magekillr

Heh, ok fair enough (about forgetting you said anything). Please don't mistake my question for hostility, I was genuinely asking.

You should watch some of the debates between Hawkings and Fr. Spitzer. Why should I watch a debate between a priest and one of the most influential theoretical physicists on Earth?

I am a hard-line atheist, although I am far more concerned with religious freedom than most people. For example, I opposed France's burqa/niqab ban, Switzerland's minaret ban, and any [cabbage] laws in America trying to ban "Sharia law." On the flip side of that, I oppose ANY public funds going to religious charities or faith-based groups, as it is an endorsement of religion by the state. America might have separation of church and state on paper, but many things we do in practice violate that statute. Along those lines, I also detest people like Sam Harris, and I believe him to be a bigot. He has called for indiscriminate war crimes to be committed on Muslim countries, and I'm not a fan of his nonsensical books on morality. I'm not much of a fan of Hitchens due to his neo-colonialist mentality and endorsement of perpetual and permanent warfare, but he is one of my inspirations to be true to who I was. I grew up in an Evangelical Christian household with people who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old, and reject the theory of natural selection. I didn't "come out" as an atheist until I was 19, and before I left for college I pretended to be an Evangelical. Their bigotry towards other Christians -- Catholics, specifically -- Muslims, Mormons and gays also shaped many of my beliefs. I also listened to George Carlin ever since I was 10 years old, and he had a large influence on my thinking when it came to questioning authority and religion. I would say my beliefs are more like PZ Myers, and I respect him very much. In that respect, there is nothing you could present me -- no evidence -- where I would believe that God or Gods are real. Especially with the recent research concerning multiple universes, Hawking's theories on the early universe, quantum mechanics, the evidence that you CAN "get something from nothing" and that the same object can be in two places at once leads me to believe that there is no need for a God; with no need, why insert one into the picture? edit: One final thing: the last thing that leads me to my atheism is that I really and honestly do not care if God exists or not. This is a natural world, and the idea of God doesn't really come up unless some religious person brings it up (or tries to get the state to back their project).

I got a Kindle for my birthday and I love it. I'm not a big reader to begin with, but it has allowed me to read more than I used to. By "big reader" I mean I have read maybe 2 fiction books my entire adult life outside of the classroom. I read A LOT of history, economics and political books, though (not to mention around 100 newspaper articles daily). I'm hoping that with the Kindle I'll start reading more fiction.

Walter Russell Mead (a center-right person) asks whether we should panic: Panic?

Yawn, I want the experiment done again or something. Put simply, I don't believe the results, and neither do a lot of other particle/theoretical physicists. For an explanation, see here.

IMF warns of threat to global banking system David Dayen at FDL comments:

Dont quote me on this (well go ahead Im posting here) but im pretty sure if I know Sees_All's posts he would say that is socialism. I could be wrong now xD Heh XD Oh and look, austerity is failing in the UK (what else is new?). Apparently cutting spending in the midst of a recession can lead to higher deficits anyway. NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED!!! UK Treasury says govt spending still on track Ben Bernanke is looking for different options for the Federal Reserve to take: ch.com/story/getting-ready-for-a-twist-by-the-federal-reserve-2011-09-19"]Getting ready for a twist by the Federal Reserve Novel or not, central bank may go back to 1960s era policy

I'm not sure how much stock one should put into Ron Suskind's new book, but he is a good reporter. In any case, here are some things we learn about the President and his advisers: * Obama wanted to put CitiGroup into resolution, but Rahm Emmanuel and Tim Geithner ignored his wishes. * Obama is a conservative and believes that unemployment is due to the Technology Fairy and structural causes. He's also a True Believer for deficit reduction. * Obama was concerned about Treasuries where "no one would show up to buy T-bills." So he was worried about a crisis that never was: Bond Vigilantes. If most of this is true, the US is in deep [cabbage]. And by US, I mean most people who need a job.

