longde, as much as I'd love to stick it to QM over this, you're oversimplifying it.

Reagan ran up the deficit with a Democratic controlled Congress. Clinton balanced the budget with a Republican controlled Congress. Bush Sr. is getting a bit of a bad rap in your analysis. He was in wartime, so you're gonna run up the debt during war, and we absolutely should have gone into Iraq the first time.

Bush Jr. on the other hand did run up the debt with a Republican controlled Congress. Granted, with 9/11, etc. it was going to be difficult to not run a deficit, but Bush Sr. + the GOP Congress unnecessarily exacerbated the problem with the Bush Tax Cuts and Senior Prescription Benefit. And by 2004 or 2005, we should have been running a surplus.

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.

>> ^longde:
>> ^quantumushroom:
BR>
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.

The facts belie this point. Republicans love to spend. In fact, half the debt we have created since Reagan was done in eight years; care to guess which eight years? If you guessed Bush---ding, ding, ding! How he did it: Iraq War, Stupid unfunded Medicare extension, Insanely Stupid tax cuts---these 3 items make up nearly half the increase in the debt since Reagan. These were all republican initiatives.
Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. ran up gobs of debt, with the full support of the repubs. Clinton actually reduced the debt. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, but he handed bush jr a surplus. Obama spent money to head off a depression.

The truth is that aid programs fail because of a totality of circumstances. Rich, white people crafted government aid. They set the bar to make sure that you could not work and recieve aid at the same time (Not even pro-rated.) So, if you get off the aid, by say, working, you starve to death. Easy choice, right? I wouldn't say that's "Encouraging people to stay dependent." What a fucking douche Stossel is to oversimplify this type of epidemic...

Then the government also crafted punishments that imprison people for their entire lives--and therefore smother their children under oppression too. Your black and you smoke weed? Well, get on some aid because your useless. Crack and coke laws? Blacks recieve way stiffer sentences.

Society fucks them even furth through sterotypes... What? You're black? Well, being black was your first chance, and getting caught in illegal activity was your second...

Not that I know from experience...but I would say that 95% (Actually, 2 out of 34 to be exact) of the juveniles in eduction classes in a prison are African Americans or Hispanics... Amazing huh?

But no one stops to ask themselves how this happened. QM would blame this on the race itself. But this shit doesn't happen through fucking magic nor does it happen from skin color. At one time the African American community, in the United States, was the strongest community in the world... Now? It makes me weep on the whole--not because of what it is, but what it once was and should be. It's like a battle was fought so fiercely that by the time it won, the victory didn't matter. (I am generalizing about the whole of the problem, not the whole of the race.)

@GenjiKilpatrick

Downvoted my comment before even hearing my explanation? Classy.

Anyone who thinks that the only reason religion still exists in the modern world is to explain the physical world around us is either grossly uninformed of the complex and well-documented web of sociological, psychological, economic, and political facets of religion or is grossly oversimplifying the situation. In either case "simpleton" would be an apt term to describe such a person.

I do think you're right. About a month ago I saw a woman putting her child into a car seat in the back of her car. The child wouldn't sit still so she punched the kid in the face. I didn't know what to do, but now I know it's bad thanks to this PSA.>> ^alien_concept:

It won't stop child abusers. It might make people take their blinkers off and open their eyes to some of the signals that a kid is being abused and report it. And oversimplifying is good for stupid people

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
I'm getting used to the Trolliness. I just sigh and move on.
I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
I hope this makes Top 15. It might change some lives.

It's changed my life...and my childrens' lives. I used to beat them to shit every day when I would come home. After I saw this, though...I really reflected on what kind of impact this may be having on my children and the rest of their lives, so I have since stopped. THANKS PSA, just like always you know how to oversimplify a problem so that even I can understand it.

It won't stop child abusers. It might make people take their blinkers off and open their eyes to some of the signals that a kid is being abused and report it. And oversimplifying is good for stupid people


>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
I'm getting used to the Trolliness. I just sigh and move on.
I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
I hope this makes Top 15. It might change some lives.

It's changed my life...and my childrens' lives. I used to beat them to shit every day when I would come home. After I saw this, though...I really reflected on what kind of impact this may be having on my children and the rest of their lives, so I have since stopped. THANKS PSA, just like always you know how to oversimplify a problem so that even I can understand it.

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm getting used to the Trolliness. I just sigh and move on.
I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
I hope this makes Top 15. It might change some lives.


