Julian Assange or Bill Maher?
What happened this last week? We learned some obscure and little-understood facts about female physiology, along with the subtle classifications of rape. Curiosity took its first baby steps, and sent back some stunning pictures. The West Nile virus seems to be making a comeback, leading us to wonder if the CDC is one of those wasteful government programs. Oddly enough, Julian Assange is still at large, challenging Americans’ attention span. A judge in Lubbock, Texas is talking out of his Head. Looking ahead, Florida might receive an unexpected visitor. We all know what it means when a hurricane hits: someone’s angry. (Did you know the site for the upcoming Republican National Convention was built with a majority of government funding?)
Don’t see an article on a particular topic, but want to talk about it somewhere? This is Open Mic. Talk about whatever you want, but stay respectful.
We create a new Open Mic every week to give a clean slate, but feel free to add to this topic at any time.
Related articles
- Report: West Nile virus suspected in death of Forsyth County man (myfox8.com)
- Julian Assange Calls on US to Release Bradley Manning, Charged With Leaking Classified Info (abcnews.go.com)
filistro,
Not particularly, though the markets are probably traded lightly enough to prevent him from making serious scratch from it. It’s probably not worth the risk of exposure.
channelclemente,
Yeah, not one of his better moments, imo.
I suspect rgbact’s nostalgia for that time and place stems in part from his never having lived in it. But that’s just my speculation.
Q: How many Republicans does it take to alight on a screwbulb?
A; Sometimes, one is enough.
cc,
There are probably a number of books/articles already written of the period by authors much better than I. People who would be neutral and not have the inherent bias as would I.
Actually, though, you give me a push, because I have never actually researched or read any. Closest thing is an unauthorized autobiography of Strom Thurmond, but then that is a political history of South Carolina for the last 2/3’s of the 20th century! It will be interesting to see how much those writings to correspond with what I remember.
Just started some research for articles on the Southern Strategy. I immediately ran across a Red State article from July 11 by a Dan McLaughlin. I almost busted a gut laughing as Mr. McLaughlin was SO wrong in attempting to dismiss the idea as simply “myth”.
He dismisses Kevin Phillips outright. A big mistake! Now I don’t know who Dan McLaughlin is, but Phillips was a senior strategist in the Nixon ’68 campaign and had an inside view that Mr. McLaughlin would never! Phillips pronouncements in the early ’70’s are almost EXACTLY as I remember them, so McLaughlin is fantasizing to dismiss them.
He then goes on, much as rgbact did earlier, about Democrats in the South, Carter and Clinton and folks as Byrd and others. This TOTALLY ignores two things. Almost NOTHING is completely monolithic. And the heavy influence of the yellow dog mentality. I had MORE than a few people tell me they were voting for Wallace instead of Nixon because, “my daddy voted Democrat, my granddaddy voted Democrat, and I ain’t voting for no Republican!”. Of course, in 72 they did that exact thing.
Oh well, off for more!
I’d be fascinated to read it, Max!
I’ve noticed, political machines are pretty good at flooding the Internets with their propaganda, such that for many issues, researching them honestly becomes a challenge. It’s easy to find only one point of view on many issues. One sometimes has to go to a physical library .…
“I suspect rgbact’s nostalgia for that time and
place stems in part from his never having lived in it”.
Not sure I have nostalgia, more like me and really anyone under 70 can’t relate
to the stories of yesteryear from the gray liberals. I can’t recall much racism
in my life .….and I’ve been a conservative for going on 25 years and its
basically the same conservatism as when I started. So labeling me as a naïve
“young ‘un” who doesn’t recall history is a fail. If anything its the
grays that are living in a world that the rest of us have long moved on
from.Yes,Ronald Reagan got elected.…32 years ago now. Rush Limbaugh has had
the most popular radio program for 22 years now. The days of Nelson Rockefeller
and Dirksen are long done. The “good” conservatism ain’t coming back.
Max,
there really is no ‘from ground level’ history of the 1968 GOP convention.
You know, my my was a life long Republican, although we don’t talk much anymore. It my have something to do, since she’s been on SS for 20+ years, my greeting. Something about Bill Clinton’s legacy to you…
rgbact raises an interesting question. It used to be proverbial that one became “older and wiser” in general (although, of course, there were always exceptions (“there’s no fool like an old fool”).
Do you, the readers, think that this understanding is still good?
After all, we now know about Altzheimer’s, which, when we were young, we didn’t know — all we knew was that great grandma was senile, and got along especially great with us when we were 6 or 7.
We note that Reagan certainly didn’t grow wiser as he got older. George H. W. Bush did, it appears, and I still respect Bob Dole a lot, although I don’t always agree with him. I don’t think Nixon changed for the better or for the worse, just became more and more fixed in self-denial. McGovern certainly grew a bit wiser as he became older, and Jimmy Carter seems to have aged well. Rush Limbaugh — not so much.
Bill Clinton seems to have learned a little along the way, and I’d say George W. Bush learned a lot over the last decade. Too late, of course, as is often the case when experience is the only teacher one will learn from.
I’ll note that from my observations here, some learning has taken place. I’ve learned some things, adjusted a few of my views, although, as rgbact says, I’m a “gray” (no, not the alien, just what little is left of my hair), and us “gray” folks don’t tend to alter the habits of thought acquired over several decades.
rgbact,
#107
Which demonstrates you, not only to NOT have a historical CONTEXT, do not have the life experiences that build that respect for American recent history and, it seems from reading your comments, a lack of curiosity about HOW we got where we are now.
Because it MATTERS! Particularly so that we do NOT fall back into the nasty shit that IS a part of America’s history, that you don’t seen to know about!
Growing older but not wiser… last year mclever made a great point on this that I still remember.