Because socialism doesn't work between countries, right? :grin: This would be the opposite of that. A unified spending policy would mean that Germany can object to Greeces paying employees for 14 months in a year. Etc. Federalist systems are not socialistic. The problem with the Euro as is is that there is no incentive for countries to behave responsibly, not that there ever will be one but I think if every country had to have a unified spending policy you wont see the massive waste of money that happens in greece. But the real question is, does Europe want to be the United States of Europe? My guess is no and the only real solution in that case is to cut off the pig nations and cut their loses I wouldn't say that's the problem with the Euro. The problem with the Euro is that the countries have very different economies, and it's acting as a gold standard for countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. For example, Spain and Ireland were very responsible with their debt and deficits (they were running surpluses before the housing bubble burst). Now maybe they weren't very responsible as far as their banking and housing policy (I read somewhere that a lot of Germans inflated a large portion of Spain's housing bubble).The only real culprit here as far as fiscal irresponsibility is Greece, they are the problem child. The thing is, they cheated to get admitted in the first place; they shouldn't even have been allowed. Meanwhile they refuse to admit Turkey. It makes no sense (well it does when you factor in the racism, but let's not go there). But your prescriptions to the problem are correct: either make the economies more integrated, or cut Greece off. I think it'd be better for Greece to be kicked out. Basically, I agree with Nouriel Roubini (and have ever since they first said Greece should impose austerity on itself): Greece should default and abandon the euro edit: no, bailing Greece out does not amount to "socialism." That's like saying the Federal Reserve amounts to socialism.

It's an ethos, bro. It will probably be here for a while, certainly beyond my lifetime (then again, who knows?) What I do know is this: Steven Pinker: A History of Violence

Oh man, this will be lots of fun (and I'm sure I'll get a few warnings from this post, too)... 1.) There is no Solyndra scandal. David Roberts: Solyndra is the next ‘Climategate’ Jared Bernstein: Solyndra, Risk, and Risk Aversion 2.) Just another failure of the Drug War. What do you expect? Everything they'll try to do will be a failure. Oh, btw, Issa knew about this, and said nothing (Issa is easily one of the most corrupt members of the entire Congress anyway). 3.) Winners and Losers 4.) Heh, this one is really funny. Gibson Guitars breaks the law, and now they're all upset. Boohoo: Boehner’s Bedfellow: There’s a Reason Gibson’s CEO’s Name’s Pronounced “Jerkowitz” They raided Gibson because they were suspected of using illegally harvested Madagascar ebony, not because they hate Gibson guitars. /yawn. You need to try harder. As much as this administration is full of a bunch of corporatists, they're as clean as can be when it comes to outright corruption (relatively speaking). Wake me up when the rightwing cares about actual issues where the administration has been downright criminal...like civil liberties.

Oh, in general I agree with you, Will. It is indeed a waste of time to dwell upon it, and I really don't spend time thinking about it. I do think it should be pointed out every once in a while, though, because people seem so dead-set on always improving economic growth, always doing this, always doing that. It should still be in the back of our minds that we cannot grow forever with finite resources, that there is never a "best way" or "certain way" of doing things, and it's best to keep our minds open. It's mostly a response to those who believe war will always be with us, that nation-states and governments MUST exist, etc. But this is why when I vote, organize, and participate in activism, I propose ideas that have been used; ones that we know work; ones where I feel society will be more egalitarian as a result. I look to Scandinavia for solutions to many problems in America, even if they can't be extrapolated exactly to a tee (different culture, different histories, experiences, etc) because it's the "best that we know" (according to magekillr, as Will Wilkinson pointed out).

I voted for President Obama, and I plan to vote for him in 2012. If I lived in a safe-Democratic or safe-Republican state, I would vote third party. But I live in Virginia, a key-state to the president's victory. The Republicans continue to get so right-wing that it's beyond the pale anymore. Jon Huntsman -- a far-right conservative with a clear conservative record while he was governor -- is considered a "moderate" now. Of course, he's only seen as a moderate because he believes in science, and he believes in GOVERNING. The fact is, on the issues, he's really not that much different than Rick Perry. For national elections, I will always vote Democratic. Many anarchists believe voting to be a charade, but they're just a bunch of privileged [wagon] whose lives don't differ. And I'll admit, my life wouldn't change much no matter who wins. I'm more concerned with the poor and the lower middle class, and with the planet in general (ie, we need someone who will at least TRY to do something about climate change). My political philosophy is similar to Howard Zinn's: So if you'd read my Facebook or blog, you'd think I didn't vote for the president at all. But he's really a small intricate part of a larger system, and in the end what really brings about "change" in any system is the masses of the people. Organizing is the most important thing. But privileged [wagon] bloggers like to sit from their Ivory Towers rather than do the hard work that Zinn lays out above. It's kind of upsetting. Our problems are not one man's fault. One man cannot fix them. We need to remember that we have one man standing between where we are now and an immeasurably worse situation, and that man is Barack Obama (as much as he and I don't agree on anything politically, he's one of the most skilled politicians of all time). edit: One of my favorite bloggers wrote about another aspect that's troubling about the GOP to me just today, and their media enablers like Kathleen Parker. It isn't so much that they're tacking far to the right -- although that is a problem. It's that they're "addicted to TEH STOOPID."

