First off, to anyone that thinks politics is not a "topical" issue for discussion on TER, I'd like to say that at no time in American history has the future of the hobby, adult entertainment and adult choices (eg. abortion) been in greater danger of being curtailed than now. Lest you forget, prior to 911 Ashcroft's top priority (at the behest of the Bush Administration) was the eradication of the "moral sin" of pornography and prostitution (in that order).
This being said, perhaps someone here can answer a question that was raised by a European colleague of mine. In his own words (which represent the majority view of Europeans) "why is it that the overwhelming majorty of educated people in the US vote democratic? Is there something they know that the others don't? If so, what is that?"
LOL A.S.
I'm sure glad you didn't pose a LOADED question.
I'd take issue with the idea that "educated" people vote democratic .... since even the Democratic Party doesn't see that as it's base.
Now I will grant you that a great number of what people call "intellectuals" are Democratic. Certainly the vast majority of academia vote that way. But these are people that got educations paid for in part with tax dollars, went on to grad school, again supported by tax dollars, and then decided to teach, a profession which tends to be supported by tax dollars (hmm, I think I see a pattern). So to me it's not surprising that people who spend their entire lives feeding at the public trough would support a party that supports them.
But the thing about "intellectuals" is ... more often than not, they find themselves in places where their ideas and methodologies don't have to be put to the test in the free market.
But "educated people"? I'd have to say that your friend's definition of "educated" is "people wise enough to agree with me."
Academics chose their profession because they love their work. Most I know do vote democratic - I myself see it as the lesser evil. I'm not sure what your definition of ''intellectuals'' is but, more often than not, scientific research is directed towards real world problems such as Cancer and Aids research ....
Obviously, you partake from the fruits of computer scientists labor.
Besides circulating within the free market what do you contribute to mankind ?
p.s. Thanks for your financial support.
Actually I AM a Computer Scientist and am part of building the technology that you use.
And I'm not making fun of them pointy-headed intellectuals that sit in front of Poly-Sci students and presume to teach them the intricate nature of the relations between nations by assigning them an essay on "How Free Trade Is Destroying America" and telling the class that the BEST ESSAY supporting the theory will get the ONLY "A" in the class. (parenthetically, my son's entire essay was "Free Trade Stops Wars, you public-trough feeding Idiot" and it's quite clear that he will have to repeat that class).
I was only taking issue with the proposed theory that book learning makes one SMARTER.
If a tenured professor's opinion is that the Democratic Party is better for the country and therefore is the way he choses to vote, that's his right. But to say that since he has more "inteligence" than the man that invented the transistor or the integrated circuit (both invented by the free market) is a false assumption.
Ummmm But those same teachers who fed at the public trough are the same ones who taught you how to read and write so you could post here denigrating them.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, amigo!
BTW "free market" is an oxymoron. We in this hobby should certainly understand that in every ....ahem....bone in our body.
hehe
TET
Denigrate? Yeah, a few ... as individuals.
As a profession, I recall only saying that they're education doesn't make them wiser.
Most reasonable people who see a phrase such as "feed at the public trough" would assume this is just another euphemism for calling them pigs.
That word should be reserved for LEOs hehe
As individuals are concerned, yes, some are not wiser when educated..Bush is a good example of such an individual. But I think if you compare the literacy rates from 150 years ago when there was no widespread public education, (those poor kids feeding at the public trough again) and literacy rates today, I believe you would HAVE to agree education has succeeded in making people, in general, wiser.
BTW even experience doesn't make individuals wiser, necessarily.. Bush failed in THREE business ventures. But generally experience makes people wiser.
TET
I think he meant "Elitist Intellectuals".Thier is perception among many that Bush is a Dope and only people from the bible belt with 4th grade educations are his core supporters.
Look im not defending the guy , I didnt vote for him in 200. But I think he is undully villafied by the Left and media.Same thing.
people with more education and income tend to vote republican, if what your 'friend' 's definition of "intellectual" means "elitist" then I agree with that.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 1:33:26 PM
As long as Chirac and Schröder keep their people focused on American issues and Iraq their constituents aren't paying attention to the fact that their economies are dying under the strain of heavy taxation which will get only worse as their aging population stops working.
