Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 02, 2014

OTP - June 2014: Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war’s death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.

Bitter Mouse Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:48 AM | 4613 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics, stupid ideas

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 20 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›
   1901. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4723489)
Wooden boards can't be cleaned.


The would-be sequel to Wild Hearts Can't be Broken?
   1902. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 11, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4723490)
Course you can. It's not like she was losing guns all the time, or lending them out to any random person; as best we know, her guns were secured. She just made the mistake of trusting her batshit crazy son with access to them, but people seldom are capable of making coldly rational assessments about their children's capabilities.


I doubt you mean it that way, but this seems like a perfect argument in support of draconian gun laws and/or outright gun bans. You can be a perfect gun owner 999 out of 1,000 times, but you screw up one time and you're dead along with 26 5- and 6-year olds. And in addition to their children, people often have blind spots around their spouses, significant others, other relatives, friends, etc (not to mention themselves). Some people are just really shitty judges of character.
   1903. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4723491)
She just made the mistake of trusting her batshit crazy son with access to them, but people seldom are capable of making coldly rational assessments about their children's capabilities.


And if those people didn't have a dozen or so guns, they wouldn't need to make those kinds of assessments.

Or, you could actually treat the crazy children.


Why is that an "or", instead of an "and"?
   1904. The Good Face Posted: June 11, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4723493)
So in addition to keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, we should also keep them out of the hands of people with crazy children, since they can't be trusted to understand that their kids are nuts.


Or we could stop making spurious arguments. If you give a family member the keys to your house and one of these days they burn it down while trying to make grilled cheese, that doesn't necessarily mean you're a reckless or negligent homeowner. In the Lanza case, there were some glaring warning signs that the kid was nuttier than squirrel ####, but sometimes the warning signs are very subtle, or just not there at all.
   1905. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4723495)
Why is that an "or", instead of an "and"?

Because if you don't treat the children, and certify them as mentally ill, you have no grounds for taking the guns out of the home.

Currently, if you are adjudged mentally ill and dangerous, or commit a felony, or domestic violence, the police will come and seize your guns, or force you to transfer them to someone else. That would also be the procedure if your child were deemed mentally ill and dangerous.

So, you need to treat and classify the crazy kids, before you can get the guns out of the house.

And if those people didn't have a dozen or so guns, they wouldn't need to make those kinds of assessments.

Again, if Nancy Lanza only had one gun, the situation doesn't end any differently.
   1906. The Good Face Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4723496)
I doubt you mean it that way, but this seems like a perfect argument in support of draconian gun laws and/or outright gun bans. You can be a perfect gun owner 999 out of 1,000 times, but you screw up one time and you're dead along with 26 5- and 6-year olds. And in addition to their children, people often have blind spots around their spouses, significant others, other relatives, friends, etc (not to mention themselves). Some people are just really shitty judges of character.


It's a silly argument because as "thinking fans," we can look at the numbers and realize that the risks of being killed in a mass shooting are below things like being hit by lightning or drowning in a swimming pool. Mass shootings, school or otherwise, are just not statistically significant enough to warrant changing much of anything, let alone giving up what our society has decided are fundamental rights.
   1907. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4723498)
Again, if Nancy Lanza only had one gun, the situation doesn't end any differently.
True. What would have mattered more is if Nancy Lanza didn't decide that guns were a definite answer to a questionable problem, that a dangerous revolution was coming, and that violent self-defense was going to be inevitable. The problem with Nancy Lanza isn't that she owned guns, but that she passed onto her son the belief that guns could solve societal problems.
   1908. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4723503)
Another Hillary Gaffe - Saying Abraham Lincoln Was An Illinois Senator. Probably not as damaging as whining about being "dead broke", when she was a 1%er with Bill's presidential pension, her Senate salary & and an $8M book advance, all while buying her $9M mansion in Chappaqua & her $5M mansion in Washington. These may not be the biggest issues, but they should serve as a reminder that Hillary isn't a very good campaigner. She started way ahead in 2008 and lost ground as the campaign wore on.
   1909. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4723505)
It's a silly argument because as "thinking fans," we can look at the numbers and realize that the risks of being killed in a mass shooting are below things like being hit by lightning or drowning in a swimming pool. Mass shootings, school or otherwise, are just not statistically significant enough to warrant changing much of anything, let alone giving up what our society has decided are fundamental rights.

This. You have more of an argument for banning swimming pools, from a safety perspective.
   1910. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4723508)
The idea that guns are a right and an important one, worth the tradeoff, is a fine argument. The argument that more guns does not lead to more gun violence is ridiculous on its face.
   1911. Lassus Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4723509)
If you give a family member the keys to your house and one of these days they burn it down while trying to make grilled cheese, that doesn't necessarily mean you're a reckless or negligent homeowner.

If Lanza wasn't an irresponsible, negligent gun owner, I'm not sure such a thing can be defined by your standards. She gave another adult access to her guns and ammunition. No matter how much you spin it, that is simply irresponsible and negligent.
   1912. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4723510)
Let's stop the playing around the edges, YC. Do you think that the ACA is going to be repealed by 2021? That'll give all the disaster scenarios you've posted here for the past year plenty of time to unfold.

I think that is likely, but (as most things) not guaranteed,


So how does that translate? a 40% chance of repeal? 70%? 90% Some other percentage?

although I suppose one can quibble about where one draws the line between "repealed" and "fundamentally altered",

Since the current House has voted to repeal the ACA 50 times already, I don't think it's really all that ambiguous. OTOH "fundamentally altered" to me would mean dismantling the exchanges and doing away with Medicaid expansion, and if both of those were to be accomplished, I'd consider it a de facto repeal.

and there are certainly scenarios that would result in a quicker action, as well as some that take longer.