What is considered by "leftist" anymore, though? Would libertarianism be considered "leftist"? I consider libertarians to be on the leftist side of the political spectrum, but they almost overwhelmingly support Republicans. Of course a lot of Republicans these days are going through a re-branding stage because their party is less popular than sexually transmitted diseases, so that could be part of the problem. I say this because from my experiences on the intertubes, I'd say the majority of the internet seems to be libertarian. That usually involves supporting Ron Paul, but imo Ron Paul isn't a libertarian, he's just a paleoconservative along the stripes of Pat Buchanan. Will Wilkinson explores that a little bit in this column (link). His ending is thought-provoking, and it's why Will is one of my favorite writers (even though I disagree with almost everything he writes): Myself, ideologically I've stated before that I'm an anarchist and would prefer a stateless society. This is my ethos. This is mocked a lot of times as being unthinkable or unworkable. The funny thing is, we always think that what we have is what will always be...until that stops being the case. Many people are very dedicated to the idea that this globalizing liberal capitalism is, while not a perfect system, the best possible system, and one that is here to stay. The existence of this trope is, in its own way, self-troubling: why do so many people who claim to be so confident in the state of the liberal democratic capitalist system spend so much time announcing that confidence? The repetition of these ideas itself suggests a profound unspoken dissonance. Those who are genuinely confident generally have little cause to say so. You can accuse me of a psychoanalytic reading here, and it's a fair criticism, but I tend to find these arguments pregnant with anxiety. I'm not going to articulate an argument for the mechanism by which capitalism will be replaced. I won't articulate what I think the next order will be. I'm only going to offer a weak inductive claim: human systems of political and economic organization are temporary.

I graduated in May 2011 with a degree in engineering, and I'm still unemployed in the US. Of course, my job search has only been going on for a month because I had a job at graduation. However, due to federal budget cuts, my job was cut. :\

I wonder if Sarko and Merkel are still denying reality about a Greek default? Anyway, this is interesting (assuming you can understand financial speak): Citi's Willem Buiter Warns What Happens If Greece Quits The Euro

Steve Randy Waldmann posits an interesting solution to the European debt crisis. It's linked here. Check it out.

Banks were given a carrot and a stick. The carrot was the fact that they could make loans to people and then offload them for a profit to the federal government - Fannie and Freddie. They weren't acting as banks, they were acting as clearing houses (I believe Fannie & Freddie own like 90% of all mortgages)The stick was that if they refused to make loans to people with low income or bad credit, they were threatened with lawsuits and penalties. See Dean Baker, who predicted a housing bubble before anyone. Another simple response to the "FannieFreddie caused it!!!" is that there is no Freddie/Fannie in Europe. So why did they have the same problems (and how did Canada's banks avoid those same problems). In any case, see Baker's response below: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-discovers-that-it-was-all-fannie-maes-fault

I've stayed friends with all the girls I've slept with, and my one girl-friend is now a good friend with whom I hang out with (and occasionally we still sleep together). So this sort of thing wouldn't be awkward for me in the event that it ended badly -- if it ended badly at all, as I've always ended relationships on good notes. All of mine have ended for basically the same reason, which is that we don't spend enough time together (hey, I only like to hang out 2-3 days a week with them, is that a crime?) In my case, I would recommend it. My best relationship was my open-relationship with my girlfriend Amrit. She slept with maybe 4 other guys while we dated, I slept with maybe 3, but our relationship was fairly strong until she left for New Zealand on vacation. She's also the one I sleep with on occasion now in the present. However, one large caveat: I'm not one for monogamy or "traditional relationships" in general, I think we should all be more accepting of "flings" and let casual sex be casual, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about this.

Flashback, November 2001: John J. Mearsheimer: Guns Won't Win the Afghan War

America's power isn't going anywhere, it's just going to be more shared. Barring some unforeseen occurrence, I don't think America is really "going anywhere" anytime soon. Certainly not within a few decades. As was stated, power will be more shared with Brazil and China/India -- EU being another power broker together as one unit, assuming it can survive (again, it's important to note the difference between the EU and the Zone). Japan has a huge demographics problem along with a huge debt. That debt isn't a problem right now but it could be in the future if their demographics become a serious risk to bond traders. China also has a huge demographics problem, and they're currently having to decide between growth and serious inflation; not to mention the inevitable slowdown that will occur after they've gone through a first wave of industrialization. India has a much better future, and I think they will overtake China eventually. I also agree that we should abandon Pakistan in favor of India, but it has to be done skillfully. The Obama administration has been doing a series of overtures to imply that this is what will happen, so I'm not too worried. Europe has demographic problems of its own, not to mention all of this EU-Zone nonsense that could doom the currency. Krugman has already started talking about it: Starkness Falls So with all of this calamity, and seeing as the US has favorable demographics -- and despite the need for immigration reform, we're still more open than Japan or Germany -- I think we'll be ok for a while. In the future I think many economies are going to need to figure out ways for "stable economies" where they don't rely on growth for prosperity.