Europe is a mess, they have socialized themselves into hole so deep that France and Germany will most likely have economic riots in the near future. France is already having massive sit-ins because "entitlements" have been cut because of lack of funding.
Table 2.5
Political Knowledge by Strength of Party Identification
2000 National Election Study
Self-Described Party Alignment / Average Political Knowledge Score
(Average number of correct answers on 31 point scale)
"Strong Republican" / 18.7
"Independent-Republican" / 15.7
"Strong Democrat" / 15.4
"Independent-Democrat" / 14.2
"Weak Republican" / 14.1
"Weak Democrat" / 13.3
"Independent-Independent" / 9.5
Being neither educated nor a Democrat, I can't help but sometimes wonder whether crucial and valid points are lost to my inherent ignorance. I will freely concede I've still much to learn on countless topics.
Academia serves a vital role in the fabric of our nation. While not as profitable as Internet pornography or sport utility vehicles, there's no disputing the fact that without a solid academic research base, the aforementioned technologies likely would have never developed so fruitfully. Our government and corporate entities realize this fully, and fund these ventures fervently.
It would appear (to dolts like I) that clear dichotomies are created. Distinct groups of those who are higly educated and those only moderately so; between those that have much and those that don't. Animosity is spawned from these chasms, which in turn begets a festering resentment. But among the ranks of the have's, I would reckon a vast majority possess college degrees. Consequently, I find their disaffection towards academians -- "elitist", or otherwise -- very puzzling.
Perhaps it's through a pathetic amalgam of envy and admiration, that I come to rest my faith in those that educate the world's population. I find it patently logical that if we are ever to begin bluring the line between our existing societal classes, we must all attain a level of education that will afford us broad parity, nationwide. Simply preserving a class in the middle, would serve only to enlarge the gaps at the extremes, I feel.
With this knowledge, we could make more informed choices, our perspectives might become a bit more lucid. And, just maybe, this lingering and counterproductive polarization might begin to subside. It stands to reason, that our quality of life would improve in most every aspect.
Imagine, a person could cast a vote without the nagging suspicion that someone else knows something they don't.
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 11:16:07 AM
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 11:23:10 AM
Academia does have an important place in our society. I don't think I impliled otherwise. I also granted that if a person spends their entire lives within the cocoon of academia, it's not unnatural to think that they would tend to think that a system that feeds them is a good system. I didn't blame them for that.
I do maintain that if a professor publishes a paper (the term they use is 'publish or perish') that were to expound the virtues of placing a useage tax on every Internet site one visits in order to fund the creation of more educational web sites ... and such paper is greeted with enthusiam by other professors and academicians, the publishing professor would receive his positive feedback because he works in a closed system. Whereas that same man made that same suggestion while employed at a 'for profit' company, his ideas and possibly entire career wouldn't survive the free market test. In fact it is the very reason that the testing OF such ideas can only take place in an academic setting.
What I DO maintain is ... that just because it's an ideal setting to foster new ideas and float those baloons, it does not necessarily make them SMARTER or make their ideas any BETTER.
They just seem to THINK they are.
Seems to think I was addressing him, specifically.
Not so.
I was hoping my point would transcend the specific, and reach a wider spectrum.
I'd be the first to agree that living within a cocoon is seldom the healtiest of existences. Be it the nurturing environs of academia, or the callous realities of commmerce, a breadth of experience is always a tempering element. I'll submit that the free market has been a far more caustic influence than has academia.
Certainly, having attained the highest level of education doesn't make one's ideas intrinsically correct, any more than having become a business magnate, makes one positively qualified to dictate theirs.
But what if we all were truely peers? Wouldn't each of us have the wherewithal to discern the difference?
-- Modified on 2/12/2004 12:51:13 PM
...but I'm not a Republican. The 2 Republican Presidents I voted for turned into major disappointments (at least for me).
My 1st Republican Presidential vote was 1980. Interest rates were almost 20%. I'd have voted for Jimminy Cricket over Jimmy Carter. My 2nd Republican Presidential vote was cast in 1988. I felt that George H W Bush was one of the most qualified men to campaign for the office.
