random off-topic thread

[indianadrew]

"If you take two identical people and give health insurance to one of them, the uninsured guy is more likely to turn to religion than the insured guy."

where do you come up with these correlations? that one is more out there than the one about .500 teams and 1 run games.

[Heltonfan]

Drew, if you think the one-run game stuff is "out there", I don't know what to say. It's simple logic, and there isn't any data contradicting it.

Anyway, it's a basic fact that people were far more religious pre-Enlightenment and pre-industrialization than they are now. We can speculate about the reasons for that, of course; I think it's because people are more likely to be religious when they lack other sources of comfort, whether those sources of comfort are scientific knowledge, technological support, or whatever. Africa remains a very religious place, and is, by our standards, a hellhole; in Western European countries, which consistently rank at or near the top of the various quality of life indices, religion is becoming less and less relevant. I found an article from 2005 about this: USATODAY.com - Religion takes a back seat in Western Europe

Every major religion except Islam is declining in Western Europe, according to the Center for the Study on Global Christianity at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass. The drop is most evident in France, Sweden and the Netherlands, where church attendance is less than 10% in some areas.

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI lamented the weakening of churches in Europe, Australia and the USA. "There's no longer evidence for a need of God, even less of Christ," he told Italian priests. "The so-called traditional churches look like they are dying."
...
"For most of history, people have been on the borderline of survival," says Ronald Inglehart, director of the World Values Survey, a Swedish-based group that tracks church attendance. "That's changed dramatically. Survival is certain for almost everyone (in the West). So one of the reasons people are drawn to religion has eroded."

This isn't something that people like to talk about in this country, because the U.S. is an exception to the general principle at work here, and Americans don't want to hear people referring to religion as a coping mechanism. But the overall evidence is tough to dispute. The more secure a person is in their life on Earth, the less likely they are to turn to the heavens for comfort.

[indianadrew]

"Drew, if you think the one-run game stuff is "out there", I don't know what to say. It's simple logic, and there isn't any data contradicting it."

i cant find ant data suppporting it eithor.

there are only a few teams that it applies to. for the most part it looks to be the other way around.

The Official Site of Major League Baseball: Standings: Regular Season Standings

as far as the religion thing goes i do see your point.

[TheIncredibleRox]

When I say we have no moral compass, I am specifically referring to our nations priorities of "guns versus butter". The military industrial complex is choking off funding for so many other important programs, and we are viewed around the world as a violent, militaristic, arrogant, aggressive and threatening nation. Hardly a force for good, or that "beacon on the hill", as Reagan put it, anymore.

I have two fundamental disagreements here.

1) The moral compass argument seems odd coming from a self-described liberal advocating the values of Western Europe. I'm not in the slightest speaking about the nexus of religion and morality-- I am one of many mainstream Americans who derive their morality from a general sense of right and wrong far moreso than any biblical interpretation. What I really mean is, the American left--in much the same way as Western Europe-- engages in such a high degree of moral relativism that the entire concept of a moral compass (especially on a NATIONAL level) is bankrupt... "when you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything." I'm not saying everyone on the left is an amoral heretic or something; I just think in general they do their best to be so non-judgemental that they're not willing to call the difference between good and evil, even when clearly presented (unless, of course, they can throw it at the right wing.... Republicans are evil.... everything else, well we can't quite tell, it's all relative).

2. As far as being viewed internationally as a huge military power, or even a 'bully'... I don't necessarily disagree that this is our common perception from the outside (although I don't think it's as dramatic as some try to make it out to be). But you know what? I'm okay with it.

Here's why; although you can certainly cite instances of it's misuse, that power and its perception give us tremendous capital to do good in the world. Case in point, current Chinese attempts to reunify Taiwan. Now, we didn't explicity threaten China with military force. We did announce our solidarity with Taiwan, because we think the values of freedom that they embrace--free elections, a liberal society, etc etc-- are a good thing. Not only is that evidence of a national moral compass, its a direct product of our military might. If we had Canada's military, our announced solidarity with Taiwan would be scoffed at and the Chinese would have their will.

This power is a blessing and a burden. It means we do have the ability to be a force for good. Unfortunately, it also means we often HAVE TO entagle ourselves into often unsavory conflicts, because with the power comes the responsiblity to do so, and the world can't rely on anyone else. I know that last sentance makes most liberals vomit, but look at those liberal non-judgemental PC non-threating UN efforts, and what they've done to prevent atrocities and threats to humanity... Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Darfur, the current UNIFIL force in Lebanon, Liberia, the failure to keep North Korea from going nuclear, the same as current with Iran, the Iraqi oil-for-food scam... it's a horrible, horrible record of failure.

