StrangeSox

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) That means larger security. I have a hard time believing that large number is all security. And I'm well aware of what went on in Mumbai, I got back from there a week ago. Right, that number is pretty vague, and as far as I know, it's from the same source. Obviously we're not going to get a detailed breakdown of personnel, but let's just say I'm skeptical of that as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) Do the ends always justify the means? Seriously, you'd be ok with spending 200 billion on India? You know that the country is STILL losing jobs right? It's beyond my capabilities and knowledge, but you'd have to do some very detailed economic (fuzzy) and political (very fuzzy) analysis. It could very well be worth it to spend $200B now for returns over the next decade.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:23 AM) I'm skeptical that $200 million is the operating costs for an aircraft carrier. (Are you including fuel? Salaries of the people on board? Cost of planes? What is included in that number? That sounds way too low) Check the graphs starting on page 4, breakdowns for each ship. No total line, but you can guestimate: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports.../MR948.appj.pdf

I'm still skeptical that it costs more for a single day on this trip than it does to operate an entire aircraft carrier for a year.

FWIW, it costs about $160M/year to operate a Nimitz-class carrier, which has, coincidentally, a crew of about 3,000. So, I'm a little skeptical of the $200M figure.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) But if the actual figure of 3000 people is correct, the cost of operating the planes alone, which I would think has to be close to 15 or so, would be at least 8-10 million dollars, no? "40 planes" cited here: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/n...how/6845435.cms But we'd have to know how many are sunk-cost anyway. How many are military planes already in the area?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 11:02 AM) Why do we need 3000 members? Why 6 times more than Obama's trip to the UK? Because Mumbai was the site of a recent, large-scale terror attack and they were woefully incapable of responding to it? And it's a lot closer to areas of concern (read: Pakistan) than Britain?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) A small paycheck coming out and you will get taxed pretty good when you add in state income tax and your FICA. Not quite 50% but it is still a pretty significant chunk. It was like my first job I had at a grocery store. I got my small paycheck and had it reduced by Union dues. I was so f***ing pissed. Arguably, your pay was higher and you were protected from abuses by management/ownership because of the union. Anyway, I make decent money for someone in their 20's. My total paycheck deductions, including 401k and health insurance, doesn't amount to 50%. Someone making less is certainly going to be taxed less.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) You're still missing my point, so whatever. I dunno how you can deny their role in it when prominent abolitionists and our justice system used their words as a basis for their arguments. You seem to think that i'm arguing that they held the gun of a Yankee Civil War soldier, literally freeing slaves from southern plantations. I think we're somewhat talking past each other. Soxbadger said what I've been trying to say.