I assume that by the first you mean a Republican president and vetoproof Senate majority in 2017, and by the latter you mean what, an armed Communist takeover that imprisons both President Cruz and the Congress?
   1913. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4723511)
Hillary isn't a very good campaigner


Wanna bet? The loser changes their handle for a week, acknowledging the other was right. Harmless, fun, and free. I say HRC will be elected president in 2016. I also bet that ACA will still be the law of the land on that day. In fact I'll take the exacta.

What do you say?
   1914. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4723514)
The idea that guns are a right and an important one, worth the tradeoff, is a fine argument. The argument that more guns does not lead to more gun violence is ridiculous on its face.

So, how do you reconcile the fact that while the number of guns has grown rapidly over the past 20 years, violent crime is way down?
   1915. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4723516)
If Lanza wasn't an irresponsible, negligent gun owner, I'm not sure such a thing can be defined by your standards. She gave another adult access to her guns and ammunition. No matter how much you spin it, that is simply irresponsible and negligent.

I would say she was negligent in not recognizing her son's mental issues meant he shouldn't have access to guns. Simply giving a close relative access to your guns is not negligent.
   1916. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4723517)
So, how do you reconcile the fact that while the number of guns has grown rapidly over the past 20 years, violent crime is way down?


Unleaded gas.
   1917. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4723519)
Another Hillary Gaffe - Saying Abraham Lincoln Was An Illinois Senator. Probably not as damaging as whining about being "dead broke", when she was a 1%er with Bill's presidential pension, her Senate salary & and an $8M book advance, all while buying her $9M mansion in Chappaqua & her $5M mansion in Washington. These may not be the biggest issues, but they should serve as a reminder that Hillary isn't a very good campaigner. She started way ahead in 2008 and lost ground as the campaign wore on.

I'm waiting for Hillary to declare before putting up my own money, but if you want immediate action to cash in on your astute analysis, Bitter Mouse has already said he's ready to post back in #1695.

EDIT: Never mind, I see he's already reminded you.
   1918. Mefisto Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4723520)
It's a silly argument because as "thinking fans," we can look at the numbers and realize that the risks of being killed in a mass shooting are below things like being hit by lightning or drowning in a swimming pool.


It's important to note that this is true only for certain definitions of "mass shooting". The FBI uses 4 deaths as the cut-off. That number is obviously arbitrary. If it used 10 deaths, the US would have very few "mass shootings". If it used "at least 2 people shot, at least one killed", we'd have many. In contrast, the number of people killed by lightning isn't ambiguous.
   1919. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4723522)
Unleaded gas.

Well, if leaded gas caused the violence, clearly, guns didn't.
   1920. Lassus Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4723524)
So, how do you reconcile the fact that while the number of guns has grown rapidly over the past 20 years, violent crime is way down?

Violent crime involving guns?
   1921. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4723525)
Well, if leaded gas caused the violence, clearly, guns didn't.


Multivariate causation, brah. If the levels of lead were the same, and the guns grew, then gun violence would grow. If the levels of lead decreased, but guns grew, then the levels of gun violence might very well stay steady and not grow.
   1922. The Good Face Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4723527)
If Lanza wasn't an irresponsible gun owner, I'm not sure such a thing can be defined by your standards.


This is why jurisprudence came up with the "reasonable person" test back in the times of the legends of the days of old. You can probably make a strong case that Lanza's mother was negligent considering the glaring signs her kid was not right in the head.

She gave another adult access to her guns and ammunition. No matter how much you spin it, that is simply irresponsible.


This, however, is a crazy person's standard.
   1923. The Good Face Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4723531)
It's important to note that this is true only for certain definitions of "mass shooting". The FBI uses 4 deaths as the cut-off. That number is obviously arbitrary. If it used 10 deaths, the US would have very few "mass shootings". If it used "at least 2 people shot, at least one killed", we'd have many. In contrast, the number of people killed by lightning isn't ambiguous.


Yes, if you redefine "mass shooting" to mean something completely different from what it means, you can make them appear to be more or less common.
   1924. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4723539)
Yes, if you redefine "mass shooting" to mean something completely different from what it means, you can make them appear to be more or less common.


I think his point was that arbitrary definitions are arbitrary.
   1925. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4723540)
Hillary isn't a very good campaigner

Wanna bet? The loser changes their handle for a week, acknowledging the other was right. Harmless, fun, and free. I say HRC will be elected president in 2016. I also bet that ACA will still be the law of the land on that day. In fact I'll take the exacta.

I indicated a long time ago that I think Internet wagers are silly, but I gave my reasons for stating Hillary wasn't a great campaigner - her 2008 run and the gaffe-a-day start to her book tour, which is also a reminder that the antipathy between her and the press corps probably means she doesn't get the fawning coverage Obama benefited from. Ray's challenge should be good enough for you, assuming he hasn't moved on or only cares about taking Andy's money. In any event, even without changing handles, I don't think anyone will have trouble remembering who more accurately predicts the 2016 election. 2014, too.
   1926. zenbitz Posted: June 11, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4723543)
There was also false claims posted on his site that the Rothschild banking dynasty had controlled Nazi Germany's leader Adolf Hitler.


Now hold on here... HOW can we be SURE this claim is false!!!!
   1927. Lassus Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4723547)
This, however, is a crazy person's standard.

