Home of the Free

txa1265 said:

Well, most statistics when applied by non-statisticians are done with bias or ulterior motive as the primary driver. Since we know PJ's motives and bias, the use of statistics and the conclusion of *every* statement he makes becomes obvious and foregone.

Click to expand...

But the presence of bias (not even statisticians are immune from it) doesn't make the conclusions invalid, assuming the evidence is reliable (not the case with Bush and his imaginary WMDs). I certainly agree that statistics can be presented in such a way as to give a skewed perception of reality. A common cause is the omission of information.
Eg. Team A defeated Team B in 4 straight games would lead to the conclusion that Team A is significantly better than Team B. What I failed to mention is that all 4 games were decided in a shootout and Team B was missing their star goaltender.
Nevertheless, providing statistics to support your arguments (assuming the source is trustworthy) is preferable to mere opinions or isolated examples. We're all guilty of engaging in plenty of unfounded speculation on this forum, which is fine; this isn't an academic journal after all. But, if you're going to discredit someone who does go to the trouble of providing evidence, you either have to show that the evidence in question is unreliable, or provide evidence to the contrary. As much as I disagree with some of PJs views (hoping for a war with Iran because it'll be a good show, wishing death to the US and it's citizens, the excessive attacks on Corwin etc.), they don't speak to his ability in making critical analyses or his trustworthiness in marshalling evidence to back them up.

Oops, I didn't see PJs latest posts before hitting the reply button, so most of the above is redundant. PJ, if your reason for hoping for a war with Iran is, as you say, in order to break American militarism, that's certainly different from wanting it for the show and I apologize for the mischaracterization (also on wishing death to the US and its citizens if you didn't really say that). Hoping for war to cure a greater ill is a dangerous position to take, though. War is like fire; if the flames start spreading out of control, no one can predict the magnitude of destruction that could ensue.

Geist said:

Oops, I didn't see PJs latest posts before hitting the reply button, so most of the above is redundant. PJ, if your reason for hoping for a war with Iran is, as you say, in order to break American militarism, that's certainly different from wanting it for the show and I apologize for the mischaracterization (also on wishing death to the US and its citizens if you didn't really say that). Hoping for war to cure a greater ill is a dangerous position to take, though. War is like fire; if the flames start spreading out of control, no one can predict the magnitude of destruction that could ensue.

Click to expand...

I did once quip that a US-Iranian war would be a good show, and something about Persian Gulf sharks and American sailors. I find it rather unsettling that people would take a quip like that entirely seriously, and even so it's a long way from that to wishing death to America and her citizens.

Still, to go off on a bit of a tangent, there is a certain seriousness to the quip too. News functions a lot like entertainment, and following a war is uncannily like following a football tournament, complete with partisan commentators, instant replays, what have you. And if you're at all interested in war and international relations, you *enjoy* following developments in war and international relations. Finally, if you're not actually in the theater of operations, you're very, very well insulated from the actual hardships and horrors of war. It does become something very similar to entertainment -- like a reality TV show, or Jack Bauer, or what have you. The lines are blurred, and increasingly so.

I've no doubt that a US-Iranian showdown *would* make for a great show, in this sense. Of course it would be utterly nihilistic to wish for one for that reason alone, and while I may be cynical, I'm not that far gone yet.

Finally, "hoping for war to cure a greater ill is a dangerous position" -- yes, you're right. The flames could spread very wide indeed. I just think that without such a war, it will be too easy to create a myth about the Iraq war -- "stabbed in the back by surrender monkeys" or "betrayed by the French" or whatever -- that will "leave the military's honor intact" and pave the way for something even nastier. It took about 30 years for the lessons of Vietnam to be forgotten; anything less painful than Vietnam would be forgotten all too quickly.

And without that kind of a lesson, I fear the future would be even bleaker.

Prime Junta said:

"betrayed by the French"

Click to expand...

The problem with that is there is a certain degree of truth - however immoral or indefensible it was for us to invade Iraq THIS TIME (the 1991 action was entirely appropriate), the truth is that in violation of treaties and UN actions that *they signed* many Europeans were conducting secret deals to secure oil and undermine the efforts to normalize Iraq.