I leave condolences for people, but there are plenty of nationalist [wagon] flaunting "Murikah!" that leaves other niches to be filled. Like this one, in that there are more causalities as a result of this than "3,000" Americans: And this one, and how America instituted a policy of torture and made its citizens less safe, while the Vice President openly flaunts on national television about his war crimes: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/3934 I have no illusions about America; we've tortured many people before this. But this was different. This instituted state sanctioned torture, a torture regime so to speak, the very thing many people said would have to come about if it were the case if we tried it (not just professional torturers, but you'd have to bring in doctors, lawyers, etc). So if there's one reason to not forget, it's to remember how national leadership failed us and made a point of funneling the emotional response into a desire for revenge instead -- most notably by calling it an act of war rather than a monstrous crime, a decision that continues to haunt us. edit, and how could I forget this? One 9/11 Tally: $3.3 trillion

Libyan rebels round up black Africans I hope to be wrong in opposing this military adventure, but according to some sources, over 50,000 people have died so far. In my more honest assessment, rather than the [cabbage] Dennis Ross was peddling, that is more people than would have died had Gaddafi just snuffed the rebellion from the get-go (purely speculative, of course). I don't buy that he was going to massacre hundreds of thousands, nor do I believe a genocide was imminent. This doesn't even include the people who might die if civil war breaks out among the tribes. Same talking points that have been used before. Do you see evidence of a "tribal war" breaking out? The media, with all its lust for a "tribal war" has been proven wrong again and again on that front. I said "if," not "when." I REALLY hope it does not, but we won't know for a while. We also won't know if Gaddafi is better or worse for quite possibly years to come. I'm not saying he wouldn't, but I have reason to suspect that this was not a factual claim. See Daniel Larison: The Weak Justification for the Libyan War Specifically where Paul Miller is quoted: One of the main reasons for my opposition to interventions like these is that I don't know the culture, and I sure as hell know that the administration doesn't know it all that well either (our diplomats don't even speak Arabic for god's sake!) The other part of my opposition, however, is that I do not trust the US government's military or CIA. We do not go do humanitarian stuff for the hell of it; there is always an ulterior motive, and it almost always ends up worse than had we not intervened at all. I assume you're Libyan yourself by the wording of this graf? If so you obviously know more than I do, but I just don't agree. I think the fighting would have ended more quickly, as without UN intervention the rebels were clearly losing a lot of momentum. Now, could it have been bloodier? Well, perhaps. As I said, then we're getting into purely speculative claims, and we don't have two Earths to experiment with (nor do I want to experiment with something like anyway). Let's also not forget that war goes beyond blood, and leaves a torn infrastructure. I think I read that this will take over a decade to rebuild (I think it will take longer than that). Now there's the speculation again: had it been dragged out longer, more infrastructure would have been destroyed. Also, I do not believe in outside forces taking sides in a civil war. That's how World Wars can start: through entangled alliances. I'm not saying this was likely to start a world war, but the precedent it sets could in some future conflict. You believe one side, I believe another. In this sense, I don't believe either of us will be convinced. Oh certainly it would have been bad for them had it gotten dragged out. I think a large reason Sarkozy got involved was pure politics, and judging by some polling numbers, it did its job. I'll agree to disagree about the Amnesty hit :P Heh, I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. I just don't trust the Empire nor its military to bring about the Peace in situations such as these. I mean, look at this from just the other day: Now it's entirely too early to conclude anything about whether it was the right or wrong decision in my opinion, but I will give you this: thus far, it's gone about as well as it could have possibly gone. For that I am grateful.

Helping established dictators will bite us in the ass much more often than rising democracies. Plus we never helped Osama; you're getting confused with the Taliban. Well not only helping them, but ensuring that they stay in place, sometimes being in place because we put them there in the first place. I'm sure Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and the Zionists were crying themselves to sleep when Mubarak was forced off stage. We didn't "help" Osama directly, but we provided money and arms for the mujahideen, something he was a part of. Some like to claim we trained him, but it's not true (so in that respect you're right). They (the mujahideen) were also different from the Taliban.