Then what is not a crazy person's standard for responsible gun ownership, and who recently in the news can we use as an example?
   1928. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4723550)
I indicated a long time ago that I think Internet wagers are silly


I am not afraid of silly. I am not sure how you are going to parse victory in predicting 2014 though, as no one I know of has predicted anything other than a very good election for the GOP. I personally think it will be a pyrrhic victory, because the Tea party crazy it enables will harm the GOP long term, but it will be a successful night for the GOP nevertheless.
   1929. The Good Face Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4723553)
I think his point was that arbitrary definitions are arbitrary.


They're all arbitrary, even the "people killed by lightning" definition. What if a guy is struck by lightning and dies from cardiac arrest 3 months later? Was he killed by lightning? What if he strokes out 2 years later? Knowledge is almost infinitely reducible, and causation is tricky as hell. You want to understand a social phenomenon so you study sociology. But then you decide you need to know what the individuals are thinking, so you study psychology. That's not getting you what you need, so you delve into neuroscience. But that can't tell you what's happening at the cellular level, so you move to biology. That's good, but to really understand what's going on in those cells you need a further grounding in chemistry. But to really understand chemistry, you need an understanding of nuclear physics, and from there you need particle physics to understand what's going on under the hood of those atoms at the sub-atomic level. And after all that, at the end of the day you still don't know why there are so few chicks in your engineering classes.

   1930. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4723562)
. . . no one I know of has predicted anything other than a very good election for the GOP.

You must have placed some of your ideological brethren here on "Ignore". Good choice.
   1931. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4723573)
"Ignore"


I only put page breakers on ignore, and then only until I am off that page. Who exactly has predicted a good election for Team Blue?

Now whether or not the Senate will be lost, we could discuss that. Right now I think it is a coin flip. But even that is hardly a positive for the good guys, just non-disastrous.

2016? Now there I am pretty positive. Better battlefield, ACA hysteria calmed down, more time for favorable demographic changes(or death panels have thinned the herd, whichever), Presidential election (rather than midterm), and more years of GOP crazy do-nothingness. Yeah we can fast forward past 2014 to 2016 any time now.

By the way anyone have any thoughts as to who the next GOP majority leader will be? Next Speaker of the House?
   1932. Lassus Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4723574)
You must have placed some of your ideological brethren here on "Ignore". Good choice.

By "some" I assume you mean your oft-repeated claims of one Sam H., who, unless I"m mistaken, still predicts actual gain for the GOP, if not your gain. Who else have I missed who hasn't claimed a good election for the GOP?
   1933. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4723576)
. . . no one I know of has predicted anything other than a very good election for the GOP.

You must have placed some of your ideological brethren here on "Ignore". Good choice.


No, you haven't missed anyone's posts, YC seems to think that anything less bad for the Dems than YC's wishcasting constitutes a prediction of "something other than a very good election for the GOP."
   1934. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4723578)
Again, if Nancy Lanza only had one gun, the situation doesn't end any differently.


If she had no guns, it probably does. We had an incident in my town a couple of months ago, where a crazy kid brought knives to school and did a mass stabbing/slashing. 22 students and teachers were injured, but nobody was killed.
   1935. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4723579)
I'm happy to serve as a data point: I predict the GOP will lose 200 seats in the house and 30 in the Senate. And Obama will be elected King for life.
   1936. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4723581)
Who exactly has predicted a good election for Team Blue? Now whether or not the Senate will be lost, we could discuss that. Right now I think it is a coin flip. But even that is hardly a positive for the good guys, just non-disastrous.

I suppose it is a matter of definition, but holding on to the Senate would be a pretty good outcome for the Democrats, and several here have predicted that. The GOP needs six seats to take control, and while gaining 5 seats is no small task, I have indicated that the GOP would be under-performing if they didn't gain control of the Senate in 2014, which I still believe is the more likely outcome.
   1937. Lassus Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4723582)
RE: Cantor's hilarious ouster, Brat:
Seems like an odd duck. A Catholic who has John Calvin as a major influence and got an MDiv from Princeton?

As is coming out today, Brat went to Princeton Theological Seminary, which has no connection at all with Princeton University, other than being in the same town.
   1938. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4723585)
As is coming out today, Brat went to Princeton Theological Seminary, which has no connection at all with Princeton University, other than being in the same town.

And is apparently Presbyterian, which is also weird for a Catholic. Is he a convert?
   1939. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4723588)
I'm happy to serve as a data point: I predict the GOP will lose 200 seats in the house and 30 in the Senate. And Obama will be elected King for life.


Piker. I predict revolution in the streets, leaving only a brain trust of mother's-basement-dwelling savants to steer the tattered remnants of the nation.
   1940. Mefisto Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4723593)
They're all arbitrary, even the "people killed by lightning" definition.


"Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable."
   1941. spike Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4723594)
And in the anecdotal evidence that if there is a god, he has a whopper of a sense of humor, turns out Bergdahl was a Rand lover.

He also was a big fan of Ayn Rand, and on June 27, 2009, emailed friends a message titled “Who is John Galt,” which included this passage:
“I will serve no bandit, nor lair, for i know John Galt, and understand .?.?.” Bergdahl wrote. “This life is too short to serve those who compromise value, and its ethics. i am done compromising.”
Three days later, Bergdahl walked off his post.


Is some reposting of scrubbed tweets now in order?
   1942. Ron J2 Posted: June 11, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4723595)
YC I suppose it's a question of definition. I mean I've said many times that I make GOP +5 the single most likely outcome. I know you'd be disappointed with that result but it's still "good election for the GOP" in my book.