We were discussing whether people grow wiser and more conservative as they age… a common belief among Republicans (and one they actually count on to reverse the demographic tsunami that is headed their way.)
In fact, a lot of studies show (I wrote an article on this at the old site) that older people actually find themselves growing more liberal in many areas. The problem in current societal perception is that young people are developing liberal ideas at a much faster rate than ever before, probably because of the high degree of communication and connectedness they now enjoy with other cultures, value systems and viewpoints. So by contrast (this was Mac’s point) they may SEEM slower and more conservative, but only in comparison to the young of today… not in comparison to their own youth.
The only reason staunch conservatives nowadays seem not to be learning much as they grow older is that many of the learners, seekers and persuadables have left the party, and among the senior cohort in the current GOP we are left with the hard core of folks who not only don’t welcome change and new knowledge, they fear and avoid it… and fight really hard against it.
rgbact has never seen with his own eyes:
white and colored water fountains (guess which was a water cooler)white and colored restroomswhite and colored waiting rooms at doctors offices and bus stations“colored window at rear” signs on restaurants“balcony reserved for colored” at movie houses
And he evidently dismisses such as “not important” because he hasn’t experienced it. But there are TENS of MILLIONS of people alive, 50 and older, who DID. And we DON’T want to see those days again!
We HEARD the “states rights” cry of the people who WANTED that status quo LESS than 50 years ago! It was their excuse to keep things as they were then. And when we see the non issue that is “Voter ID” that is effectively barring many voters; when we hear “states rights” from the VERY SAME people and/or their direct and ideological descendants, we do NOT simply take it as a given that such is an innocent call.
BTW,
all y’all please excuse the greasy letters being typed. I’ve got a few yardbirds in the smoker for a thang this evening. I usually throw the necks, hearts, livers and gizzards on the top rack. They can come out after an hour and tasted (for QC reasons only) as finger snacks. With a dry cheddar and a syrah, of course!
rgbact,
Lee Atwater (SC and Bush I campaign manager ’88) said it best:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger. ”
So there IS a basis for the skepticism about “conservatives” today.
Yes Max, but that was ‘way back in 1988. Stop living in the past.
“The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.” – William Faulkner
I wasn’t all that interested in history when I was a kid either. But I had a great high school history teacher, who gave me a book to read, “The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody,” by Will Cuppy. Then I started reading Richard Armour’s history books (they all start with “It All Started With …”)
But seriously, a conservative who claims to respect the Constitution, and who knows nothing about the era in which the Constitution was written, is, at best, fooling himself. You really don’t care about something you refuse to learn about.
Max–
Yeah,and given Biden’s “gonna put ya’ll back in chains”, I’d say Dems
know the Atwater playbook quite well,and something tells me they didn’t just start reading it in 2012. Even Charlie Rangel admitted Biden
was pushing the slavery angle,even though the Obama team plays dumb.
When a conservative is quoting Charlie Rangel as a resource to discount Lee Atwater, you know his powder is low. If you’re going to pull that arrow from Rangels quiver, what about…
“George Bush is our ‘Bull’ Connor, … And if that doesn’t get to you, nothing will be able to get to you, and it’s time for us to be able to say that we’re sick and tired and we’re fired up and we’re not going to take it anymore!”
You have to take the cob with the corn with good ole Charlie. You agree.
I guess we’re beyond all that race stuff.
Its been at least a day since the Republican nominee pandered to the racist liars of his base. Its been, what, a couple of weeks since a white supremacist killed several folks at that temple in Wisconsin. And its been several months since that teenager was killed shortly after his murderer called him a fuckin’ coon. Yeah, I can’t recall much racism in my lifetime either.You know, I expect my father-in-law would probably agree with RGB even though just last week he used a racist label for an east indian workman who came by…
And.… I note rgbact is again involved in tu quoque arguments in order to change the subject, instead of addressing the topic.
But at least he agrees now, despite is previous protestations to the contrary, that there are indeed dog-whistle references to prejudice and discrimination floating around. He just wants his team to be able to pretend they’re not doing it.
That is, after all, what the Republican “Medicare” argument is about, and the voter suppression, and the birthers, and nearly everything out of Rush Limbaugh’s mouth. It’s all dog-whistle politics, and I expect to see a lot more of it before November.
rgbact,
Perhaps because you lack imagination. You and I are pretty close in age. I can easily relate to those stories.
It’s the same as Gingrich’s vision, yes. What may come as a surprise to you is that his vision was actually a minority vision in the party at the time.
filistro,
Absolutely. And we don’t even need to use inference to tell us this. Those very learners, seekers, and persuadables are telling us that this is so. In so many words. And the rest of the party bids them good riddance, calling them RINOs.
We probably would have had more defections to the Democratic Party if Reid hadn’t so thoroughly messed up Specter’s defection.
Neil Armstrong, We will always remember you and honor your memory and outstanding achievements. I’d say Rest in Peace, but it’s more likely you, or your spirit, are soaring on into some new adventure beyond our imagination.
Two major Armstrong stories in one week.
“Fair and balanced news coverage”… or what Doc calls “on-the-one-handism”
ABC Nightly News:
“Disturbing reports are arising about Congressman X (Republican) who was seen this afternoon running naked through the streets near his suburban home. The congressman, reportedly drenched in blood, brandished an axe and screamed “Helter skelter!” as he ran. The dismembered body of the congressman’s wife was later found in the couple’s backyard under the barbecue. (Also behind the shed, and in several parts of the lilac hedge.) Police are investigating. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, when questioned about the incident, said, “Well of course I can’t comment because I don’t know all the details. But those are probably not actions I would have chosen for myself.”