Ronald Reagan espoused an economic policy that his own vice-president labeled "voo-doo economics." In 8 yrs, Ronald Reagan amassed more national debt than had been incurred in the previous 135 yrs. This is a fiscal conservative?? The good news for Reagan: history will remember him as the President who, by his mere threat to build a space-based defense system, caused the bankruptcy of the USSR.
In 1988, George H W Bush had a most impressive resume. I believed that a former congressman, ambassador to the UN and Director of the CIA would have a grasp on foreign affairs and be able to gauge intelligence. Saddam should have been handled for keeps in the early '90s.
Conservatives biggest problem with Bill Clinton is that he lied about having a mistress. Big Deal. In the big picture, this is so trite as to almost defy belief.
Bill Clinton did not: lie about attempting to trade arms for hostages (Reagan); lie about the reason for invading a sovereign nation (Bush II); botch a war (Bush I); sit on a commission who attempted to explain an assassination by saying a bullet in mid-flight can make a ninety-degree turn (Ford); or conspire and plan a burglary (Nixon).
Given the choices above, who would you rather have as President?
At least there is reason for reasonable doubt EITHER WAY with respect to the single gunman theory. And I DO believe that Ford demonstrated the most integrity of ALL the Presidents you named, with a healthy margin to spare.
Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill
If you want the government to STOP taking money out of your wallet, you vote Republican. If you want government to START putting money INTO your wallet (and those of your friends), you vote Democratic.
Personally, I wish I had another choice. I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Keep the Church and State separated, and stop trying to legislate morality. It does no good and just drives the money underground. "Victimless" crimes should be decriminalized. Amsterdam has it right. Soft Drugs and Prostitution are legal, and they have one of the lowest pregnancy and crime rates in the world. The world gets into trouble when people try to suppress some of their base instincts. Worse, they become convinced that since THEY are deprived of anything pleasurable, that others should be made to suffer with them. When people don't have an outlet for their needs, they tend to short circuit and create havoc for themselves and people around them.
On the topic of the day, I say let Gay Marriages happen (Do you have ANY idea how much these folks will spend on their weddings). I want to keep the Republicans out of my bedroom, while keeping the Democrats from taking the OTHER 60% of my paycheck. Unless Dennis Miller runs for office though, I don't expect to get my wish.....
The Democrats do a lot of things that inflame Republicans, and vice versa. I wish we had another choice, but don't look for it anytime soon......
You wrote:
If you want the government to STOP taking money out of your wallet, you vote Republican. If you want government to START putting money INTO your wallet (and those of your friends), you vote Democratic.
** Fine. Either way is fine by me. Just ACKNOWLEDGE that you're TAKING the money from someone that you think DOESN'T NEED IT in order to GIVE IT to someone you feel is more deserving.
You Wrote:
Personally, I wish I had another choice. I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. Keep the Church and State separated, and stop trying to legislate morality. It does no good and just drives the money underground.
** I agree in part. I'm willing to ADMIT that there aren't always easy answers. While I don't want the government in my church or my bedroom, neither do I want a country where every behavior is acceptable, for any reason, at any time, because after all "who are we to judge" or "who's to say what is right and what is wrong?"
For example, while the meter hasn't yet been invented that can measure my indifference to Janet Jackson OR Justin Timberlake, the visual image of a man attacking a woman and ripping her clothes off is UNACCEPTABLE TO ME and is not what I want to see on the public airwaves .. so I WANT the government to jump in with BOTH FEET, fine the HELL out of anyone even remotely CONNECTED with it... but they should do it because you and I BOTH insist that they do it.
You Wrote:
"Victimless" crimes should be decriminalized. Amsterdam has it right. Soft Drugs and Prostitution are legal, and they have one of the lowest pregnancy and crime rates in the world.
** Maybe yes, Maybe no. There are people who believe that it's not quite as clear cut as that. There are people to claim to have studies that say legalizing such activities have negative "ripple effects" in the bigger picture of their society and say that such legalization everywhere it's been tried trend toward similar results. If our society, morals, economy, motivation of our young people, etc. are in fact all tied to a "bigger picture built by such ripples" and the option you're presenting me is that we will eventualy be indistinguishable from the Netherlands, then I'll pass, thank you just the same.