And while I still think GOP +5 is the single likeliest result, I make GOP +6 as the next most likely.

I can't think of anybody who thinks the Democrats are likely to do much better than this (though I'm pretty sure that there are those holding out hope that the Republicans will make enough bad candidate choices to allow the Democrats to hold the Senate. Nobody -- and I do mean nobody -- here expects Democrat gains)
   1943. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4723598)
A good analysis of Cantor's loss from Real Clear Politics, much better than the ratings here, IMHO:
This brings us back to Cantor. In his political science classic, “Home Style: House Members in Their Districts,” Richard Fenno hypothesized that members of Congress have three goals: re-election, power in Washington, and enacting policy preferences. To pursue the second two goals, a member must achieve the first, and to do that, he or she must adopt a style that suits the district. If these images are not consistently reinforced, the incumbent will have trouble. Crucially, Fenno notes that the adoption of an effective home style involves a two-way communication process: Telling the constituents about oneself, but also listening to constituents. With the benefit of hindsight, we can probably apply this model to explain most of the Tea Party wins and losses over the past few years.

I have yet to read anything suggesting that Cantor had a good home style. His staff is consistently described as aloof, and his constituent service is lacking. This is consistent with my experience. Anecdotes are not data, but after passage of the Affordable Care Act, I called his office with a question about what autism therapies for my son would now be covered (I lived in Cantor’s district for six years). I never heard back. This surprised me, as constituent questions rarely go unanswered. I never once saw Cantor, not at county fairs, not at school board meetings, and not in the parades that would sometimes march past our house (we lived on a major thoroughfare). This isn’t to say that Cantor never did these things, only that they weren’t frequent enough to register; he wasn’t the stereotypical Southern politician whose face showed up at every event.

In short, Cantor seemed more focused on the second and third goals of a politician -- power and policy -- to the detriment of the first. I am guessing he didn’t realize he might have a problem until he was booed at a district meeting a month ago. If he’d run scared, the result might well have been different. But he didn’t, and he lost. This is really the big-picture message for GOP incumbents. You don’t have to remake yourself into a Tea Partier. But you do have to care.

RTFA, it's fairly long with considerable discussion of other races, so "fair use" leaves a lot out that is worth reading.
   1944. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4723602)
I know you'd be disappointed with that result but it's still "good election for the GOP" in my book.

I won't quibble too much with that "definition", other than to note that the Bitter Mouse post (#1928) I responded to said no one hadn't predicted "a very good election for the GOP". That was my point, there is still a divide between those predicting a "good" GOP election and those predicting a "very good" GOP election. Which, admittedly, is pretty good for the GOP.
   1945. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 11, 2014 at 05:40 PM (#4723609)
Speaking of blind squirrel nut zippers, the Teapers seem to have stumbled upon a vaguely interesting character in VA. I have no doubt this is unintentional, and we'll see how he votes when rubber meets the lobby money from K Street.
   1946. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 11, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4723610)
I responded to said no one hadn't predicted "a very good election for the GOP". That was my point, there is still a divide between those predicting a "good" GOP election and those predicting a "very good" GOP election.


The Judean People's Front are a bunch of splitters.
   1947. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: June 11, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4723613)
Would having mandatory gun "insurance" be a possible solution to help pay for any sort of bills occurred by victims of gun violence?
   1948. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 11, 2014 at 05:53 PM (#4723614)
Don't take my gunpoint money... at gunpoint!
   1949. zenbitz Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4723618)
Anyway, mass shootings are a tiny, TINY fragment of all gun deaths in America.


And gun deaths are a small fraction of all US deaths. Probably could save more lives banning soda. (Not that I am in favor of that, either)
   1950. Howie Menckel Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4723620)

"Another Hillary Gaffe - Saying Abraham Lincoln Was An Illinois Senator."

to be fair, Hillary is from Noo Yawk. What would she know about some silly Midwestern state like Illinoise?
   1951. dr. scott Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4723622)
And gun deaths are a small fraction of all US deaths. Probably could save more lives banning soda. (Not that I am in favor of that, either)


this is true of terrorist attacks as well. If we did nothing to stop terrorists over seas apart from occasional clandestine operations and domestic police/FBI work... and that inaction caused terrorist attacks increase by factors of 10, it would still be a fraction of gun deaths and a tiny fraction of deaths. Gun deaths as of a couple of years ago was around 30k a year, ~2/3rd of which were suicides. Seems to be politics plays a larger role in which one people care about than actuarial statistics.
   1952. zenbitz Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:24 PM (#4723623)
I sleep very well at night with no fear of terrorist attacks.
   1953. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4723627)
Any single cause of death is but a small fraction of total deaths, so why care about any of them? And everyone's going to die eventually, so why care about when?
   1954. zenbitz Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4723628)
From the Vox article on Brat:

. "Give me a country in 1600 that had a Protestant led contest for religious and political power," he writes, "and I will show you a country that is rich today."


I will also give you a country with terrible food.
   1955. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:40 PM (#4723632)
Yes, if you redefine "mass shooting" to mean something completely different from what it means, you can make them appear to be more or less common.

Actually, I might go along with Mefisto's (silly) idea, if only to see how liberals react when they realize that blacks commit a massively disproportionate number of the newly redefined "mass shootings."

No doubt, they'd drop the issue like a hot potato.
   1956. Mefisto Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:48 PM (#4723634)
"Give me a country in 1600 that had a Protestant led contest for religious and political power," he writes, "and I will show you a country that is rich today."