For a modern parallel.... no matter what you think about the war in Iraq, the power of our military won several major victories in other nations without making a move in their direction. Gaddafi, the thug dictator of Libya, disarmed and allowed regular inspectors. Although he was re-elected, Hosni Mubarak allowed free elections and the people of Egypt for once chose their own government. The AQ Khan nuclear network in Pakistan was stopped before it could do more damage. Syria withdrew from Lebanon (even if they're still trying to meddle via proxy).

Again, with Canada's military, none of this happens.

Depending upon what you feel about what has actually gone on in Iraq (and there's no shortage of debate to be found there), you can characterize this a positive or a negative employment of our power.

But don't scoff at our military in general; it's strength and power gives us the capital and the ability to do tremendous things for the world, many of which don't even involve firing a shot.

[Heltonfan]

Alright Drew, you got me to actually check the numbers.

There are 15 teams currently playing better than .500 ball. Their combined overall record is 811-654, a winning percentage of .554. In one-run games, they are 221-194, a percentage of .532.

There are 14 teams currently under .500 (the Rockies are at exactly .500 right now, so I'm not including them in either group). Those 14 teams are a combined 604-761, a percentage of .442. In one-run games, they are 179-203, a percentage of .469.

The theory holds.

[Heltonfan]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

I'm not saying everyone on the left is an amoral heretic or something; I just think in general they do their best to be so non-judgemental that they're not willing to call the difference between good and evil, even when clearly presented (unless, of course, they can throw it at the right wing.... Republicans are evil.... everything else, well we can't quite tell, it's all relative).

Well, let's be clear about one thing: there's nothing wrong with amorality. Amorality isn't an "anything goes" approach, it's just pure pragmatism. I consider myself amoral, but that doesn't mean that I don't hate terrorists; the only difference is that I hate them because they're trying to destroy things that I would rather not see destroyed, not because I think they're "evil" (whatever that means). One can still be quite judgmental even while deeming "good" and "evil" nonsensical concepts.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

I have two fundamental disagreements here.

1) The moral compass argument seems odd coming from a self-described liberal advocating the values of Western Europe.

I think "liberals" have a bad name in this country due to the constant, and very effective, right-wing "noise machine" going back to 1980. Conservatives made the term "liberal" a dirty word, implying that to be liberal is to be (among other things), permissive, undisciplined, deviant, taxers and spenders, weak on defense, effeminate, socialistic "commies", and so on. The visceral reaction elicited by the right toward the term "liberal" made politicians run away from saying they are liberal, using terms such as "moderate" or "progressive", etc.

TIR, liberals are among the most moral, tolerant, and open-minded people in our society. Moral, not in the religous sense, but rather in knowing that making the tools that promote peace, health, and quality of life is far more productive human activity than making the tools of war, conflict, and killing. Thus, when 8 times as much money is allocated in our discretionary budget toward the military machine as toward health care, I view that as immoral, especially for a society that considers itself advanced or civilized.

2. As far as being viewed internationally as a huge military power, or even a 'bully'... I don't necessarily disagree that this is our common perception from the outside (although I don't think it's as dramatic as some try to make it out to be). But you know what? I'm okay with it.

A great military power has a solemn responsibility to use RESTRAINT in its exercise of power, and the heritage of this country is to promote PEACE through strength, NOT to use such military might to pick and choose where we want to throw our weight around in this world. In fact, the "Department of War" changed its name to the "Department of Defense" after WWII in order to convey the message to the world that America is not to be an aggressor nation, but rather a nation that is strong in order to defend its national interests.

I didn't read that word, "restraint", in your commentary. It's an important concept that was, frankly, forgotten or ignored by the Bush adminstration in the lead up to the Iraq war. For that reason, we stirred up a hornet's nest that has made our problems with the Middle East and radical Islam an order of magnitude worse than it would have been, had we used restraint. We have thus "bought" ourselves big problems that we will have to live with, as a country, for many decades to come, I'm afraid.

While I somewhat agree that we can exert more influence in world affairs by being a great superpower, I only agree to a point. I don't think we need to be spending in excess of $500 billion annually in a post cold-war era when we don't have any equal matches among the other nations in the world. This budget should not be a sacred cow when we still run large deficits and this country has so many other things on its plate that should be a high priority.

Also, America is only strong IN ALLIANCE with a global community of civilized nations that share our values. We shouldn't try to be ABOVE all other nations, but rather a member of the global community in advancing our interests. To spend as much as we are is counter-productive and actually provokes our adversaries. Just look at how Russia has responded of late.