It's changed my life...and my childrens' lives. I used to beat them to shit every day when I would come home. After I saw this, though...I really reflected on what kind of impact this may be having on my children and the rest of their lives, so I have since stopped. THANKS PSA, just like always you know how to oversimplify a problem so that even I can understand it.

He's speaking a half truth, but I don't think he's calling the Tea Party people who believe in the extermination of people based on race or anything like that. He's trying to point out that the Tea Party, similar to the Nazi party, is an anti-establishment movement that has been born out of a troubled economy. That he's right about. He's also correct in observing that there doesn't seem to be any charismatic leader within the Tea Party. He's also correct in stating that there's a higher risk of radical parties coming to power during times of socio-economic upheavals.

He loses me in stating that the Tea Party is only about fear and hate, and have no proposed solutions. They are proposing a radical change in the federal budget, including massive cuts that adhere to radical conservative political philosophies, including massive cuts typically in social programs instead of defense. I vehemently disagree with that, but that's still a stated solution. I just wish politics were more about discussing rationally the pros and cons of an idea instead of loose associations with clearly horrible groups from history. You could make the case that the American progressive movement was a reaction to poor political and social environments, but that doesn't make the Progressive Movement bad.

He also is oversimplifying the Nazi rise to power. When you think about it, he contradicts himself. If Hitler simply rose to power because of exploiting popular discontent with the economy, then why did he never get the support of the majority of Germans in a free and fair election? Hitler did in fact exploit fear and malcontent in the German population caused by the Great Depression, but he never would have come to power had the conservative parties not attempted to co-op the Nazis to fight off the political left Social Democratic party and the Communist Party in Germany.

The rise of an extreme party in the US in the same way Nazis took control of Germany is very highly unlikely. While there are obvious negatives to the US two party political system, one strength is it does a very good job of preventing extremists from taking over. In Germany, the Nazi party exploited the fact there were numerous parties - the Conservative party, the Catholic Party, the Social Democratic party, the Communist party, and of course the Nazis to name some. Sure the US has other parties than the Democratic and Republican parties, but they're virtually insignificant in numbers and support. That simply wasn't the case in Weimar Germany, and in order to get a coalition government to get anything done, parties had to compromise and work together. Unfortunately, the conservative parties decided to work with the Nazis, making Hitler Chancellor, even though the Nazis were clearly anti-democratic, because they politically disagreed with the Social Democratic party. You can call the Tea Party whatever you want, but they certainly are in favor of Democracy.

You're giving Obama too much credit. The left claims he's a puppet doing the bidding of the military-industrial blah blah, but it's apparent that any "president" LESS decisive than the fking UN is a fraud. Obama's only real wars are on the Constitution and American Exceptionalism.

Not to oversimplify, but fk it, I will anyway: the USA is the only nation in the world that is also a moral force for good. We are forced into the role of World Policeman by an admixture of hostile, backward nations and apathetic, do-nothing, spineless First World nations who pretend not to know better.

Gaddafi's a POS, but as in Egypt, keeping muslims from taking over more governments trumps the antics of puppet dictators.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I disagree. For one, I think most people who feel they have a career and not just a job to get by are passionate about what they do, perhaps not initially but certainly over time as they become experienced. They might not be educating future generations, but they're contributing to society in their own way.

I honestly can't figure out how paying good teachers more cheapens anything. I certainly can't see how it would discourage them from teaching in the first place. I can definitely imagine though that there are plenty of capable, educated and willing would-be teachers who are simply not happy with a teacher's salary. Look at the amount of people who come back from the private sector to teach at university.

And the fact of the matter is, there already is merit pay in teaching. Principals and managerial level positions get paid way more. Why hasn't this destroyed the fabric of educational society?

Education for the most part is very compartmentalized and I would argue very measurable. Say you teach a unit in maths for a whole year. You have massive control over direction for that period. Yes, you depend on cooperation from prior year levels, and you may depend on subjects that tie into yours (physics perhaps) or vice versa. But you have huge amounts of autonomy throughout that year, and a huge potential to individual shape outcomes.

You oversimplify the rest of the private sector. Take banks, arguably the most purely money driven. At the insitutional level have a front end staff that deals directly with clients and wants to maximise profitable deals. Typically, a separate team counter-balances them on credit risk, and another on market risk (interest/exchange risk). In combination, the goal attained is not simply blunt returns, it's risk weighed outcomes, which can only be achieved through cooperation because of mutually competing objectives.

I'm just not seeing how if well organised, schools can't be the same. Well structured, the Coke and Pepsi in your examples would be schools. Somehow both these corporations have managed to work together as a team despite most employees chasing wage rises essentially at the expense of the other, right?