Hm. For some values of "rich" and some values of "country", I suppose. I guess Max Weber has some influence still today. Perhaps snapper would like to weigh in on some possible alternatives.
   1957. Mefisto Posted: June 11, 2014 at 06:48 PM (#4723635)
Deleted double post.
   1958. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 11, 2014 at 07:07 PM (#4723638)
"Give me a country in 1600 that had a Protestant led contest for religious and political power," he writes, "and I will show you a country that is rich today."


And access to iron ore.
   1959. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 07:15 PM (#4723643)
My area in Economics was International Economic Development. One of the humorous bits is for a long time everyone was positive to be a successful country you had to be Protestant. When Japan started economically upward after WWII a whole bunch of economists essentially made Japan honorary Protestants. Then came South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. All got in the club. At some point even most of the hard core types gave up on that stupid theory, but I see in some corners variants of it are still alive and well.

Sigh.
   1960. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 11, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4723646)
At some point even most of the hard core types gave up on that stupid theory, but I see in some corners variants of it are still alive and well.


To be fair, this seems to be something he wrote a while back. We'll see, I guess.
   1961. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 07:23 PM (#4723647)
Actually, I might go along with Mefisto's (silly) idea, if only to see how liberals react when they realize that blacks commit a massively disproportionate number of the newly redefined "mass shootings."


Go for it. Crunch the numbers and throw a theory out there.
   1962. Howie Menckel Posted: June 11, 2014 at 07:24 PM (#4723648)

Brat was on the radio a little bit ago with rabid host Mark Levin. He's a college professor running, oddly enough, against a faculty member from the same school in November.

Mostly free markets, Judeo-Christian values, and so on.

And yes, he went with the maddening "Democrat Party" in describing the Democratic Party.

It would be fun if an R ever lost a close race and it turned out that the key was how many independents responded that they couldn't vote for someone who was so douche-y in that respect.

:)
   1963. GregD Posted: June 11, 2014 at 07:31 PM (#4723657)
Yeah if your law for economic success excludes the US Canada China South Korea Japan and Singapore among others you have a rule that underperforms a blind man and a dartboard
   1964. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 11, 2014 at 08:08 PM (#4723671)
The Fall of Saigon moment of the Iraq disaster appears to be shortly upon us, as contingency plans for the evacuation of the US Embassy in Baghdad are announced.

   1965. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 11, 2014 at 08:09 PM (#4723673)
The Islamists are winning.
   1966. zenbitz Posted: June 11, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4723680)
If you count only Protestant countries in 1600... Doesn't that leave 2/2? England and Holland? Germany wasn't a country until what, 1868?
   1967. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 08:39 PM (#4723688)
Hm. For some values of "rich" and some values of "country", I suppose. I guess Max Weber has some influence still today. Perhaps snapper would like to weigh in on some possible alternatives.

Rickey gets half of it.

And access to iron ore.


And coal.
   1968. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: June 11, 2014 at 08:53 PM (#4723691)
The Fall of Saigon moment of the Iraq disaster appears to be shortly upon us, as contingency plans for the evacuation of the US Embassy in Baghdad are announced.
never start a land war in asia.
   1969. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 11, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4723695)
Here's what one current Republican congressman has to say about his party's future prospects. I'm sure that Joe will give it at least two LOLs, but what the hell:

Pete King: GOP risks becoming a ‘permanent minority’

“Ted Cruz is a total nihilist, shutting down the government. That and Rand Paul’s isolationism appeal to the lowest common denominator, which would make us a permanent minority in terms of presidential races.”

That’s GOP Rep. Pete King of New York, in a phone interview with me today, commenting on Tea Partyer David Brat’s surprise primary win over Eric Cantor. King says his worry is that Brat’s victory will enable “the Ted Cruz and Rand Paul wing to take over the party,” which “could make us a stronger party in many Congressional districts but it will prevent us from being a national party.”...

“There is an opportunity right now — we have Democrats who are willing to agree to strict border controls,” King says. “We could get meaningful reform which could satisfy most Democrats and Republicans.” But sticking with a “hard-line position,” King adds, “could make it easier in primaries, but nationwide that doesn’t sell.”**


**
Despite a year of contentious national debate and several stalled congressional proposals, Americans still overwhelmingly agree that illegal immigrants living in the United States should be allowed to remain in the country and seek some form of legal status, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution, found that 62 percent of Americans favor allowing illegal immigrants a way to become citizens, compared with 63 percent a year ago. An additional 17 percent said in the new poll that illegal immigrants should be able to become legal residents but not full citizens. Nineteen percent said they should be deported....

The study’s authors said the stability in views on a “path to citizenship” came during a period when more Americans are expressing dissatisfaction with President Obama’s job performance and the direction of the country. The percent of Americans who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country rose from 58 percent in March 2013 to 64 percent today.

“Even though more people disapprove of the job President Obama is doing and with the country’s direction, that didn’t seem to affect their attitudes on immigration reform. If the issue was more closely tied with President Obama, you’d think support would go down,” said Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute. “There is no correlation.”
   1970. RollingWave Posted: June 11, 2014 at 09:24 PM (#4723704)
So by wanting to get rid of Assad the US also now either will lose Iraq to Islamist or force to help Assad fight them, kudos.

Why do I have a feeling that in 50 years most historians will rate Saddam Hussien higher than George W. Bush?
   1971. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 11, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4723705)
So by wanting to get rid of Assad the US also now either will lose Iraq to Islamist or force to help Assad fight them, kudos.

Why do I have a feeling that in 50 years most historians will rate Saddam Hussien higher than George W. Bush?