[Newman]

People like Bush refuse to talk to "our adversaries." What is wrong with talk? Is the only way to solve problems thru a barrel of a gun?

I agree with Roxpert. The right wing spin machine, led by it's main spokesman Rush Limbaugh, has turned the word liberal into a dirty word. It can't be used now. The on air lefties now call ourselves "progressives." Rush swift boated the word liberal and we let him do it. That is the lesson of swift boating. You have to always fight back.

Glancing up at Roxpert's last post, the word ALLIANCE jumps out. Where is the coalition of the willing now, five years into this unfortunate occupation. WE are the coalition, alone. Poland?

If you are a Muslim in al Anbar Province, Iraq, who are you going to identify with? The heavily armed American occupation force or your Muslim brothers, who speak your language and are poor and unemployed and have the same religion and culture as you do?

That is why this war in Iraq makes no sense. It's a no win war. How can we win it? What is winning? Bush never defines it.

You kill a terrorist, then you make new terrorists because now his brother and sister and extended family are mad at the USA.

This calls for a political settlement now, not a military one. But Bush just wants to stay the course and turn it over to the next president and then blame him or Hillary for losing the war.

And most of America? They are not affected. How many people do you know who have kids going to Iraq? It's not like Vietnam with the draft and the body bags and the body counts and the constant media coverage on the all important network nightly news.

Most Americans are wondering why Lindsey Lohan can't just hire a chauffeur when she decides to go out partying. Or they are worried about their fantasy teams or their jobs or their healthcare and if they can even afford the co-pay on some procedure that their HMO did authorize!

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Newman

That is why this war in Iraq makes no sense. It's a no win war. How can we win it? What is winning? Bush never defines it.

Bush has said victory would be the creation a "stable and secure Iraq that defends itself, sustains itself, and would be an ally in the War on Terror". That's a pipedream, and now he's finding new reasons to stay since clearly the Iraq government is not working toward those goals.

In fact, Bush has "kicked the can down the road" in this fiasco so many times, I am convinced he will not materially change course as long as he's President. And he has re-defined our mission in Iraq about a dozen times. It's almost impossible for average citizens to remember that our original mission was to "disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMD", of which there were none.

Today, Bush redefined the mission once again. In a speech in Charleston, SC, Bush warns anew of terror threat - Yahoo! News .

Bush used the term "Al Qaeda" 95 times in the speech. He is once again conflating the war in Iraq, the war of HIS choosing, with the greater War on Terror. He boasts how we are pushing back Al Qaeda in Al Anbar province, yet he doesn't tell you this....

YouTube - Iraq success story's ugly side

Hawks like TheIncredibleRox haven't factored in the enormous strategic damage we have done to ourselves, as well as the compromsing of our own values, in pursuing this war. We have lost the moral high ground in this fight, and in the eyes of citizens around the world. If we are to defeat radical Islam, we need to do it as a GLOBAL effort as one member of the civilized world. Right now, we are looked at as a "rogue nation", and for that reason even some Europeans who are not the least bit aligned or sympathetic to Al Qaeda would not cry if we got our comeuppance. And that's sad since we fostered these attitudes in others, ourselves, even though we had the whole world behind us in the aftermath of 9/11. Bush SQUANDERED the opportunity to bring the world TOGETHER in a sustained effort to eradicate Al Qaeda, and took it upon himself to act as the "bully". Like TIR, I'm sure Bush was "OK with it".

[TheIncredibleRox]

Roxpert, I'm not going to get into a protracted debate here. You and I have gone down that path via email and it devolves quickly-- it doesn't need to continue, let alone be aired out. You're nipping; I'm going to resist biting back.

And most of America? They are not affected. How many people do you know who have kids going to Iraq? It's not like Vietnam with the draft and the body bags and the body counts and the constant media coverage on the all important network nightly news.

Most Americans are wondering why Lindsey Lohan can't just hire a chauffeur when she decides to go out partying.

Newman, although we're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, we have a lot of agreement here.

First and foremost, your Lohan point is as Goddamned frustrating as it is true. To me, it's the most infuriating thing about American culture; our obsession with the partying and dating habits of people who make movies or sing songs. I don't fricking get it. It would be harmless, except for the fact that it seems to dominate public discourse to the exclusion of infinitely more important matters (then again, what isn't more important than that?).