You Wrote:
The world gets into trouble when people try to suppress some of their base instincts.
** Again, yes and no. GOVERNMENTS certainly get into trouble over it ... but I maintain THAT is because the micromanagement of the issue is simply not something any behmoth organization can do efficiently. Government is a sword, not a scalpel.
But that isn't to say that SOCIETY shouldn't try to surpress some of our more base insticnts. WE should say that Jackson's staged attack was unacceptable. We should say that doing drugs is unacceptable and that we won't tolerate dealers (legal or otherwise) in our neighborhoods. We should demand that extremist idiots on EITHER SIDE of the political spectrum are tossed out of goverment .. etc.
Don't fall into the trap, Bob ... you would like to see Soft Drugs and Prostitution legalized because they are YOUR base instincts that you don't think will hurt anyone else. But to get MY support, you'd have to support MY base insticnts ... and trust me ... you wouldn't want to do that.
If the answers were as easy as some people make it seem, someone would have solved the problem already.
I just can't see how one could make the leap between that set of core beliefs, and yet still supporting Bush for reelection.
Especially with the degree that Bush is in complete support of the agenda of the Christian right, and the degree that his spending plans are actually deceiving the country by re-distributing your children's wealth into the pockets of his and Cheney's political benefactors in the Oil industry, and the wealthiest 10% of the nation (one of the beneficiaries, I must admit, is CLEARLY ME - but it's ill gotten gain, that I will assuage my conscience by using to help defeat him).
I see the Cristian Right as being EXACTLY as much threat to my way of life as Norman Lear's Citizens for the American Way and people who believe we should have no borders, no right, no wrong, and no money except that which out government decides we should have .. and here's why:
My set of core beliefs tells me that EVERY "Slippery Slope" has two sides and if I can't prevent a slide in either direction, then I want to slow that slide (either way)as much as I can. My core beliefs tell me that EVERYONE with an agenda that gets passed wants MORE.
YES the tax cuts benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor. That's because they TAKE MORE from the rich than they do the poor. The top 10% of the income earners in the US pay 73% of the taxes. How much SHOULD we take from the top 10% to make it "fair"?
I don't doubt for a MINUTE that Cheney's company is making a handsome profit from the rebuilding of Iraq. NO QUESTION. But I question how many OTHER companies had the IMMENSE resources available and in place to hit the ground running as fast as they did. I question why you make it SOUND like Bush said "yanno, Dick, we need us a war somewhere to help line our pockets and I don't like that ol' Saddam very much so let's just get it done." I question why Iraq's oil is valuable in the first place, when Nigeria's ADDITIONAL OUTPUT this year alone is greater than the TOTAL output for Iraq for the next three years.
What I DO NOT see is how YOU make such a direct leap from what is factually known to how it's "all about oil", Cheney's political benifactors, etc. with such pinpoint and geometric logic that you are INCENSED at the VERY EXISTENCE of people that can't see what you see! THAT is what I don't get.
But it pretty clearly was about SOMETHING, pre-9/11, that we the American people were never told about as a justification for this regime change that had NOTHING to do with Al Queda, or any imminent nuclear threat. Bush and Cheney were planning this invasion WELL in advance of 9/11. Nobody has actually even bothered to deny this from the Administration - all they do is scream that O'Neill was disclosing classified info. But POST 9/11, Al Queda and Imminent WMD threat, including nukes, is the justification that WAS used. And we now see pretty darn compelling evidence that THOSE were false pretenses. Al Queda and Saddam DESPISED each other, and never worked togethr prior to our invasion. And our intelligence community has completely backed away from any claims of a viable NUCLEAR program in Iraq.
Whatever this invasion actually WAS about, the American people sure as hell weren't given THAT justification. And every dead and maimed American Soldier ought to be hung around Bush's neck until he chokes on the weight of their corpses in the election.
I frequently hear statistics like the top 10% of income earners pay 73% of the taxes. I have never heard at the same time what percent of the total income that the top 10% earn. In other words, if they earn more than 73% of the total income, they do NOT pay their fair share of taxes. Or to put it another way, what percent of their income do they pay in taxes compared to the other percentiles?
It's public record.