Bush screwed up plenty, but the Syria mess is on Obama.
   1972. RollingWave Posted: June 11, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4723707)
True that, though I'm more or less musing on Iraq.
   1973. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4723715)
The Fall of Saigon moment of the Iraq disaster appears to be shortly upon us, as contingency plans for the evacuation of the US Embassy in Baghdad are announced.


I am writing a game around the Fall of Saigon and have learned a bunch of cool stuff. The code for evacuation was Bing Crosby's White Christmas played over the radio.
   1974. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: June 11, 2014 at 10:04 PM (#4723716)
If you count only Protestant countries in 1600... Doesn't that leave 2/2? England and Holland?


Sweden.

And access to iron ore.


And coal.


Yes but... I posted this before, but it bears repeating. Galileo was tried for heresy, nearly executed, and spent the last decade of his life under house arrest. Isaac Newton was knighted.

   1975. Mefisto Posted: June 11, 2014 at 10:10 PM (#4723719)
For all that Newton and Galileo were important in advancing human knowledge, their impact on immediate economic development is trivial compared to coal.

I get that you're using them as a synecdoche for something like acceptance of new ideas and inventions, but the fact remains that it's coal which makes all those new inventions practical.
   1976. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 11, 2014 at 10:12 PM (#4723721)
I am writing a game around the Fall of Saigon and have learned a bunch of cool stuff. The code for evacuation was Bing Crosby's White Christmas played over the radio.

I couldn't think of a more appropriate evacuation code, since hearing that schlock would've made we want to get on a helicopter for ####### Cambodia.
   1977. bobm Posted: June 11, 2014 at 10:16 PM (#4723724)
At the link to the ACLU Blog there is a photo illustration of an autographed baseball card showing President Obama in a pitching windup and named "Deporter-in-Chief for Team White House," with the motto "YOU'RE OUT! Of the country. 2 million deportations."

ACLU Blog: Exiled: The Obama Administration's Horrifying Deportation Record

For the majority of the undocumented immigrants currently living inside the United States, deportation isn't an inconvenience. It is a terrifying, traumatic experience that rips people away from their homes, their communities, and, more importantly, the ones they love. [...]

During the 2008 campaign, Senator Barack Obama seemed to understand their pain and promised to fix our broken immigration system. He promised to enact comprehensive immigration reform and create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of hardworking people who labor for little money at often thankless jobs to make their children's lives -- and for that matter our lives -- a little bit easier. He pledged to no longer separate children from their parents. Today 4 million children call an undocumented immigrant mom or dad. Children who hug their parents extra tight before they leave for work for fear they'll never see them again.

Latinos, like me, rewarded Obama with our vote. In 2008: because he warmed our hearts. In 2012: because we believed his second term would free him to get immigration reform done, regardless of Republican obstructionism.

But the hope he inspired has spiraled into hopelessness.

Since President Obama assumed office, he has deported more than 2 million human beings -- husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. In March, the president looked as if he couldn't stomach his deportation record any longer, ordering his new head of homeland security to review how the White House could make the nation's deportation policies more "humane."

Maybe the deporter-in-chief would be the reformer-in-chief after all.

But in late May, President Obama delayed the review in the belief he could get House Republicans to come to the table and agree on immigration reform before Congress recesses for August. By doing so, the pace of the deportation machine will keep churning, grinding up thousands and thousands of more lives for a gamble whose odds of success are about as long as the fences erected across the Southwest border. This will only reinforce the schizophrenic "We don't want them here, but we need them here" mindset that exploits undocumented workers' labor without any sense of fairness or gratitude for their contributions to our prosperity.
   1978. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 11, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4723731)
We have talked a bit about evolution here, well here is an interesting article on some wolf populations in Canada.

It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.
   1979. bobm Posted: June 11, 2014 at 11:13 PM (#4723745)
Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation.

Yet more primates advocating for a guaranteed minimum income...
   1980. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 11:17 PM (#4723747)
Not helpful to Hillary - new sitcom.
   1981. Mefisto Posted: June 11, 2014 at 11:17 PM (#4723748)
They're able to work but not willing.
   1982. tshipman Posted: June 11, 2014 at 11:19 PM (#4723749)
Bush screwed up plenty, but the Syria mess is on Obama.


To be clear, I don't think that Obama handled Syria well. He gave a stupid red line, then lucked out on finding a diplomatic face saver that addressed his proclaimed goal.

That said, what could Obama have possibly done that would have changed the situation in Syria?
Syria is a powder keg that has been packed with more and more gunpowder for the last 30 years. I'm genuinely curious if anyone has a proposed set of steps that would have led to a better outcome.
   1983. greenback calls it soccer Posted: June 11, 2014 at 11:27 PM (#4723754)
Not helpful to Hillary - new sitcom.

Stuff like this is insightful. The R's are so convinced that Hillary will win in 2016, that all they've got left are cute little Internet memes.
   1984. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 11, 2014 at 11:33 PM (#4723756)
. . . what could Obama have possibly done that would have changed the situation in Syria?

To begin with, Obama could have listened to his own Ambassador, who recently resigned in protest:
I worked from Washington on the Syria issue for two years. Events on the ground were moving and our policy was not evolving very quickly. We were constantly behind the curve, and that’s why, now, we have extremist threats to our own country… finally I got to a point where I could no longer defend it publicly….