As far as the draft point, I actually break with the base of conservatives there and feel it at least has some merit. I think Charlie Rangel introduced some legislation a couple years ago in that vein; I think it made it 10 steps out of his office and was torn to shreds. I'm not advocating his specific legislation (and, in general I believe he's a complete idiot), but I can see the merit for two reasons:

1. Satisfying the current view of left-wingers regarding Iraq, it certainly gives Congress/the Executive branch much more accountability before military engagement; that is, if I'm going to ask any kid on the block (not just volunteers) to risk their safety for this nation, there will have to be little room to question the legitimacy of the cause.

2. Satisfying a complaint of the Conservative base; we don't feel the nation was properly rallied or prepared for the magnitude (in terms of cost, length) and the importance of this war. As a product of that, our domestic social responsibility and our personal priorities are out of whack. It draws back to the Lohan point; if any of us, our or sons/daughters/brothers/sisters, could have to enter that conflict at any time, we'd pay a hell of a lot more attention to it (as a result of personal vested interests--which were not well conveyed/communicated/emphasized by our leaders), at the exlcusion of high-class cokewhores. I'd appreciate that. As it stands now, it seems our discourse is limited to superficial soundbytes of so little depth that they serve to inform nobody.

And Newman, although we disagree on the merits of the conflict he's involved in, one thing is for sure; your son is a courageous and compassionate man to be risking himself when his country asked for him. I wish him the best for his personal safety and success, and will pray for both.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Roxpert, I'm not going to get into a protracted debate here. You and I have gone down that path via email and it devolves quickly-- it doesn't need to continue, let alone be aired out. You're nipping; I'm going to resist biting back.

I'm not trying to bait you, TIR. I am presenting the facts as I see them in this country right now. We are overstretched financially, misallocating scarce resources, making new enemies around the world with each passing day that we remain in Iraq, and weakening our rapid response to other crises that could develop here at home or abroad since we are bogged down in Iraq. I don't consider our offline debates as having devolved, and regret that you would PUBLICLY state so. Rather, they were incomplete discussions, as numerous links and videos I sent you were greeted with stone silence. That's fine if you don't wish to comment, but don't claim a "devolving" of discourse. In truth, there was little open dialogue.

First and foremost, your Lohan point is as Goddamned frustrating as it is true. To me, it's the most infuriating thing about American culture; our obsession with the partying and dating habits of people who make movies or sing songs. I don't fricking get it. It would be harmless, except for the fact that it seems to dominate public discourse to the exclusion of infinitely more important matters (then again, what isn't more important than that?).

I completely 100% agree. Our democracy is threatened by a news media that has become more like the National Enquirer. That's why you'd probably appreciate Al Gore's new book. He goes over just that.

As far as the draft point, I actually break with the base of conservatives there and feel it at least has some merit. I think Charlie Rangel introduced some legislation a couple years ago in that vein; I think it made it 10 steps out of his office and was torn to shreds.

There is no political will for a new draft, but I agree with you again. I think the draft should be re-instituted, with an option. Any person drafted could opt to spend two years in the army, or three years in social or community service to work in the inner cities or with the nation's underclass. That way, maybe people would develop more of an empathy for those not so fortunate.

And Newman, although we disagree on the merits of the conflict he's involved in, one thing is for sure; your son is a courageous and compassionate man to be risking himself when his country asked for him. I wish him the best for his personal safety and success, and will pray for both.

I ditto those remarks. I believe we all "support the troops", but our side wishes to support them by taking them out of harm's way in a hornet's nest where we are doing no good.

[Newman]

There was NO al qaeda in Iraq when this war started, 5 YEARS AGO.

Al qaeda central is located in Pakistan which Bush leaves alone. That's where Osama bin forgotten is. Those are the people who struck us on September 11 and we just let them be.

This is a terrible refugee situation now. And how many Iraqis have we let into our country (we caused this refugee problem). 850 so far. We have let in 25 times that number of Iranians, our supposed axis of evil enemy over that same time span. Bush's policies make no sense.

What is the policy? Give arms and ammo to Sunni al qaeda in al Anbar province (these are the people who have killed the most Americans fighting there) so they can attack Shia militias in the area?? Does that make sense?

The Iraqi legislature is going to take the whole month of August off, for vacation, while our men keep dying in their sandbox. If they don't care about their country why should we?

Is it a country? Or is it a religious civil war for control of a region, Sunni vs the majority Shia? Why has it taken so long to train these people? Marine bootcamp lasts what? 6 months? We've been training Iraqis for 5 years now. Hint: they don't want to be trained! Their loyalty is to their religion, not to their "nation". They'd just as soon let Americans die in their "war" .