However, certainly not all bad behavior is on the right-hand side of the ledger. Congressman Y (Democrat) was seen this afternoon in a downtown park, tugging sharply on the leash of his beagle pup to prevent it from getting into an altercation with a much larger dog. “It was, like, totally gross,” says Wendy Gibson, aged 14, an eyewitness to the event. “You could almost, like, hear the poor little thing whimpering, sorta.” Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan declined to comment on the specific incident, saying “We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s plan for our lives. But you know, I do have to ask…abusing Snoopy? Is that the kind of behavior Americans really want from their congressional representatives?”
Meanwhile chairman Reince Priebus announced that the RNC is spearheading a new charitable initiative called “Saving Puppies From Hideous Torture.” Donations of five to fifty dollars are being gratefully accepted.
And now, moving on to some other stories we’re covering tonight… ”
Regarding the recent discussion on the Caterpillar thread:
dawolf,
On the contrary — the United States spends a normal amount of money on its military, proportional to the size of its economy. Europe (which you take as the “whole rest of the world” for some reason) has in fact undertaken a massive, unilateral program of disarmament since the end of the Cold War which currently leaves them vulnerable, in the event of a withdrawal of American support, to aggression from a much-weaker Russia — which I intend to write an article on! This on top of the disgraceful situation during the Cold War, when much of Europe still spent anemically on their armed forces despite facing a clear and present danger from the Soviet Union. Long story short: Europe is safe because American taxpayers subsidize your defense to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Furthermore, I reject your figures. Doing an apples to apples comparison of spending on the Iraq War between the US and the UK, American spending in Iraq was about $800 billion dollars. Considering that for most of the war the US had thirty times more troops there than Britain and taking your vague figures for British spending as a fact, well, the figures are almost identical per-soldier.
Max,
You’re moving the goalposts. My solution is pretty clear — I think we should spend 5% of GDP on defense and keep on keeping on. What’s yours?
shortchain,
I support your initiatives and reject the notion that raiding 20% of the federal budget to pay for them is a good idea.
Monotreme,
Leaving aside your bizarre comparison of the current situation of the United States and Imperial Japan, I note several things here.
America’s borders are defended in the mountains of Afghanistan, in Eastern Europe and the Taiwan Strait. The notion that we can hunker down behind in the continental United States and watch the world burn around us is, in fact, an intensely right-wing concept. And it’s ridiculous. It will not lead to peace: it will lead to war, as the thugs of the world flex their muscles unchecked. And it is not written in the Constitution, nor has a policy of American neutrality and isolationism been advisable for a hundred years.
“Normal amount” based on what measure? Not historical — until after WW2, nations didn’t have significant permanent standing armies at all. Not “normal” by the measures of other modern nations. You say yourself:
… which is another way of saying the United States spends an abnormal amount, because our allies have seen the wisdom of spending far less. In fact, you say, this was true even “during the Cold War, when much of Europe still spent anemically on their armed forces despite facing a clear and present danger from the Soviet Union.” Which means that ever since WW2, America has spend an abnormal amount on the military, as compared to our allies.
But what of our enemies? It is frequently claimed that the Soviet Union collapsed, in large measure, because they spent so much on the military, and their economy could not maintain that level of non-civilian spending. This is the way many modern conservatives claim Reagan “won” the Cold War. I personally feel this is, at best, an oversimplification — but if it is true, it most certainly is a warning against continuing to spend such abnormal percentages of our limited funds on military expenditures.
If we begin to spend merely sane amounts on the military, it is not necessary to be “neutral” or “isolationist.” Certainly European countries are not “neutral” or “isolationist.” Neither are Canada, Australia, Japan, or any other modern nation.
We are wasting enormous amounts on military hardware and technology that we not only will never use, but that we hope we never use. G. W. Bush proved the insanity of having an enormous military just laying around, begging to be used. He used it.
We’d be far better off directing that enormous wealth into our domestic economy, rebuilding infrastructure, investing in some massive future projects on the order of the interstate highway system. We need to rein in this massive, hungry beast, and put it under some sane controls.
@filistro
You have captured the tu quoque false equivalence culture of the media — and of Republicanism — admirably. Well done.
It is this attempt at even-handedness that leads to the effective right-wing bias of the media. In thier effort to be “fair”, they present the crazies ideas of modern Teapers with the same straight faces and sens of gravity as they would a speech by the President. When they have to report one of the outright lies committed daily by the Romney campaign, they make no effort to reveal that these are lies — they will only say, for example, “some Democrats claim…” And so on.
It is this false equivalence, in an effort to pretend “everyone does it,” in a desperation to not seem biased, that they wind up committing bias py pretending the lies and dirty tricks and distortions and actual insanity of the modern Republican Party has some sort of comparable balance in the Democrats.
They aren’t willing to say, “Yet another right-wing nut has come out denying the rock-solid reality of global climate change science…” but only, “Some scientists dispute Senator Dumhead’s contention that all we need do is wait for winter, or maybe for the next sunspot cycle. But the Ostrich Institute has at Natural Gas University its own study supporting Dumhead…”
When you elevate lies and crazy juice to the same level as data and sober thought, then that is bias.
Armchair Warlord says,
Thanks for making my point for me.
Re: the Empire State shootings.
The fact that trained police officers were responsible for all 9 civilians shot kinda puts the lie to the idea of everyone carrying guns to protect us all from deranged lone gunmen. If the police can’t emulate Clint Eastwood, how could a public citizen be any more accurate?
Rose,
That is a great point. I wonder what would have happened if we’d had a couple of dozen armed tourists in the immediate area? How many more dead, how many more wounded? How many of the armed tourists would have been killed by the police?
Fortunately, we didn’t find out. Not this time, anyway.
rose and dc,
These cops had a person draw and start firing DIRECTLY AT THEM, fer chrissakes! It is WELL known that stray shots are a fact in “stressful” situations!
