I do believe that it would be legal to pass a law stating that, to some extent involving serious jail time, one is responsible for whatever injuries are caused by his or her gun. Perhaps that would reign in some of the less responsible behavior.
|
What is your stance on patents and copyright, and the current state of patent and copyright law? What role do you think patents and copyrights should play in society, and where do you think we should be going (if you feel that should be changed)?
|
On April 26 2012 23:09 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 22:42 SaintBadger wrote:
Yup, I said it. Parents of all sorts. The absentee double-career folks who let the nanny raise the kids and only have a passing idea whether their child can read or write. The helicopter parents who drive good teachers out of the profession by threatening to sue everytime their child gets a B+. Perhaps worst of all, the homeschoolers who choose to homeschool not because they're going to do a better job of educating, but because they're afraid to let their child break out of whichever idealogical bubble in which the family lives. As a general rule, parents are just flatly less involved in and feel less responsibility for educating children than in past generations. I think the nation suffers for it This reads like you are trying to mesh together points that don't mesh. How can you blame helicopter parents or homeschoolers for being less involved and feeling less responsibility than past generations? If anything this is an example of the opposite. If you want to blame parents of all sorts you need a different general rule.
If I had to guess, (I tend to agree with the idea), it's because involvement isn't guaranteed to be helpful. If the motive is wrong, and the implementation is wrong, the involvement isn't doing the kids any favors. If a parent homeschools poorly, the child may have excellent grades and no understanding of the subject matter, or vice versa. If a parent hovers to the point of smothering, and instead of helping their children excel tries to change circumstances around their child so they SEEM to excel, it's also not much of a contribution.
Grades mean very little if you don't understand the material.
|
On April 26 2012 23:05 SaintBadger wrote:
@archon00id
1. Global Warming
I was sort of wondering how long this would take to come up. First of all, we should just decide whether we can agree to the following statement: Anyone who tells you they know with certainty how atmospheric conditions will change based on man-made pollutants is lying regardless of which way they claim it will go. If we can't agree to that, then you might as well stop reading this response.
Certainty is a matter of probability. I have no idea what "know with certainty" means unless you mean absolute certainty which nobody has or needs or cares about. We make nearly all decisions without absolute certainty so that's not an excuse for inaction. But as a matter of probability, it is extremely likely at this point that global warming is manmade. To pretend otherwise is living in a fantasy world.
|
REVISION
@ Tal
Re: Parents
I see what you mean. Again, trying to write very quickly. I meant to convey that the helicopter parents don't see it as their job to teach, but still become outraged when teachers suggest less than perfection. And while some homeschoolers do it for reasons relating to quality of education, others are simply afraid of exposing their child to a world outside of whatever value system they want to install.
Thank you for the pointer.
@deathly rat
Re: Denying science
I don't understand how anyone could possibly still claim to be certain of global warming in the face of several instances where leading authorities on the subject have admitted to manipulating the data. I never once denied anything; I'm merely pointing out that there is still work to be done. Even Al Gore himself admitted to deliberately exaggerating "An Inconvenient Truth" because he believed this was too important to NOT exaggerate. I suppose I admire the motives, but that doesn't bring us any closer to certainty.
Not sure where religion came into global warming.
EDIT: @ DoubleReed
It's not a matter of whether any warming has occured. It's a matter of whether warming will occur to the point where serious problems will be created for the global ecosystem. And no one, not even Al Gore, pretends that there is any "extremely high likelihood" of that. They are simply warning of a possible outcome predicted by some iterations of climate forecasting. So it becomes a balance between possibility for serious problems vs. serious sacrifices in the present.
Anyway, I knew as soon as global warming came up, there would be a sharper focus on that one issue. I've represented my understanding of conservative thinking on that matter as best I can.
|
Wow, this is actually really civil. Incredible.
OK 2 lighter questions,
How many and what guns do you own? What (if) do you drive?
|
@ Rannasha
Existence of God
That's not quite how I understand the Razor. Any explanation is going to somewhat increase the complexity of a previously stand-alone system. But if we accept that any effect has a cause, and considering physical concepts like entropy, things point to a first cause which is not easily explained. The concept of eternal past is very difficult for me to reconcile, as is the somewhat bizarre speculations of multi-dimensional universes that certain vocal physicists have put forth. In my estimation, there is less complexity in accepting a prime mover than other potential explanations. "Prime mover", however, is a far cry from a God in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I skipped many steps on that post simply because I don't really want to go there beyond a statement of personal belief. Having enough trouble keeping up with entries as it is.
|
On April 26 2012 23:28 SaintBadger wrote:.
EDIT: @ DoubleReed
It's not a matter of whether any warming has occured. It's a matter of whether warming will occur to the point where serious problems will be created for the global ecosystem. And no one, not even Al Gore, pretends that there is any "extremely high likelihood" of that. They are simply warning of a possible outcome predicted by some iterations of climate forecasting. So it becomes a balance between possibility for serious problems vs. serious sacrifices in the present.
Anyway, I knew as soon as global warming came up, there would be a sharper focus on that one issue. I've represented my understanding of conservative thinking on that matter as best I can.
Uhm, yes it is. If manmade global warming is occurring (which is extremely likely) then it is also extremely likely that it will cause more extreme weather conditions across the globe. Have you looked into any research that doesn't horribly exaggerate? Because the effects are nonetheless very serious.
Edit: Oh and please respond to my post on women's issues and Eric Cantor. :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