[Newman]

TIR, you're young, fit, and conservative. If you believe in what you say why haven't you marched down to the Marine recruiting office in Denver and signed up?

Seriously, my twin is a conservative, my best friend is as well. Neither served in the military. Cheney had 5 deferments to keep him out of Vietnam. Bush saw no action there. Rush Limbaugh had hemmorhoids. Did Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck ever serve in the military? George Will? William F. Buckley Jr is against the war in Iraq.

If you really believe that al qaeda in Iraq (that newly formed organization) is such a threat to America, why don't you join the military, and go over there, and kill them?

Recruitment is down across the board. They are being less strict about who they take in now to our armed forces. Why? Because this war is so damn unpopular. Not that many of our people are being killed over there, compared to Vietnam. It's just that the average American remembers Vietnam and asks themselves what are we doing in Iraq? What do we hope to accomplish?

WHO is our enemy over there? Al qaeda is Sunni. Al Sadr's militia is Shia. Iran is Shia. They are supplying many of the IEDs (supposedly). If we kill everyone in Iraq and then pave over all the sand do we win?? Win what? Again, what is winning? Teaching the Shia to love the Sunni? How do we do that? My son knows only the Arabic he was taught in the last 6 weeks. Marines are taught to kill and blow things up. They are not taught how to NATION BUILD.

This needs a political solution. Not a military one. We are there now so Exxon can get its oil and so Halliburton can make it's war profiteering money. No one is working on a political solution. It's disgusting.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Newman

This needs a political solution. Not a military one. We are there now so Exxon can get its oil and so Halliburton can make it's war profiteering money. No one is working on a political solution. It's disgusting.

Absolutely correct. The revenue sharing deals the multinational oil companies have with the Iraqi government are pretty sweet, and this is tantamount to legitimized "piracy". Shouldn't Iraq's government get a larger percentage of the oil revenues in order to rebuild the country? And shouldn't that government be working with all factions in the country to distribute the revenues fairly? None of that is happening, and this sham is really just a major windfall for Big Oil............as long as they can keep the wells pumping.

What about all the missing money? Recently, nearly $300 million just vanished. Earlier, over $9 billion of reconstruction money wasn't accounted for. Either the funds have found their way into our enemies' hands, or have been secretly shuttled to Swiss bank accounts f.b.o. "BushCheneyCo, Inc.".

Hawks are naive, Newman. They are totally in lockstep with the ideological fervor of a small group of neocon right-wingers who want to blindly move forward to "victory" in Iraq, whatever that is these days. Most other conservatives, moderates, and liberals now agree that this war is a lost cause, has gone on far too long, is not progressing, and is draining our treasury while draining our military of fine young men and women.

You are right. It IS disgusting. But it's only one symptom of a larger national problem which I wrote about in my first post. Our arrogance and misplaced priorities in this country has given us a bad name around the world. This is no way to enhance our national security, MAKING enemies.

It all stems from fear and xenophobia, as one friend pointed out to me recently. Fear of the unknown if we "don't take the fight to the enemy". Xenophobia in defining America as the lone great superpower that must take on these mega-problems on our own, WITHOUT consideration of how the rest of the world, including our allies, feel about it. And WITHOUT legitimate efforts at real DIPLOMACY.......a concept foreign to most right-wing supporters of this war.

Fortunately, the views of the hawks is becoming more and more, the MINORITY view. Unfortunately, "minority rules" in this so-called "democracy" right now. The will of the people is not being addressed.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Seriously, my twin is a conservative, my best friend is as well. Neither served in the military. Cheney had 5 deferments to keep him out of Vietnam. Bush saw no action there. Rush Limbaugh had hemmorhoids. Did Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck ever serve in the military? George Will?

Conservatives don't serve? 45% of our troops consider themselves either 'conservative' or 'very conservative'--liberal/very liberal? Only 9%. 37% considered themselves moderate.

Were you in Vietnam, Newman? I know Roxpert was not. My father enlisted (enlisted-- was not drafted) at age 20, serving as MP. Very conservative man. My grandfather-- a very conservative man-- was a tank commander during World War II and earned the Silver Star--the 4th-highest military decoration-- for his courage. He served as the military governer of Milan for a year. I could go on and on-- my family has a long, proud military history. Most of my family is pretty conservative.

I've given a lot of thought, and am continuing to give thought, to the idea of joining. It's a cause I strongly believe in, and there are other benefits. It's an extremely personal decision, and not an easy one. But I'm allowed to support it even though I haven't fought in it.