As for the need for painful memories, it still amazes me how quickly some were able to forget Vietnam, but then it was wiped clean for many by 9/11. For me and people of my generation, Vietnam and Watergate - distrust and cynicism for all things military and governmental, are part of the very fabric of our being.

I'm not saying that I disagree with everything you say, PJ, just that you are uniformly, unilaterally, and universally anti-American in all of your postings. An article could cite 20 statistics, you would seek out the one that throws the US in a negative light whether or not it is the most important or relevant item presented ... or at least that is how your postings here portray you.

As for the need for painful memories, it still amazes me how quickly some were able to forget Vietnam, but then it was wiped clean for many by 9/11. For me and people of my generation, Vietnam and Watergate - distrust and cynicism for all things military and governmental, are part of the very fabric of our being.

Click to expand...

And the distrust is totally justified. The completely understandable feeling of patriotism in this country has been warped and manipulated against the most trusting element--those ready to defend it with their lives. Historically, I suppose this is pretty common. I think this war is refreshing our cynicism a bit, though.

@Prime Junta: There is some validity to your remark about the re-election of George Bush, though I think if you'd been faced with the choice of voting for him or John Kerry you'd realize it was an engineered election, if not in fact, certainly in results. All our elections seem to be this way over the last twenty years--trying to pick the lesser of two evils. This next one should really be nervewracking--I think the reason it's getting such early and exhaustive coverage here is that even the most oblivious among us is feeling the need for significant change.

Also, if the U.S. is removed from it's position in world politics by war or evolving economic factors, who will better fill the vacuum? Is there anyone out there who will administer power ethically and morally and with a less self-serving agenda? Or are you trusting the resultant chaos to bring out a more altruistic world union?

txa1265 said:

I'm not saying that I disagree with everything you say, PJ, just that you are uniformly, unilaterally, and universally anti-American in all of your postings.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. However, the fact that you perceive me to be that way says rather a lot about your own biases.

An article could cite 20 statistics, you would seek out the one that throws the US in a negative light whether or not it is the most important or relevant item presented ... or at least that is how your postings here portray you.

Click to expand...

Which, of course, in no way invalidates the facts I'm pointing out.

There's a name for what you're doing now, by the way -- the "ad hominem" fallacy. Also known as "shooting the messenger."

magerette said:

@Prime Junta: There is some validity to your remark about the re-election of George Bush, though I think if you'd been faced with the choice of voting for him or John Kerry you'd realize it was an engineered election, if not in fact, certainly in results. All our elections seem to be this way over the last twenty years--trying to pick the lesser of two evils. This next one should really be nervewracking--I think the reason it's getting such early and exhaustive coverage here is that even the most oblivious among us is feeling the need for significant change.

Click to expand...

That's precisely my point -- the system is broken structurally and needs deep changes, or you'll just keep getting the same non-choices drawn from the same closed inner circle of a political elite.

Also, if the U.S. is removed from it's position in world politics by war or evolving economic factors, who will better fill the vacuum? Is there anyone out there who will administer power ethically and morally and with a less self-serving agenda? Or are you trusting the resultant chaos to bring out a more altruistic world union?

Click to expand...

No. I'm very cynical about the possibility of altruism in world relations, and very skeptical indeed about the possibility of any kind of "world union" -- political units tend to get harder and harder to govern as they get larger. Power corrupts.

However, a multipolar world with several regional powers instead of one global superpower would necessarily be one where any single actor's capacity to make mayhem is more limited.

Simply put, I would prefer to live in a world dominated by a wise, benevolent, hegemonic power. However, rather than a foolish and malevolent hegemon, I would have no hegemon at all -- and deal with the turmoil that ensues. Finally, I don't think a wise and benevolent hegemony is a stable situation either -- the hegemon will be constantly tempted to abuse its power, and will succumb to it, sooner or later.

txa1265 said:

The problem with that is there is a certain degree of truth - however immoral or indefensible it was for us to invade Iraq THIS TIME (the 1991 action was entirely appropriate), the truth is that in violation of treaties and UN actions that *they signed* many Europeans were conducting secret deals to secure oil and undermine the efforts to normalize Iraq.