So how many people would you prefer the original shooter to have hit with HIS gun and HIS bullets when he was being confronted? Just leave him alone? He’s ALREADY SHOT someone!
It is extremely regrettable that passersby were hit. One should ALWAYS determine what is behind the target when assessing whether to fire. But neither can one JUST IGNORE an active, mortal threat.
Once again, for your information (as y’all seen to wish to completely ignore it), with the police on scene (AS THEY WERE!!!), no armed civilian should EVER draw. Period. Best way to get oneself killed. Civilian self protection is for when there is NO OTHER protection (police or other security) is available.
But, so it seems and by logical extension, you don’t mind at all some idiot play as though he were shooting ducks in a carnival gallery with REAL people and REAL bullets, without opposition, until (s)he runs out of ammo!
Yes, the cops did what they were supposed to do. They reacted properly and did what was needed.
And these trained cops, who were probably excellent shooters, still wounded nine innocent bystanders.
Since you say, “It is WELL known that stray shots are a fact in “stressful” situations!” we can certainly expect that when untrained shooters are also on the scene, even more people will be injured or killed.
I certainly agree. When there are armed police present, no armed civilians should ever draw. (I’d go farther, and say they shouldn’t ever draw when armed police are not present, either. In fact, armed civilians should never be present on the street.)
Do you imagine that when armed police are present, no armed civilians will ever draw? When a perp draws a gun, when bullets start flying, do you imagine that panicked, armed but untrained civilians will never pull out their own guns and start firing?
AW,
Nope, not moving goalposts at all. If you see it that way, please explain how.
“5% of GDP”
Please, by what strategic plan do you derive that 5% number? I mean other than it’s a nice round number and not far off from where we are currently.
I would prefer spending an amount that would allow the United States the ability to face a REALISTIC threat, NOT fight every possible and conceivable boogieman. That IN CONJUNCTION with requiring ALL of our allies to provide similar defense budget FOR THEMSELVES. A general rule of thumb (subject to modification) would be the sum total of the defense budgets of the top three most likely threats to the US, plus some percent (say 10). That would allow for strategic planning with a realistic, not conceivable, end.
OMG!!!
Our talk of the Southern Strategy and my mention of Kevin Phillips and just now Chris Hayes had a clip of a Huntley and Brinkley report from 22 July 1969 with Kevin Phillips defining the very thing!!!
Wow!
dc,
“ I certainly agree. When there are armed police present, no armed civilians should ever draw. Do you imagine no armed civilians will ever draw? When bullets start flying, when a perp draws a gun, do you imagine that panicked, untrained civilians will never pull out their guns and start firing? ”
Listen to your argument. It is the SAME LOGIC (essential absolutism) by which AW justifies the massive defense budget! It is the SAME LOGIC ( conceived by humans, thus: human from conception) as the right-to-lifers use to forbid ANY abortion. It is the SAME LOGIC (even ONE fraudulent vote . . ) …!
You are much wiser than to attempt that, and you do on every other subject.
And besides, there is no factual basis that such is happening.
My quote of the day, from Charles P. Pierce, National Treasure
”
Competent, intelligent self-government is the finest product of a free people. It provides the context within which our highflown ideas become real. It illustrates the manuscripts of our founding documents. It lays out the detailed maps for the pursuit of happiness. We are all invested in it because we all are, or damned well ought to be, invested in the work of creating it. It cannot go rogue. If our self-government fails us, it is because we have listened to the fundamental heresy that our national government is something alien to us.”
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/hurricane-isaac-2012–12058876#ixzz24fHGOoHj
Appropos of the day, that “one small step” is one of the greatest of our highflown ideas (who’s flown higher? except those on Apollo 8 and 10 who passed over the dark side of the moon), which, without our self government (your tax dollars at work) could never have happened.
DrFunGuy,
The moon landing only occurred after an orbit or thirty around the moon (they passed around the far side many times). So — no, nobody has ever flown higher.
AW,
from #134:
China — $115B 2%GDP
Russia — 62B 3.9%GDP
Iran — 8B 2%GDP
Total = $185B
Current US = $700B 4.7%GDP
The average nation spends roughly 2%GDP on defense. And you want to spend 2.5X that?
$185B x 1.1 = $203B (Total of top 3 threats + 10%)
$700B/203 = 3.45X THAT number!
So let’s take the average of the top 3 GDP spending (2+4+2 = 8; 8⁄3 = 2.67%GDP. Round up to 3% (2.67 * 1.1 = 2.94). $15 Trillion US GDP * 0.03 = $450B defense spending.
These are reflective of realistic (not conceived) threat fighting needs (not military-industrial combine desires).
I would submit that, as defense is a necessity, like food or shelter is to a family, the wealthier a nation is, the smaller percentage of its budget defense should be. To argue otherwise is to place defense into the category of either “investment” or “entertainment”.
While I might agree that defense spending is an “investment”, I would argue that many other expenditures would be better “investments” — energy independence being a biggy.
AW is free to make the argument that defense spending should be considered “entertainment” if he wishes.
Max,
Using your own suggestion and reference to the CIA world factbook, by calculation from our own three most dangerous threats.
China: GDP @ PPP of 11.44 trillion, 4.3% military spending = $491 billion
Russia: GDP @ PPP of 2.414 trillion, 3.9% military spending = $94 billion
Pakistan: GDP @ PPP of 498 billion, 3.0% military spending = $15 billion
This is exactly $600 billion (some coincidence). Now let us add 10% for $660 billion.
$660 billion is well above the current base budget for the armed forces, pre-BCA. IIRC, it’s about $100 billion more. Do you support an increase in the budget?