If teachers are so driven and personally motivated as you say, why is it then so few are willing to go to under performing schools to raise their standards? After all, if they were so intrinsically altruistic, that would be the first place to start, no? Teaching in the 'burbs to upper middle class kids with parents who have already motivated them to succeed regardless of whether the teacher is any good isn't exactly hard right? I find it difficult to see how you can deny here that incentives would help.

I think we have different paradigms on education. Yes, great schools should be full of engaging extracurricular activities to choose from and develop students as a person not just as a capable cog in the working machine economy. But the great schools in the US, over here in Australia are already great. The issue is the ones who can't provide a basic education. The focus here doesn't need to be wishy washy but on structured targets achieved in the best way they can. There should be expected basic standards of knowledge to be reached and if progress is consistently not being made towards them, there should be consequences.

Again, my experience has been that good exams, even the internationally standardised exams I took at the end of high school required critical thinking. Bad exam design is the problem.

You make it sound like people in the private sector carry around a jail ball weight of mistrust and fear around with them everywhere they go. People spend upwards of 8 hours a day in a skilled position generally because they enjoy what they do. They want to do well, and the pay reward is ultimately ancillary and a reinforcing look for the will to do well that they had in the first place.

As for the last comment, again we philosophically disagree but I would say markets didn't. In the US at least, poor regulation and the domination of policy direction by collective interests (corporate and union) through poor campaign financing caused the recent mess and much of what continues. Take a look at Australia as an example, and you will see a very different story. None of our banks got in trouble much because of good regulation, interest groups do not dominate elections and our economy never went into recession.

I'm more inclined to believe this narrow view of politics that anything else.

People do vote on narrow issues. When their union is saying that party X will prevent their job from being outsourced, the choice is clear. When party Y offers generous handouts to a particular constituency they lap it up. Last election here in Australia, a coworker told me she voted singlehandedly for a particular party because they provided more generous maternity benefits. When it comes down to it, people have neither the time, effort or often the desire to analyse and determine the utilitarian option. Cynical sure, but just about everything from my experiences has supported this view.

Capitalism as a system, is built on incentives. Correctly calibrated with the right regulatory adjustments to prevent malfeasants like pollution, moral hazard and other negative externalities, it works incredibly well.

I think the same thing should apply to politics. For all intents and purposes that's what (a representational) democracy is grounded in anyway. Elected officials act in the interest of their constituents because that's what gets them elected. When, as in the US, campaign contributions (as a result of the almost limitless campaign financing rules) play such an important role, incentives are skewed. Curtis seems to draw the distorted view that adapting politics to a more capitalist based system implies surrendering its authority wholly to private companies when this is simply not a fair representation of game theory which on its pure theory alone implies or suggests nothing of the sort.

I really like Curtis's work, it often provides a very well thought out philosophy grounded in reason but I think he tends to oversimplify and draw swathes in describing complex issues.

i apologise for assuming you liked freud - i think i have my wires crossed with someone else. in any case i am always glad to hear when people are suspicious of him, because there is good reason to be. i highly recommend reading "the unknown freud" by frederick crews.

to respond point by point:

1. yes, i agree that the human condition has been examined for thousands of years, and that 'psychology' in some form began with the ancient greeks, if not earlier. but this is oversimplifying things dramatically, and it becomes an argument of definition. i refer to psychology as psychological SCIENCE, which -is- (relatively) new. this difference is not trivial -- until the 19th century, our hypotheses about the human condition were untested. psychological science allows us to see if our philosophies about human perception, cognition, and behaviour, are demonstrably true.

2. the humanists/third wave occupied an important space and time, but were overshadowed by behaviourism/cognitivism. still, i think a lot of people outside of psychology have heard of abraham maslow and his 'hierarchy of needs'. not only that, but humanist psychologists were responsible for the development of the 'client-centered approach', which was hugely influential. i would disagree with you here and say that in research, and clinical psychology, humanist trends are vitally important. in fact, a relatively new sub-discipline within psychology called "positive psychology" is burgeoning. i would suggest that perhaps the reason it seems discouraged is because psychology is so unbelievably broad now, and neuroscience is becoming increasingly popular, that it seems as though interest in wellbeing is small. i don't think it truly is.