Click to expand...

The best lies always start with a kernel of truth. In fact, the best lies aren't actually lies at all.

That said, I would like to see some evidence for your claim that many Europeans were actively seeking to undermine the efforts to "normalize" Iraq. (Profiteering for sure, but that's different -- and certainly not exclusive to Europeans.)

Prime Junta said:

Simply put, I would prefer to live in a world dominated by a wise, benevolent, hegemonic power. However, rather than a foolish and malevolent hegemon, I would have no hegemon at all -- and deal with the turmoil that ensues. Finally, I don't think a wise and benevolent hegemony is a stable situation either -- the hegemon will be constantly tempted to abuse its power, and will succumb to it, sooner or later.

Click to expand...

Despite my ad hominem attacks I completely agree with this, and feel that is one reason that I bristle a bit at the 'Iraq is only about oil' remarks I hear. I find that there is at least as much likelihood that Iraq is about the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex in an era in which information rather than might is more important and that mode of operation doesn't go down well with ... well, ultimately with taxpayers who don't want 100,000 layoffs of blue-collar workers a month.

Prime Junta said:

Well, then, since you're so old and wise, why not take a serious hard look at those statistics, instead of just waving your hands and blowing smoke?

Click to expand...

There's no need to look very hard. You explain psychological mechanisms to people, but you can't tell smart from stupid? Respectful from impertinent? Where is your common sense, PJ?

My first impression from glancing at the Sutton Group's report was to wonder how they got their information in the first place. The answer was easy enough. They didn't. They made what they thought were good guesses based on disparate surveys and other people's analysis (which were undoubtedly based on other surveys).

Who tells people how much they earn? How much their parents earned? Details about their education? The US government has a hard enough time just taking a census. It's naive to think think the Sutton Group's information could be gathered with any amount of accuracy. Their report is worth every penny they charge for it.

Your conclusions about those freedom of the press statistics were equally laughable. All things considered, the middle of the highest ranking was about right. I would be concerned otherwise.

But people have opinions about those things. Everyone but you. You dictate facts. Is that because you're a Prime Junta? Is that what Prime Juntas do?

Prime Junta said:

That said, I would like to see some evidence for your claim that many Europeans were actively seeking to undermine the efforts to "normalize" Iraq. (Profiteering for sure, but that's different -- and certainly not exclusive to Europeans.)

Click to expand...

I worded it poorly, but the conclusion is pretty simple - if you have one parent being strict and saying no candy unless chores and homework are done and respect is shown and another saying up front that they agree with the rules and then covertly giving the child candy, you end up with a child that will never do what is asked because there is no real downside since the candy is coming anyway.

curiously undead said:

even if there was an "indian casino" on every corner and gold dubloons flowing out of every native americans pockets, i'd say its a wee bit different than being the respectful stewards of the great land known as america. who knows though maybe thousands of years from now their ancestors will be roaming the lands again.

Click to expand...

That's another myth, by the way: the Native Americans were a long way from "respectful stewards." The Anasazi produced their very own ecological collapse, for example.

(Source: [ http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375 ]).

Squeek said:

My first impression from glancing at the Sutton Group's report was to wonder how they got their information in the first place. The answer was easy enough. They didn't. They made what they thought were good guesses based on disparate surveys and other people's analysis (which were undoubtedly based on other surveys).

Click to expand...

And you feel these good guesses were not good, or were worse in the case of the USA than with other countries, because...?

Who tells people how much they earn? How much their parents earned? Details about their education? The US government has a hard enough time just taking a census. It's naive to think think the Sutton Group's information could be gathered with any amount of accuracy. Their report is worth every penny they charge for it.

Click to expand...

Squeek, that's rhetoric -- not a counterargument. If you want to dispute the figures or the way they've been gathered, you need to point out a flaw in their method that explains why the results would be biased against the US.