By the way, I note that we currently spend about 4% of GDP on the military, well within the range presented by threat countries. We do, after all, have to be a threat to them. I derived my 5% figure from likely spending increases likely to meet all modernization and force sizing requirements to counter these three bad fellows effectively, which we aren’t really doing at this time.
shortchain,
Defense spending has actually been at an historically low percentage of GDP recently (it was at 9% during Vietnam, for instance). The US economy is so large, however, that the dollar value is quite high.
dc,
This was only true in America, to our detriment during the World Wars. With the expansion of state finances, professional armies became the norm in the early 1700s and were further supplemented with conscription and the creation of enormous standing reserves during the time of Napoleon.
Apparently out allies were okay with communism then, because they sure as hell wouldn’t have held up the Soviet Army very long.
As I pointed out earlier, military spending in this country is at a historic low in comparison to the vast American GDP. Which really gets my hackles up when people attempt to claim that it is excessive regardless.
Weakness invites aggression.
How so? I’m missing it. All I’m doing is asking whether it’s likely that armed and untrained citizens would panic and open fire in such situations. I’m not asking anyone to spend any money on preventing it. I’m only asking whether you (or anyone else) thinks it’s likely for an armed and untrained citizen to harm or kill more innocent bystanders.
Let’s hope there never is. I think you can agree with me on that.
How much of a threat we are to other nations cannot be calculated through the percent of our GDP that is spent on the military. It is gauged based on what our military consists of. If we had a way to satisfy our military needs by spending 0.01% of our GDP on the military, then that’s what we should do. If 5% or 10% expenditure resulted in waste and cardboard tanks, then we should not be doing it.
The fact is, no one is a military threat to the United States. No one. We could spend a mere fraction of what we spend now, and still, no one would be a threat to the United States.
We certainly don’t need to be spending more than the next seventeen nations combined (most of whom are our allies). That’s simply insane.
AW,
I’m not sure that your adjusted numbers add up. Please send your source data. Mine is from SIPRI 2012. http://milexdata.sipri.org/
They are too distant from one another. Thus my asking.
dc,
The question as you posed was as absolutist as theirs.
Nonsense. There was a lot of militarist propaganda at the time, talking about how Soviet tanks were only, what, like twelve hours from Paris. The problem with that was, the average Soviet tank couldn’t run more than three or four hours without breaking down.
There’s a reason why our European allies didn’t feel it necessary, even during the height of the Cold War, to spend a whole hell of a lot on the military. The Soviets were mostly bluster, and their industry and technology were sub-standard. They were a threat mostly to themselves. They couldn’t even afford to train their troops with live ammo — and if they had given them live ammo, many would have revolted against the central government.
The Soviet Union was a very loose confederation of dozens of nation-states and thousands of tribes who didn’t want to be together. Had they started a war, Soviet troops would have been as likely to use the opportunity to form independent nations as to obey Moscow’s orders.
The whole “communist threat” thing was little more than hogwash propaganda used to enrich the military-industrial complex.
@AW
“Europe (which you take as the “whole rest of the world” for some reason) “
I listed 4 other countries, specifically the UK, France, Russia, and China. First, they are (clearly) not all in Europe: (you might want to locate China on a map). Or, for that matter, your idea that Russia is a european country (it isn’t, its eurasian)
It was not by chance that I chose those 4 countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
lists these other 4 countries as the 2–5 of the worlds expenditures on military.
“Considering that for most of the war the US had thirty times more troops there than Britain and taking your vague figures for British spending as a fact, well, the figures are almost identical per-soldier.”
I specified Iraq + Afghanistan. I’ve looked into it a bit more and it looks like the numbers for combined vary between about 10–1 and 20–1. Iraq alone does get something like 30–1. And given that it’s two wars not one, no the figures do not work out identically at all. Sorry, vague figures are the only ones I could find.
@Max
“These cops had a person draw and start firing DIRECTLY AT THEM, fer chrissakes! It is WELL known that stray shots are a fact in “stressful” situations!”
As I recall, after the batman shootings you argued that people carrying guns in the audience would have put him down. I think we can safely deduce from this that people shooting back at him would have had a significant chance of extra people being shot.
filistro,
This is for you. I know how much you love discussions of the historical background that has produced our current political environment. (Hint: it goes back further than you think.)
Max,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html
I did derivations based on the percentage GDP figure under the military tab and total economic size figures under the economy tab. Given the Chinese are widely believed to consistently under-report their real military expenditures I’m not particularly surprised there’s a discrepancy between your figure and mine.
@Max
“They are too distant from one another. Thus my asking.”
AW is using the CIA world factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
The main difference is that he’s not using GDP, he’s using GDP under something called Purchasing Power Parity, plus he uses a 2006 figure for % of gdp spent on military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
I don’t know whether that’s relevant when talking about military hardware or not, not my area of expertise.
He then talks about a “base budget” being smaller, when he isn’t using such figures for the other countries. Wrong, IMO.
Using the first source I can find, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/17/military-spending-countries-list
China $143, Russia $72, Pakistan $5ish. Also has China’s % at 2.1% of GDP.
So I suspect that’s the main point of disagreement — is China actually 2.1%, or 4.5%? Do you trust an independent source from 2011, or the CIA figures (who may know much better, but equally may be biased to make the figure as high as possible) from 2006?
Yeah yeah yeah, militarists always say that. And they always claim that “weakness” is what we are now, and if we only spend more, we’d no longer be weak.
Anyone who pretends that the United States has been “weak” at any time in the last 70 years — or would be “weak” if we accounted for only, say, 20% of the planet’s military spending rather than nearly 50% — is trying to sell you something odious.