We need—and we have long needed—to help moderates in the Syrian opposition with both weapons and other nonlethal assistance. Had we done that, a couple of years ago, had we ramped it up, frankly the al-Qaeda groups that have been winning adherents would have been unable to compete with the moderates who, frankly, we have much in common with. But the moderates have been fighting constantly with arms tied behind their backs because they don’t have the same resources that either Assad does or the al-Qaeda groups in Syria do…

It is a question of whether or not there’s will to actually help people whose agenda is compatible with our national security interests, and then to make a decision and push forward.

Notwithstanding the urge by some here to give Obama a pass on everything, Syria was on his watch, and he bungled it.
   1985. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: June 11, 2014 at 11:57 PM (#4723758)
That said, what could Obama have possibly done that would have changed the situation in Syria?
Syria is a powder keg that has been packed with more and more gunpowder for the last 30 years. I'm genuinely curious if anyone has a proposed set of steps that would have led to a better outcome.
it seems like slavery has a high correlation with stability in the middle east. and oil subsidies.

basically, i think the blueprint for economic and governmental stability in the middle east is to give 50K citizens $100K per year in subsidies and put everyone else into slavery (or indentured servitude if you want to be milquetoast about it). that's not really a good answer, but in the short term, it's probably better than civil war and ethnic cleansing.
   1986. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: June 12, 2014 at 12:07 AM (#4723764)
I worked from Washington on the Syria issue for two years. Events on the ground were moving and our policy was not evolving very quickly. We were constantly behind the curve, and that’s why, now, we have extremist threats to our own country… finally I got to a point where I could no longer defend it publicly….

We need—and we have long needed—to help moderates in the Syrian opposition with both weapons and other nonlethal assistance. Had we done that, a couple of years ago, had we ramped it up, frankly the al-Qaeda groups that have been winning adherents would have been unable to compete with the moderates who, frankly, we have much in common with. But the moderates have been fighting constantly with arms tied behind their backs because they don’t have the same resources that either Assad does or the al-Qaeda groups in Syria do…

It is a question of whether or not there’s will to actually help people whose agenda is compatible with our national security interests, and then to make a decision and push forward.

that's kinda horseshit. 30 years ago we were giving weapons to bin laden because his interests were temporarily aligned with our own. i'd say the fact that the people this guy wanted to give weapons to are now aligned with al qaeda is strong evidence that they probably would have gotten there at some point anyway.

our position w/r/t syria should be 'we wish both sides the best of luck.' that's not a very courageous stand, but regardless of whether assad wins or the rebels win, they're gonna hate us anyway. it's best to just stand back and basically play referee to make sure noone kills each other too quickly or in ways that violate chemical/biological/nuclear weapons bans.
   1987. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 12, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4723771)
The Fall of Saigon moment of the Iraq disaster appears to be shortly upon us, as contingency plans for the evacuation of the US Embassy in Baghdad are announced.


Heck of a job, Bushie!
   1988. tshipman Posted: June 12, 2014 at 12:16 AM (#4723774)
To begin with, Obama could have listened to his own Ambassador, who recently resigned in protest:


I read that op-ed. It seems highly speculative. The Islamist militias were *always* the most well organized and had the most support. Even if I grant the Ambassador his claim, the best case scenario is still an out-and-out civil war--just one where the guys we like might be winning instead of losing.

It certainly doesn't point to a stable or successful Syria.
   1989. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 12, 2014 at 01:38 AM (#4723795)
Even if I grant the Ambassador his claim, the best case scenario is still an out-and-out civil war--just one where the guys we like might be winning instead of losing.

That's a pretty big difference. Seems to be no limit to how far the Obama apologists will go to justify his do-nothing policy.
   1990. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 12, 2014 at 01:52 AM (#4723801)
A day when Iraq is re-imploding and begging the U.S. "please bomb us some more for old times' sake" might not be the very best day to denounce Obama's decision to stay out of Syria.
   1991. tshipman Posted: June 12, 2014 at 02:03 AM (#4723803)
That's a pretty big difference. Seems to be no limit to how far the Obama apologists will go to justify his do-nothing policy.


??? How is it any different? Have we learned nothing in the last four years? Even when you successfully depose a bad dude via a violent revolution, all you do is create a power vacuum and the appetite for more coups.

Syria is more like Iraq than it is like Libya or Egypt. Egypt is the best case scenario: peaceful revolution toppling a dictator. Guess what? We're back to where we started in Egypt.
Libya was a similar situation to Syria--a peaceful uprising that turned violent, but got support from Western powers. Libya had quite a few advantages compared to Syria, though. Libya was at least not cleaved by sectarian differences and a history of oppression by a Shi'a minority. Libya was not being tacitly supported by a neighboring regime like Iran has been backing Syria.

No, Syria was most like Iraq. It was ruled by a secular autocrat who was backed by a religious minority that focused on suppressing the Sunni majority. We intervened in Iraq. I don't know if you remember that, it was maybe 10 years ago. Anyways, we intervened in Iraq full bore. No #####-footing around with advisors or weapon support. We found guys we could work with in Iraq. Guys like al-Maliki. You know, the good guys, the ones we could trust. Now, we couldn't fix the underlying structural issues in the region--the religious conflict between Sunni and Shi'a that had been simmering for 30 years under an autocrat. But, we thought we had a pretty good handle on things. We got rid of the bad guys, completely demolished the al-Quaeda forces that had sprung up there.

Now, look at Iraq. If you think Iraq is too pessimistic, look at Libya. Would Syria be better off if it looked more like Iraq? Would Syria be better off if it had a similar government situation to Libya? Now remember--Libya is the upside. Iraq is the most similar test case. I don't see a scenario where we armed a "secular" group and it works out really well for us. It literally never has in the region, even in places that were set up for success much better than in Syria.