Your conclusions about those freedom of the press statistics were equally laughable. All things considered, the middle of the highest ranking was about right. I would be concerned otherwise.

Click to expand...

Which differs from my conclusion how? My conclusion was that the USA is about average for a rich country when it comes to freedom of the press -- freer than some, not as free as others.

But people have opinions about those things. Everyone but you. You dictate facts. Is that because you're a Prime Junta? Is that what Prime Juntas do?

Click to expand...

Oh, I have opinions too. I just back them up with facts. On occasion. What do you do?

PS. If you don't like the source I first quoted, here's another one: [ http://www.economicmobility.org/ ]. It tells pretty much the same story. If you have numbers that point in the other direction, I'd be interested to see them.

txa1265 said:

I worded it poorly, but the conclusion is pretty simple - if you have one parent being strict and saying no candy unless chores and homework are done and respect is shown and another saying up front that they agree with the rules and then covertly giving the child candy, you end up with a child that will never do what is asked because there is no real downside since the candy is coming anyway.

Click to expand...

Which has what to do with Iraq?

txa1265 said:

Despite my ad hominem attacks I completely agree with this, and feel that is one reason that I bristle a bit at the 'Iraq is only about oil' remarks I hear. I find that there is at least as much likelihood that Iraq is about the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex in an era in which information rather than might is more important and that mode of operation doesn't go down well with ... well, ultimately with taxpayers who don't want 100,000 layoffs of blue-collar workers a month.

Click to expand...

Try this on for size: Iraq is about a lot of reasons.

It's about oil.

It's about the military-industrial complex.

It's about Israel.

It's about the neocon dream of democratizing the Middle East by force of arms.

It's about hubris -- the blind belief that a hegemonic power can "make its own reality."

It's about ignorance.

It's about all of these things, and a good many others as well.

Prime Junta said:

PS. If you don't like the source I first quoted, here's another one: [ http://www.economicmobility.org/ ]. It tells pretty much the same story.

Click to expand...

Nope. This report only concerns the US. It doesn't compare it with other countries. What a waste of my time. There's no end to this blather.

Squeek said:

Nope. This report only concerns the US. It doesn't compare it with other countries. What a waste of my time. There's no end to this blather.

Click to expand...

See here [ http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP American Dream Report.pdf ], page 5. It has a comparison of relative economic mobility between the US and a bunch of other countries.

Look, Squeek -- what I'm pointing out isn't something that's even seriously under dispute, as far as I know anyway. The Scandinavian countries, Spain, France, Canada, and several others *are* significantly ahead of the USA in social/economic mobility, and social mobility in the USA *has* fallen significantly over the past generation.

Don't like my sources? Fine -- do your own research. You'll find I'm right.

Of course, you *can* continue your policy of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN!" if it makes you feel better. But that, I'm afraid, is all it'll do.

Look who's talking: The self-proclaimed anti-American. You introduced that phrase to these forums, remember?

There's plenty wrong with America, and we Americans tend to talk about it a lot. We just don't enjoy it when obnoxious fools from other places take pot shots at it.

Prime Junta said:

The Scandinavian countries, Spain, France, Canada, and several others *are* significantly ahead of the USA in social/economic mobility, and social mobility in the USA *has* fallen significantly over the past generation.

Click to expand...

Do you see that as a 'correction' (opinion)? Because for a long time while I was in school and early career Europe was 'in the tank' while the US boomed, and now in more recent years the wage disparity has really blossomed, and the tech-led cycles have taken their toll hardest on those on the lower ends of the spectrum.

The reason I ask is that Europe has tended to be a 'lagging indicator' in terms of the tech economy, and if that is true then all the crap that is happening here is destined to happen there as well as soon as this relative boom in EU ends.

Squeek said:

There's plenty wrong with America, and we Americans tend to talk about it a lot. We just don't enjoy it when obnoxious fools from other places take pot shots at it.

Click to expand...

Does that mean only Americans can criticize the US? Or talk about what is wrong with it?