@AW
“As I pointed out earlier, military spending in this country is at a historic low in comparison to the vast American GDP. Which really gets my hackles up when people attempt to claim that it is excessive regardless. “
Off the top of my head, I’d guesstimate that military spending (as a percentage of GDP) falls into something like the following
Before WW1: lower than now
WW1: higher than now
Interwar years: lower than now
WW2: higher than now
Cold War: about the same as now
Post Cold War, until Bush: lower than now
Would that be about right?
da,
“ I think we can safely deduce from this that people shooting back at him would have had a significant chance of extra people being shot. ”
Two things:
1) The latest reports are that the shooter DID NOT fire any shots at the police, but had pulled his gun out of the bag and aimed at them. I stand corrected.
2) NOT a “safe” deduction. The two scenarios are completely different!!!! A crowded mid-town outdoors location, bystanders are 360 deg. around the “target”. That just about guarantees that someone innocent will be shot! A theater location with the “target” standing in front of the house with only a movie screen in the extended line of fire.
And BTW, there have been more than one publicized cases of civilians using deadly force to stop criminals, in public locations, just in the month or so since we discussed this earlier.
For a TOTAL of ZERO bystanders accidentally hit.
Shoots holes in your assumptions.
Is not using PPP as WELL as % GDP a double correction that throws off the accuracy of the comparison? One or the other I would believe.
Thanks AW. I’ll be back!
da, I generally accept the CIA Factbook numbers at face value. I have no issue with AW’s use of them. Beats hell outta the stuff GROG, parksie and rgbact generally use for “sources”!
Max, I carefully didn’t use absolutes. What I said was, a significant chance. Surely you can’t argue with that and say there was no significant chance?
changing the topic completely
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/08/romney-defends-swiss-bank-account-133236.html?hp=l6
““Well, first of all, there was no reduction, not one dollar reduction in taxes by virtue of having an account in Switzerland or a Cayman Islands investment,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in a ‘“Fox News Sunday” interview. “The dollars of taxes remained exactly the same. There was no tax savings at all.””
The words out of my mouth — literally: “Bollocks. Absolute bollocks”.
Other reactions?
shortchain, thanks for that link! You’re right, I love stuff like that.
The idea that marine deposits laid down in the late Cretaceous period are responsible for some of today’s American voting patterns… well, you’re right, that’s definitely taking the long view. I find it oddly comforting. If we can blame it on the Cretaceous, it makes me less angry at Republicans… and more tranquilly inclined to believe it may all just work out in the end after all. Why… give them another hundred million years and Congress will probably be an efficient and productive body!
But you know…the thing I found really stunning about that Census Bureau map is how widely distributed are people of German origin. On a county-by population basis they outnumber everybody else by practically an order of magnitude. I just wouldn’t have expected that, somehow.
Though I do know there are still places deep in the Texas Hill Country where you can suddenly feel like you’ve driven straight into Bavaria.
filistro,
Germans, unlike the Irish or other ethicities, typically didn’t huddle together when they came over. Part of it was that the good land was pretty much all taken by that time, and what was left was highly fragmented.
And another part of it was that a lot of them couldn’t stand each other (ask a
German about the Schwabisch sometime, or a west German about
Prussians).
shortchain… when was the major period of German immigration? The big waves of Irish came after the potato famine, and the Brits when the Industrial Revolution destroyed the old tenant-farmer system of agriculture… but I’m not sure when the majority of all those German farming people arrived.
filistro,
Most of the Germans came starting in 1870. But I don’t think it was a huge influx, more of a slower, but longer, surge. My German (Schwabisch, actually) ancestors came about 1870.
Quite a few Germans came by way of Russia, and finally made it to the west just before WWI put an end (temporarily, at least) to large-scale immigration from Europe.
shortchain… I’m curious what social, political or economic forces precipitated this German surge. Why, for instance, was there such heavy in-migration from Germany and almost none from France or other central European countries?
(I must have been daydreaming or writing poetry in history class when this was being discussed.…
)
“
Though I do know there are still places deep in the Texas Hill Country where you can suddenly feel like you’ve driven straight into Bavaria. “
Ja. Und New Braunfels liegt in der Mitte.
Starting in 1845.
fili,
I was struck by that, too.
If I recall correctly I have at least one Bavarian draft-dodger from this little showdown in my ancestry.
AW,
Yup, one of my ancestors was a draft-dodger from the same event. The story goes that he was drafted into one army to fight the other side, which won and controlled the area where his farm was, then, the next year he was drafted by the current owners to protect it from the invaders, who overran it.
After a few cycles (the number depended on how many drinks the teller had had) he emigrated.
A Shooting on the First Day of School in Baltimore
Can we rationally talk about more effect gun control legislation yet? Please?
Absolutely!
Please make your suggestions for that legislation.
Please also keep those suggestions within the bounds of current 2nd Amendment latitudes per SCOTUS rulings.
And may I add: Since possession of a handgun by a person of high school age, possession of a handgun on school property and using a handgun in an assault on another person are ALL already illegal, how would you guarantee an individual would comply with your proposed legislation? Also, assuming the known facts in the Baltimore case to be true, how would you prosecute and what punishment would you impose, on that shooter for his action?
Just read the info about the Baltimore student. It seems the shooter used a shotgun, not a handgun.
Max, your point is.…?
Correcting the implication in the earlier comment about “handgun”. Additionally, in many states, under-21’s can legally own long guns, unlike handguns. The rest of the statement about the MD shooting would apply.
@filistro
Germans have been immigrating to this continent since the 1600’s. Some of the earliest settlers in Jamestown (1608) were German, and the first Governor in New Amsterdam (1625?) was actually a German. We’ve all heard the story of the Mayflower, but some of those pilgrims escaping religious persecution in the late 1600’s were also German, and that influx to the Americas increased when Protestants were expelled from Germany in 1731(?). Many Germans came here as missionaries, agreeing to proselytize for 4–7 years in exchange for free passage. As part of their mission, they pursued the frontiers, perhaps striving to reach those at the most savage fringes of society. And some of them just preferred living the Amish or Mennonite lifestyle, necessarily away from the big, bad industrial cities, which also pushed them farther west than most of the contemporary English and French settlers, especially in the northeast. It’s from those early German immigrants that Americans get their tradition of a Christmas Tree.
