finknottle

Iran's ambitions are simple: regional hegemony. They see themselves as the cradle of civilization, and want to be the dominant power in the region. They are quite active in supporting insurgents and/or terrorists to extend their geopolitical influence. That can be risky - having nukes is additional insurance against action by the major powers. North Korea, on the other hand, uses start-stop of the program to periodically extract aid and avoid punishment for their primary exports: missile technology, counterfeit currency, and drugs. In both cases nukes serve as a shield for what they deem vital activities, and neither country is going to irrevocably give them up at the negotiation table.

Remittances are largely a red herring. It is the expansion of state services. It is a simple fact that the poor consume more in state spending than they pay - and that is the way we intend it. Somebody gets more than they put in, and we don't want it to be the rich. California's encouragement of illegal immigration (at the state level) has artifically expanded the ranks of the poor. This means an expansion in social services (more schools, clinics, welfare and aid, etc) and a worsening of the net flow of tax dollars.

The reason I didn't respond to this earlier was that it seemed such an infantile outburst in response to a simple statement of fact. But it occurs to me that you misunderstood when I said By they I meant the North Koreans; Clinton stated that we don't expect them to return to the negotiating table because of Korean domestic issues (ie succession). But I expect you thought I meant that the Obama administration was dropping efforts because of US domestic issues, and that that is what got your panties in such a wad.

http://13oclock.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/s...ection-results/ (A better comparison would be one which compared deficits with control of the state legislature.) To see the deficits as a percentage of the general fund, see table 1: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

I assume you are speaking of the Gilded Age (1865-1900). The Guilded Age more aptly describes the golden age of unions, 1955-1980. The Gilded Age saw the creation of the industrial economy, the rise in per capita wealth (with the US surpassing all nations except the UK), and the rise of philanthropy. The Guilded Age ended in economic stagnation.

If you know of any proposals put forward by Japan, South Korea, China, or Russia, or even simply negotiations on nuclear disarmament led by them, I'd be very interested. They didn't negotiate for us, and we didn't ask them to. Indeed, it the practice of the past 15 years that North Korea won't sit down and discuss the topic unless it is with us, and unless it follows new concessions. And that's how the Bush administration handled it. Hillary Clinton's own testimony to Congress underscores this point - the only difference now is that they've lost interest in the further discussions because of (presumably) domestic concerns. Despite the meme about it always going it alone, the Bush administration took remarkably different approaches with each crisis. Iraq - go it alone. Iran - support international negotiations but stay out lest the US be a distraction. North Korea - lead the international negotiations and put relations with and concessions from the US out in front. Obama apparently has some magical more enlightened approach to negotiation (presumably involving Change). I can't wait to see it in action.

No, an investor cares only about one thing: if I buy a bond or a treasury note, will I get paid my money? I couldn't care less whether the country is taking my loan to retool factory's or to mow lawns at the Smithsonian. I only care whether it can be expected to continue paying off its obligations up to the time the one I am considering matures. And in that respect, the US deserves the excellant ratings it has had in recent years, despite the ruinous policies. The odds of default within 30 years has always been negligible. The US may default eventually, the question is when. A five year debt is still safe and still enjoys an excellant rating. A 10 year is probably safe. 30 years? Not so much, now, in light of the budget. And that is what you are seeing reflected in the markets.

I agree, let them handle it. But I think you are kidding yourself if you think there will be any ass-kicking. North Korea has the capability of leveling South Korea in the hours before its military would collapse - the amount of artillery that is trained on Seoul alone is mind-boggleing. The disruptive effect of the sudden destruction of South Korea's industry on the world economy would be catastrophic. That's why Clinton didn't bomb the facilities when their program was close to finishing - they already held the world hostage at that point.

On Foreign Affairs, Obama has a stunted view of what's going on. And that's no suprise - he, like our last two presidents, came into office with no foreign policy experience. The difference, I think, is that he has not come in with an open mind. He knows the questions, and he knows the answers. So by stunted, I mean his take on issues and priorities seems stuck somewhere in the 1980's. - To Obama, keeping the world safe from WMD is about getting a new agreement with Russia on stockpiles. (North Korea? Never heard of it!) - To Obama, solving the current crisis in the Middle-East is about resolving the Palestinian problem. (Hello, nuclear Iran!) - To Obama, South Asia is centered again on our quasi-ally Pakistan. (Sorry India, you can forget about the relationship of equals that has been developing over the past 8 years. Kashmir is no longer your issue, it is our bargaining chip with Pakistan. We'll call you if we want you.) - To Obama, promoting fair free trade is about reciprocity of unions. (Who cares about currency manipulation or government subsidies?)