3. well, i suspect here we have a true divide that we can't agree on. you believe we have failed in understanding the human condition because of something i believe doesn't exist. i think we understand the human condition fairly well, given our short (scientific) time at examining it. but it is an unwieldly, hugely complex beast, and we are just at the beginning.

and with regard to your points on bashing psychology:

1. if you want to understand a human, it is useful to understand the workings of the brain. would you let a surgeon operate without training? i'm not sure what the problem is with emphasising that students of the science of human thought and behaviour learn how the biology of the mind works.

2. yes, rates are up. population is also up. ability to diagnose accurately is also up. recognition that people have problems, instead of pretending they're fine, is also up. look, i see what you're saying, and it's perfectly reasonable, but i think this problem is enormously complex, and blaming psychology is misplaced.

>> ^enoch:

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.
now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.
i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.
let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.
while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).
i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.
please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.
No biggie.
Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.
As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.
Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.
Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.
As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.
The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.


I don't understand this. "The government" should essentially be us. They should be a good friend selling us shit at cost. When I buy weed off my pot dealing friend, he sells it to me at the same price he gets it. Cost. If I buy off the other guy, I pay a good amount more. If the government is the people serving the people, the people are the greatest benefactors.

I think it's wrong that, in Canada, we sell the right to build lines all through our country, and then the we let the people we sold it to(Bell and Rogers) gauge us for an internet connection.

I can see, however, how it could happen that government run programs might have people in charge who want to look good, so they might strive for a profit. I think this is wrong. It would be wrong for them to turn a profit and then redistribute the profit to other government run programs, but even wronger for them to take that profit and give it as bonuses to their CEO's.

At the end of the day, the problem with "Government" is that it doesn't serve the people, and it won't, unless the people keep on top of them.

We need to call a spade a spade. Like the recently passed law stating corporations can donate unlimited amounts, anonymously. How the eff is there not more outrage regarding that? It doesn't essentially mean the ultra rich control politics, no, not essentially, it 100% means the ultra rich control politics. Why not allow each party a set amount? Wake the fuck up...

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." -Noam Chomsky

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.

No biggie.

Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.

As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.

Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.

Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.

As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.

The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.

I agree it is oversimplified by Dawkins here but not sure for what audience this is intended. I think he was leaning to what you were talking about with his third hypothesis.
His first hypothesis I must be misunderstanding, because simply babysitting the kids would not pass the gene onto them unless those children were the result of his second hypothesis.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

I thought this was surprisingly oversimplified talk by Dawkins, He must full well know that there is no one, isolated gay gene, but that gay(and hetero/bi) behavior/sexuality is much more likely a very complex mix of many genes that determine hormones, lust, love and many other things, and I'm also surprised he doesnt bring up misfiring. Sexual and emotional lust is a complex set of things, and as anyone thats ever been in love could attest to, a very powerful and complicated thing..
That one in 10 simply falls in love/wants to have sex with with the wrong sex could be a natural frequency thats basically hard to keep down. maybe the mistakes are simply cancelled out by the usefulness of sexual lust and behavior. What I mean is, we basically have genes that say "Make a body that really, really likes sex and that wants to fuck anything that moves.. wait uh, I mean only of the same species and opposite sex are in also a fertile state" and that the first part of that instruction is by far the most important.
It might be far more dangerous for a gene(for its long term survival) to produce hetero-or-nothing sexuality than to produce bodies whose sexual lust misfires 1 in 10 times.

Keep in mind that I'm using words like "mistake" and "wrong" as in "its a mistake/wrong to be gay if you want to reproduce" and not in any political way.

I thought this was surprisingly oversimplified talk by Dawkins, He must full well know that there is no one, isolated gay gene, but that gay(and hetero/bi) behavior/sexuality is much more likely a very complex mix of many genes that determine hormones, lust, love and many other things, and I'm also surprised he doesnt bring up misfiring. Sexual and emotional lust is a complex set of things, and as anyone thats ever been in love could attest to, a very powerful and complicated thing..

That one in 10 simply falls in love/wants to have sex with with the wrong* sex could be a natural frequency thats basically hard to keep down. maybe the mistakes* are simply cancelled out by the usefulness of sexual lust and behavior. What I mean is, we basically have genes that say "Make a body that really, really likes sex and that wants to fuck anything that moves.. wait uh, I mean only of the same species and opposite sex are in also a fertile state" and that the first part of that instruction is by far the most important.

It might be far more dangerous for a gene(for its long term survival) to produce hetero-or-nothing sexuality than to produce bodies whose sexual lust misfires 1 in 10 times.


*Keep in mind that I'm using words like "mistake" and "wrong" as in "its a mistake/wrong to be gay if you want to reproduce" and not in any political way.