Because of that strong pattern of immigration, a significant number residents in the colonies pre-Revolution were German, which perhaps gave rise to the historical myth that German almost became the “official” language of the fledgling United States, supposedly failing by a single vote. There was a law circulating in 1795 to require all laws to be printed in both German and English, but it was never actually voted on.
(Personal note: My paternal ancestors were pre-Revolutionary German immigrants in the early 1700’s, which is why I bothered to learn anything about the history of German immigration.
)
Max,
First and foremost, every time recently that there’s been a widely-publicized shooting, there’s been some interest in talking again about gun legislation. But we keep hearing that this isn’t the time to talk about it. I’m waiting to see when the time is.
But put that aside. The first thing I’d do is repeal the Second Amendment, so that it no longer is an impediment to even talking. But of course, that won’t happen, so I’ll put my Dream World aside. Here are a few suggestions, in random order. Pick and choose whichever you like, and let’s do it.
I’m not saying we can prevent any specific form of outrageous shooting. I’m saying we should have some sane regulation. Maybe we should make it at least as hard to buy a gun as Republicans want to make it to vote.
We should outlaw clips with over 10 rounds. We should outlaw all semi-automatic weapons, and anything that looks or works like one. Start there, anyway.
If a minor (someone under eighteen) is caught in an unsupervised situation with a firearm, the parents should face criminal felony charges.
Manufacturers of firearms should be fined whenever a shooting occurs, and forced to pay compensatory and punitive damages to victims and survivors, just as with any other dangerous product. If they persist in supplying dangerous products that kill and maim people, their CEO’s should face criminal charges.
The right to bear arms need not be infringed in any way; but it should be illegal (or at least, highly regulated) to manufacture or sell them (as it is with heroin or fertilizer bombs). Or maybe we could allow guns to be available by prescription, as with dangerous drugs (which are usually not designed specifically to kill people).
Licensing of firearms should be done by the police, with mandatory tests and education far more strict than is done with driving. After all, cars are not intended to kill people; guns are. Make damn sure a gun license means something more than that you’ve paid a fee and filled out a form.
Make it illegal to sell guns at gun shows, instead of making it simple to circumvent all gun laws at gun shows.
Make ammunition prohibitively expensive. Federal taxes can help. Use the money to pay medical expenses for shooting victims.
Require all new firearms to have fingerprint ID controls, so they cannot be fired except by the person on file as the owner. Oh yes, keep a federal file of all guns and all owners (clearly, this will take a long time to compile, but start with all new guns).
NRA members will scream at any of these laws. Too fricking bad. They want to own products whose only purpose is to kill. They can shut the hell up.
dc,
Knowing that your eventual goal is to ban firearms in America, the time to talk about gun control isn’t now. It’s never.
That’s not my goal. The goal is to make people responsible for manufacturing or owning guns, and for causing the damage they cause by doing so.
dc,
I would be adamantly opposed to setting the precedent of removal of acknowledged constitutional freedoms by a repeal of the 2nd. Slippery slope. Any argument you could possibly make could be used, perhaps more effectively, by the anti-choicers. There has NEVER been an amendment that TOOK AWAY a constitutionally recognized freedom.
I have no problem with limiting magazine capacity. Ten is a reasonable number. For those who want to go and bang away, larger clips could be available only to authorized shooting ranges for rent.
The issue of parents being held criminally responsible for a child’s actions, that is an issue that may present problems.
Manufacturer’s responsibility ONLY applies for DEFECTIVE products. A non-starter. And, frankly, I believe heroin, as the case with most all drugs, should be legal.
I have no problem with reasonable educational and testing requirements for gun licensing, but not punitatively so.
Gun show sales should be at the same standard as dealers and private sales could also require paperwork be returned to authorities showing transfer.
Ammunition could be stamped with traceable infromation.
#176, you are not being honest. The fact of the 2nd Amendment repeal you desire demonstrates you actual, final goal. Sorry.
The majority of your agreements and disagreements are reasonable. We could probably find workable compromises. Too bad you and I aren’t in charge of the nation.
Not true. Sorry. My point in repealing the Second is that we no longer need a citizen militia. In fact, a militia today is counterproductive and actually pretty dangerous. (Most of the people in today’s “militia movements” should live in rubber rooms and be nourished on a strict diet of anti-psychotic drugs.)
There may be valid reasons for owning firearms, but a “well-regulated militia” is no longer “necessary to the security of a free State.” The Amendment has long outlived its usefulness.
If you want to come up with some other justification for a right to “keep and bear arms,” then go for it, and suggest an amendment to replace the Second. But as it exists (and since the first phrase of the amendment is ignored anyway), the Second serves only the purpose of shutting down conversation. It needs to be scrapped.
While this is true, I suggest we need an additional classification of legal responsibility for products that kill when they are NOT defective. Either that, or we need to start selling cyanide and nerve gas at your local convenience store. Maybe land mines and hand grenades.
Where do we draw the line for products whose sole reason for existence is to kill? I truly don’t know. But I think we need to approach the question of how to regulate them a lot better than we’ve been doing.
Meanwhile, criminals 0–3 against legal CHL holders in recent confrontations with ZERO bystanders shot.
da, hope this shows that your scenario is way off the mark.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13526604-armed-customer-shoots-dollar-store-robber-killing-him?lite
dc,
“ If you want to come up with some other justification for a right to “keep and bear arms,” then go for it, and suggest an amendment to replace the Second. ”
Not my responsibility, as I am not the one desiring a change in the Amendment. And YOUR argument is ONLY applicable to the first clause of the Amendment, What you argue (“we no longer need a citizen militia. ”) would lead to an Amendment that would read simply: “The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”. Because that Right preexisted the Constitution, and the Amendment recognizes that the militia would be drawn from the already armed citizenry. Which then would be properly trained and utilized as a “well-regulated” adjunct to the regular military.