By your logic a latina from the bronx would be less competent to judge rural issues, or corporate issues. It's not racism, it's common sense.

I believe she ruled that New Haven could void the firefighter tests when no minority nominees passed.

Isn't the union way the lumping all employees into a single category based on their job? Is it not true that a near-universal tenent of unions is that employers should not be able to use comparitive individual performance as the basis for determing who gets a salary increase and who does not?

If the smug media pundit soundbites in the debate on torture are any guide, you will have to remember that you can't prove that the economy wouldn't have been alright if we did nothing or - even better - provided stressed companies with counseling instead.

Didn't *you* get the memo? Forget Iran and North Korea - it's all about getting a new nuclear disarmament treaty signed with Russia. That's really important!

I think this comment speaks volumes.

Do you acknowledge corporate rights as basic rights? Or are you - as you might put it - one of those bigots, hiding behind tradition/religion/natural law, who would suggest corporations are different and would deny them those rights? Sure, a main-stream view of today may seem ridiculous in 10-20 years. But the enlightened thinking of 10-20 years may seem just as ridiculous in another 50. It is not an inexorable march forward: the Supreme Court *does* reverse its own rulings rulings on occasion: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html

Just because we spend like a drunken sailor doesn't mean we have not been paying for what we buy. We make our payments on time, and that is all that a creditor cares about - we are a great customer, hence the great credit rating. They don't care about whether we spend responsibly. The rating won't change until they decide we simply can't sustain any more additional debt, or we start talking about default.

No part. The crux of my argument doesn't depend on time. There will be no mathematical proof, ever. Mathematical proofs are not subject to the same kind of revision that the sciences are, and mathematics has already proven limitations on its own ability to prove 'big things.' This proof (of its limitations) is never going to be overturned.(*) As to an empirical proof, it hinges on a supernatural explanation fitting the observed facts better than and being simpler than the alternatives. But there will always be alternatives which don't require as many leaps of faith (religious details like god having a son and a posse of angels, or caring what we do), even if the alternative is so lame as the existence of a yet not understood god force (like gravity) doing incredibly complicated things. (*) At best, we can say it doesn't apply. We'd have to make some startling changes in our assumptions about logic, basically either agreeing that two-valued logic doesn't apply to the universe, or that addition doesn't work like we think. This in turn makes existence a pretty iffy notion.

Great job deconstructing his logic - I'm convinced!

First you would have come up with a definition of God. This is seemingly impossible.. Then you would have to decide what constitutes proof. A proof based soley on logic, I am absolutely confident, cannot be - it has to do with certain provable limitations of logic and mathematics themselves. On the other hand a proof based on empirical evidence (whether ancient rocks saying "God was here", or dissatisfication in the models have right now for things like the big bang, the genesis of life, or evolution) are unlikely to sway scientific opinion. As to your last comment, I am unaware that design has been demonstrated once, let alone every time. At least not demonstrated to the point that mainstream scientists are convinced. And, after all, that is the bar you set when you ask if science can prove the existance of God.

So if by effective criticism you mean making a case by your rules which will be excepted by the other's rules, then ok. I took 'effective' literally. The clampdown on rationale thought in the Middle Ages may not have been effective criticism, but it was pretty damn effective nonetheless.

How is it that if they raise their annual fees, people will close their accounts; but if they raise their rates or deliver unsatisfactory customer service, people are powerless?

Why do you say that religion cannot offer an effective criticism of science? Why can I not reject science as part of my faith? And have there not been several periods in which faith has won this battle, effectively banning science and labeling it as wichcraft?

I wasn't addressing in a comprehensive way the behaviorial question of 'why is a belief in God persistent,' which was claimed to be hard-wired, but simply 'is there another explanation which accounts for the persistence?' There are many, with varying degrees of plausibility, and you gave some others.

It wasn't me. You said you thought the belief in God was hard-wired, and challanged the difficulty of denying that. I said that what was actually hard-wired was a predisposition towards explanations and certaintity, and religious conviction was the easiest way to find it. The result would be the same: most people throughout history believing in God. Or Gods. Or giant turtles that you don't want to rock.