Those 30,000,000 people without insurance obviously don't deserve it. See, our economy is really just a sorting algorithm for human value. Poor? Can't afford medicine? Well, you probably did something to deserve that!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) You're ignoring my point. They thrust into the political and governmental arena the idea of equality between humans. Not some guy writing prose on his thoughts of humans, but actual politicians and lawmakers. Those very ideas were used decades later as a basis for freeing slaves and granting minority rights. I'm not saying give the founding fathers total credit for freeing slaves, but in the end you have to give them some because without starting the equality ball rolling, who knows if it would have gotten to the point where freeing slaves would have happened or thinking minorities were equal would have happened. This is the bizarre deification that I don't like. They thrust in the idea of rejecting the divine right of kings, not equality between all humans. This was brought up as an example to illustrate that they were humans and made mistakes, but you're trying to defend it. I've given them credit several times now for the advances they made, but you have to recognize their shortcomings as well. I think it is ludicrous to give white, wealthy, slave-owning males credit for women's suffrage or freeing slaves or equal rights. Minority rights weren't granted from on high, they were fought for, often violently.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) More class warfare. Why do you hate people who earned their money? Or is it jealousy that you don't have what they have? Why not read some actual criticisms of capitalism instead of straw man versions? There's a lot of question begging in those sentences. If this straw man was true, Democrats wouldn't hold the Senate and the WH. Also, who that has a small paycheck is getting taxed 50%?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:29 AM) Who knows what would have happened. If the British wiped the floor with us perhaps the monarchy would still reign. Would the French Revolution have occurred with the American Revolution being a success? I think that's an unknown. That's not my point. I wasn't asking if the US hadn't one or if the French never revolted, those are red herrings. You can't give them credit for every civil rights movement that happened decades or centuries after their deaths simply because they wrote "all mean are created equal," because, in practice, they believed differently.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:24 AM) I disagree with this completely. You know how Bostonians treated "their government" in and around that time yes? Adams was absolutely sticking his neck out to represent those soldiers, again, IN Boston, shortly after a bunch of Bostonians were killed. The HBO mini-series set up the scene pretty well - Adams, the local "American," representing soldiers that everyone in town wanted hanged, and it showed with all of them breathing down his neck. I'll admit upfront that I don't know that much regarding the situation, but that I have seen the HBO series. Is that reaction accurate, and does it give the whole picture, or is it the Americanized, sensationalized-for-TV version? Certainly, there were many people who had issues with the Crown, but there was still a lot of Tory support. You'd be hard-pressed to find similar levels of support for AQ.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) Right, but the ideas that "all men are created equal" and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yadda yadda was pretty new in the world. That's the basis for all of the minority rights issues - equality. I'm not saying ignore the fact that they considered blacks and women less, hence why I said "paradoxically." Let me ask you this: do you think that, without that phrase, without the debates or discussions in the late 18th century, we wouldn't have freed the slaves? Women wouldn't be able to vote? If, instead, it had said "white males are superior," we'd be beholden to that?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) Right, but the ideas that "all men are created equal" and that we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yadda yadda was pretty new in the world. That's the basis for all of the minority rights issues - equality. I'm not saying ignore the fact that they considered blacks and women less, hence why I said "paradoxically." Hobbs had that idea originally in the 1600's. I don't think slaves were freed because of a line in the DoI, they were freed because it was the right thing to do, regardless of what some politicians and philosophers wrote decades prior.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) Ugh, I said the ideas/issues they debated. That's the point i'm trying to make. But they ultimately came down on the wrong side of those issues and had to be corrected. It wasn't because they debated the issues and came to the wrong conclusions or compromises (hey, another example of compromise not always being the right choice!) that the slaves were eventually freed or that women eventually were able to vote. Those freedoms were obtained through their own struggles decades later, and giving the old, wealthy white dudes who decided against them in the first place credit is a bit of an injustice, imo

Also, that idea, like a lot of the other founding principles, comes from 17th and 18th century philosophers and not directly from the founders. Which is good, and doesn't take away their efforts and their recognition of good philosophical positions, but it wasn't an idea that Jefferson came up with.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:11 AM) And what ideas was that based on? "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." But an examination of what laws they actually formed shows they were very, very far from that ideal. I think it's a bit of a stretch to give the group of people who counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and allowed only white, land-owning males to vote credit for equal protection and suffrage rights.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) Really? I thought the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves? I'm assuming he's referring to them leaving an amendment mechanism, but that's a good point on that issue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 10:08 AM) SOME thought that. And paradoxically, the issues they raised and the Constitution they wrote is what ultimately freed slaves, gave them rights, gave women rights, etc. Amendments that were written long after they were dead did those things. I'm not trying to drag them through the mud, I just think some of the negatives get glossed over in "what the founders intended" talk, almost like "what would Jesus do?"

Right, Adams was pretty heavily attacked for doing that, like anyone who defends Al Qaeda suspects are now. It was a big risk, personally and professionally, to do that. But, any time we want to hero-worship the founders or treat their ideas as holy writ, we need to remind ourselves that they counted blacks as 3/5's of a person and treated women as property. They were human, and they certainly were fallible. Political science and philosophy have both advanced quite a bit since the late 18th century, and virtues from that time may simply big wrong in a modern society.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) I think you missed this in your skimming... Well, to sound a little contradictory here, more CO2 may be "better for the biosphere" overall (though I don't know how you quantify that), but it probably isn't better for humans (along with many other species).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) Here is an excerpt from Super Freakonomics which describes the position taken by Intellectual Ventures: Excerpt from Super Freakonomics It's a long excerpt, but I promise you, it is definitely worth reading... One big problem from skimming: The "CO2 is good for plants!" argument doesn't hold up, especially not for all plants and all situations. CO2 would have to be the limiting factor for growth, and we'd have to ignore the likely droughts and floods that will result. Also, I'm pretty sure this: Is just simply untrue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) I have no information on their position on climate change and I can't seem to find any at that page. Can you fill in the blanks? I know the freakonomics guys support "geoengineering" over carbon pricing/taxing/limiting policies.