Let's see ... that will give me the marginal rates for the income tax. Of course that will then have to be adjusted for the various deductions and tax shelters available as well as different rates for capital gains. And don't forget that the Social Security tax is not applicable to income above around $70,000 (not sure of the exact figure) or to unearned income.
I'm sorry, I just can't find in the tax code what percent of the total income is earned by the top 10%. That figure must be available somewhere - does anyone know?
To legalize recreational drugs and prostitution. As an extreme right wing conservative you should know and understand the economics of trying to enforce malum prohibitum laws like those is bad budgetary practice. It would put more money in your pocket to legalize and regulate them than prohibit them. the Prison Industrial Complex is as bad as the Military Industrial Complex as far as bad economcs is concerned.
And as you know,from Daddykins "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!" Bush... Taxes ALWAYS have to be raised after a POTUS and compliant Congress reduce them and create a huge debt. "Voodoo Economics" was proven by the Reagan and Bush Regimes to NOT increase revenues enough to offset the increased spending that BOTH parties always do. And if you think taxes won't be raised to pay back Shrub's tax cut to the rich and the half a TRILLION federal deficit, then I have a rover on Mars I would like to sell you.
warm regards.
TET
Wow did YOU dial the wrong number. I'm not even REMOTELY an "extreme right wing conservative."
A) I don't think prayer in public schools is a good thing. I certainly don't think it takes the place of a parent kicking a kid's ass when he screws up.
B) I think aborion should be legal. In fact, the older I get, the more I think retroactive abortions should be legal.
C) I think the Far Right is just as whacked as the Far Left.
D) I think that taking $100,000 (example) of a person's income over his lifetime, using 28% of that in administrative expenses (the SSA is quite inefficient) and then promising him $187,000 in retirement benefits may be a BIG problem for my kids.
E) I favor the progressive tax system because the peope at the top CAN afford it, I just argue with the people who think that the people we take it from blow it on yachts, airplanes and hats and therefore don't deserve to have any of it, when in fact all the business people that I know who get to keep money use it to invest in MORE stores, MORE offices, MORE factories and create MORE jobs.
F) I'm fiscally conservative when it doesn't interfere with being a social moderate and I feel that being a social moderate makes me VERY isolated.
What I think is that the world's problems are COMPLICATED and that the answers are a LONG way off... filled with potholes, problems, ripple effects and unforseen consequences and I think that anyone who can fix the blame for what they see as being wrong on one man, one group of men, one idea or one ideology is themselves simplistic and problably more a part of the problem than of the solution.
Of COURSE it would be economically beneficial to leagalize drugs, porn and prostitution (to mention a few). I QUESTION whether or not there would be unexpected and unforseen CONSEQUENCES of doing that that are not intuitively obvious (hence unforseen and unexpected) and that maybe ... just MAYBE if it were that simple, any country that DID legalize drugs and prostitution could have the benefits of being the one with the most admired and sought after standard of living in the world.
Is that a possibility? Or is it ONLY that I and I alone fail to see the one, true light?
As far as Voodoo Economics are concerned, that's a term that can be applied to the whole concept, since no one and I mean NO ONE has been successful in understanding every nuance of the entire field of endeavor.
If you mean "supply side" economics, I did poorly under Carter, did very well under Reagan and Bush, so-so under Clinton and so far, so good under Bush. We also seemed to manage to spend the USSR out of the Cold War and John F Kennedy did a pretty fair job of stimulating revenues through a series of tax cuts as well (look it up).
"I wish we had another choice, but don't look for it anytime soon...... "
Maybe try "throwing away your vote" for once. It might make you feel better. I've been doing it since 1992, and the smug feeling of being right, is worth at least SOMETHING. The Libertarian Party's platform matches what you say you want.
What if they get 2% in 2004, instead of 1%? 4% in 2008? 8% in 2012? Ok, I'm dreaming... But if we have another close election, maybe a Republican will stop and think, "Hey, I could have used that extra 2% that the Libertarians took." And then the Republican party might seriously try something they currently only pretend: conservativism.
I know, I know, you see the Libertarian Party candidates and they're scary. Don't worry: they won't win. If they ever start getting real votes, then the PLATFORM is what will win, not the people.