I would suggest you avoid ab adsurdum arguments. Puts you in the tinfoil hat territory!
Not really. If there is no reason to maintain a right to keep and bear arms, then there is no reason to maintain that right. If you delete the first clause, then the amendment serves no purpose, and we might as well scrap it.
What pre-existed the Constitution was the fact that a bunch of people had guns.
The Second is very clear on the reason for the legal right to bear arms — “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” If a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State, then the need for the right has gone away.
That doesn’t mean we should outlaw guns. You don’t have a constitutional right to keep and bear chocolate, but I see no reason to outlaw chocolate. Nor do I see a reason to have a constitutional amendment to create and protect a right to chocolate. Similarly, I see no reason to have a constitutional amendment having to do with firearms, since a) the need that the original framers had in mind is not longer of value, and b) the continuing existence of the amendment is causing active harm with little or no benefit.
Now, as I said, you may see some other good reason to keep and bear arms, and even to have a constitutionally-justified right regarding arms. I’m open to hearing what you think can substitute for the need to have a well-regulated militia to protect our state (since that’s no longer needed).
dc,
Wrong. The second part stands alone quite nicely. There are no “reasons” given for any other rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Only that those rights are fundamental and thus protected.
Our source of disagreement is that you feel that the first clause is the raison d’être for the second clause, and I see the second clause as the source of personnel for the first.
Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15–16; give the basis of the militia, the rules for it’s use, and the delegation of it’s oversight. It is NOT the 2nd Amendment that does so, therefore not the “reason” for the Right to bear Arms. The 2nd only gives the authorization for where the militia is to be drawn. Again, the already armed citizenry. That pre-existing right is “not to be infringed”, not the regulation of the militia!
If you are going to move the needle, you need to put forth an argument that has a more substantial legal basis than “IMHO”, for repealing a constitutionally recognized, fundamental right.
Even the anti-choicers are using the Declaration, the Preamble and the 14th Amendment to begin making a basic argument for taking away the right of a woman to decide for herself her reproductive choice, with a Personhood Amendment.
You will have to do better than that, not only to convince me, but 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and the Legislatures of the States!
Max, I’ve already acknowledged that the Second isn’t going to be repealed. The NRA has too much power.
And I’m not using “IMHO”. I’m simply quoting the Second. It says what is says. The construction of the sentence is of the form, “Since A, therefore B.” You are claiming, in your opinion, that it says “A is so, because of B.” However, there really is no way to make the grammar of the Second agree with your interpretation. A simple and straightforward, literal reading is that the right is being granted on the condition and reason of a well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state. There really is no other sensible way to interpret that sentence.
dc,
This is where we fundamentally disagree and you do not have legal precedent behind that position. You are also overlaying today’s grammar and syntax over that from 200 years ago. That is not a proper thing to do, as such has changed over the years and even spelling is not always the same. In this case, your analysis is NOT historically correct. People have been arguing over the “order” of the construction for almost as long as the Bill of Rights has has existence.
Even though I have said that it is not my responsibility to give a rationale for maintaining the status quo, but yours, since you need a legal and logical argument to CHANGE it, I will state a basis for the right to bear arms.
The Declaration gives the first basis in that we have the right to “life, liberty …”. In the Preamble of the Constitution, we have “… secure the Blessings of Liberty …”. Inherent in life and liberty is one’s continued existence. Maintaining one’s existence can require self-protection. “Self” being the operative word. As the FF knew, and we see everyday, the protection provided by the State is limited and not omni-present, thus one must be prepared, if they wish, to protect themselves, their families and homes.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees that right to life, through self-protection, shall not be infringed.
And criminal and civil law makes provision for dealing with the instances where improper use of deadly force occurs.
Max, it distresses and alarms me considerably that in your post #180, you report with apparent approval (even a bit of gloating) on an incident where an armed customer in a store shot and killed a person attempting a robbery.
Does this mean you no longer believe in the American justice system and Bill of Rights, and have no faith in due process? Do you really believe armed robbery should be punished by summary execution?
It may be deeply exciting and satisfying (for some) to blow away a bad guy who is in the process of committing a bad act. But I truly fear what will happen to America when/if the rule of law is replaced by raw vigilante justice.
fili,
No, that was not my intent. You will note that I directed than comment to da. In #149, da had extrapolated the fact that 9 people had been hit (2 with bullets and 7 with shrapnel) due to police firing, into lesser trained civilians hitting people not intended. I had rebutted the differences, giving two recent cases, and this is a third, where civilians used deadly force and no bystanders were hit. In this 3rd case, friends of the shooter stated that he did a lot of target shooting and expressed concern over how he would deal with having had to shoot a person.
Do not take my reporting of such instances as in ANY way diminishing the fact that someone’s child, spouse, parent has been killed, even in a situation where they were doing wrong. I do not. Nor should you think that a person doing the shooting seldom or never has severe remorse and deep conflict from having taken another’s life, even though justified under the law. MOST people have those feelings, and it’s the odd one who does not. Even most police have psychological issues and many go through therapy after a shooting.
I am not that callous. You have also seen me write here that every time I carry, when I am checking my weapon and putting it in the holster, I pray that this NOT be the day I be required to use it.
BTW, I saw the story today, where a woman shot at a skunk and accidently hit her husband. Seems the bullet missed and ricocheted off the porch and hit him in the abdomen. He was treated and released
The two were interviewed separately and both stories match.
So we are assured that the varmint and the husband were separate creatures!