But ####, blunders in foreign policy is what the Republican party does best, so you know, play to your strengths.
   1992. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: June 12, 2014 at 02:39 AM (#4723807)
??? How is it any different? Have we learned nothing in the last four years? Even when you successfully depose a bad dude via a violent revolution, all you do is create a power vacuum and the appetite for more coups.
neocons don't care that people are being killed, they just care that the "right" ones are doing more of the killing.
   1993. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 12, 2014 at 04:03 AM (#4723809)
Somebody called pourmecoffee tweeted this Tuesday night:

Rains of Castamere now playing at Eric Cantor campaign HQ.

Previous tweets by Mr. Coffee:

I bet when Wolf Blitzer's wife asks him how his day was, he says, "Shocking and Dramatic."

Today in 1844 Samuel Morse transmitted the first telegraph message, "What hath God wrought lol #ImpeachPolk
   1994. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: June 12, 2014 at 04:53 AM (#4723810)
That's a pretty big difference. Seems to be no limit to how far the Obama apologists will go to justify his do-nothing policy.
OTP - June 2014: Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion

OTP - June 2020: Syrian war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion

YC can only dream.
   1995. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 12, 2014 at 06:54 AM (#4723814)
Seems to be no limit to how far the Obama apologists will go to justify his do-nothing policy.


Seems to be no limit in how far YC will go to spin an anti-Obama narrative. (Seriously, you're not the objective voice in the room, Honey.)

The problem(s) in the ME are much deeper historically than Obama's (lucky if not wise) decision to stay out of Syria. Or than Bush's foolish decision to go into Iraq. The unraveling of the imperial system is long and violent. When you go into a region, randomly draw lines on a map and call them "states," and then enforce your randomly created "states" by oppression and tyranny for 150 years or so, the dissolution of that arbitrary madness is probably going to be bloody and painful. Extra credit points if your 150 years of arbitrary, tyrannical "states" in the region also serve to repress the region's advancement as the rest of the globe liberalizes and adopts modernity in some way or another in such a way that you can then come back to it and claim that the peoples of those "states" are just incapable of modern thinking after the fact!
   1996. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 12, 2014 at 07:03 AM (#4723815)
It's a terrible dilemma, but I don't see that we can sit by while Iraq and its resources get completely taken over by a primitive band of hardcore Islamists, giving the Islamists a rich base for terrorism.

Epic and monumental fvckup by George W. Bush.
   1997. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 12, 2014 at 07:17 AM (#4723817)
The problem(s) in the ME are much deeper historically than Obama's (lucky if not wise) decision to stay out of Syria. Or than Bush's foolish decision to go into Iraq. The unraveling of the imperial system is long and violent. When you go into a region, randomly draw lines on a map and call them "states," and then enforce your randomly created "states" by oppression and tyranny for 150 years or so, the dissolution of that arbitrary madness is probably going to be bloody and painful. Extra credit points if your 150 years of arbitrary, tyrannical "states" in the region also serve to repress the region's advancement as the rest of the globe liberalizes and adopts modernity in some way or another in such a way that you can then come back to it and claim that the peoples of those "states" are just incapable of modern thinking after the fact!

The only solution might be to triple down on extending life expectancy to the point where we can get enough State Department people who remember first hand how the last 100 years worth of wars turned out. The only problem is that we'd have to do the same thing in every other country to have much effect.

And no, that's obviously not a serious point or proposal, but only a melancholy reflection on Sam's quite succinct little history lesson. Without getting all moralistic about it, the 19th and early 20th centuries have a lot to answer for in terms of the mess they left behind, even if we haven't done a whole lot to improve things since then.
   1998. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 12, 2014 at 07:35 AM (#4723820)
It's a terrible dilemma, but I don't see that we can sit by while Iraq and its resources get completely taken over by a primitive band of hardcore Islamists, giving the Islamists a rich base for terrorism.


Not a US problem. We don't have to fix the world. And if we stop bombing random ME countries they will spend a bunch less time trying to (terror) bomb us back. I am against them having a civil war. I am more against the US getting involved in their civil war.
   1999. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 12, 2014 at 07:36 AM (#4723821)
Quick how many non-Christians are in the GOP and in Congress?
   2000. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 12, 2014 at 07:48 AM (#4723824)
And no, that's obviously not a serious point or proposal, but only a melancholy reflection on Sam's quite succinct little history lesson. Without getting all moralistic about it, the 19th and early 20th centuries have a lot to answer for in terms of the mess they left behind, even if we haven't done a whole lot to improve things since then.

Maybe, but the borders have essentially nothing to do with the rise of Islamism anymore than our borders have anything to do with the rise of Christianism here.
Page 20 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(673 - 6:10pm, Dec 18)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(56 - 6:07pm, Dec 18)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogMatt Kemp's arthritic hips hold up deal with Padres
(33 - 6:05pm, Dec 18)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4817 - 6:05pm, Dec 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(56 - 6:03pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(97 - 5:55pm, Dec 18)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(19 - 5:33pm, Dec 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(20 - 5:31pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1347 - 5:29pm, Dec 18)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(18 - 5:27pm, Dec 18)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogJoe Henderson's HOF Ballot
(49 - 5:15pm, Dec 18)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(13 - 5:11pm, Dec 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(38 - 4:52pm, Dec 18)
Last: God

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1901 Discussion
(29 - 4:50pm, Dec 18)
Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(11 - 4:43pm, Dec 18)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.7425 seconds
48 querie(s) executed