On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:37:32 AM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
On 1/14/2016 7:59 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/13/2016 11:57 PM, Don Y wrote:
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton spoke at near an
eighth-grade level, while Bernie Sanders spoke at just above
10th grade.

Sanders is screwed. There is a bit of apocrypha about Adlai Stevenson. After
one of his speeches a supporter gushed "Mr. Stevenson, all intelligent people
will vote for you!" to which he replied "That's not enough, madam, we need a
majority!"

A more reliable quote is "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in
which we live, and fear breeds repression. Too often sinister threats to the
bill of rights, to freedom of the mind, are concealed under the patriotic
cloak, of anti-communism."

And you see politicians *exploiting* that fear -- even MANUFACTURING it
when it may not truly exist! Again, makes you wonder what they think of their
constituents...

"Oooo! Terrorism! Here, take my liberties -- just keep me SAFE, Mr Stalin!!"

If someone want's to voluntarily give up their rights, freedom and liberty, it's OK with me but those morons demand I must give up mine too. They wanna feel safe. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Safe Monster

Per Don Y:
But, note that this works BOTH WAYS! E.g., you can claim that a
little deregulation, reduction in size of government is GOOD so
even *more* would be better! It's always amusing to see what the
"less government" folks want to KEEP as government functions
and what that says about them, their fears, etc.

I suggest to the more extreme of those people that they take a few
months off, rent an apartment in Mogadishu and, if they survive, report
back on how things are with little or no government.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/14/2016 10:22 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
But, note that this works BOTH WAYS! E.g., you can claim that a
little deregulation, reduction in size of government is GOOD so
even *more* would be better! It's always amusing to see what the
"less government" folks want to KEEP as government functions
and what that says about them, their fears, etc.

I suggest to the more extreme of those people that they take a few
months off, rent an apartment in Mogadishu and, if they survive, report
back on how things are with little or no government.

Exactly. Note all the "radicals" in the middle east running around
promoting same sex marriage, women's rights, equal pay, religious
freedom (including "atheism"), etc. -- NOT!

On 1/12/2016 3:11 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Uncle Monster:
You have a room-temperature national IQ and you get Sarah Palin as a
nominee and Donald Trump as a contender.

So the former "Governor" of The State Of Alaska who scares the frak out of Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks has a low IQ? But the P.L.L.C.F. are so much smarter than everyone
else, why are they running so scared that they viciously attack someone who isn't that
intelligent? Won't their superior intelligence assure them of a win? O_o

I was referring to the populace's "IQ" (actually education
level/critical thinking skills)... not Sarah Palin's.


There is nothing wrong with speaking or writing at a level below the
level of your education. In fact, it is a good idea as it gets your
point across to everyone.

If, I did, for example, most would not understand me as my education
went through grad school.

There is an easy way to analyze speech or writing through the Gunning
fog index:

http://gunning-fog-index.com/

Per Frank:
There is nothing wrong with speaking or writing at a level below the
level of your education. In fact, it is a good idea as it gets your
point across to everyone.

True, dat....

But if that lower level is warranted (as I am sure it is if smart guys
like Richard Nixon and Oral Roberts believed it was in their
time)....then, below a certain level, we are uncovering what seems to me
like a problem: limited thinking ability in the general populace.

Has it always been that way ? Might the level actually be higher now
than 100 years ago ?

Interesting questions..... and I have no clue what the answers are...

But when smart demagogues start saying stupid things to win over stupid
people (OK....for the sake of PC: "Low-Information Voters")... it seems
to me like things are poised to go downhill.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:38:35 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

There is nothing wrong with speaking or writing at a level below the
level of your education. In fact, it is a good idea as it gets your
point across to everyone.

Worked with a guy that wrote a policy for his department. Took it up
to his boss for review and approval. The boss broke out the red pen,
marked all over it - saying his wife had looked at it. Bill went back
to his office. He waited a couple of days, printed it off again and
sent it back to the boss without any changes. The educated idiot
signed it for approval.

A guy in my department had previously revised an emergency plan. He
often had verbal diarrhea on paper. I revised it by cutting it down
in half and held it. Then (jokingly) inserted one page: "There will
no escapes from this prison." Afterwards, I put my revision in with
the other 12 plans I had revised and updated.

:-\

On 1/14/2016 10:38 AM, Frank wrote:
On 1/12/2016 3:11 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Uncle Monster:
You have a room-temperature national IQ and you get Sarah Palin as a
nominee and Donald Trump as a contender.

So the former "Governor" of The State Of Alaska who scares the frak out of
Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks has a low IQ? But the P.L.L.C.F. are so much
smarter than everyone
else, why are they running so scared that they viciously attack someone who
isn't that
intelligent? Won't their superior intelligence assure them of a win? O_o

I was referring to the populace's "IQ" (actually education
level/critical thinking skills)... not Sarah Palin's.


There is nothing wrong with speaking or writing at a level below the level of
your education.

Of course not! Kindergarten teachers spend the majority of their day
speaking below their level of education!

But, if you spend much time speaking to folks who "talk down"
to their students (as a necessary condition of their employment),
you learn that they tend to think everyone operates at that
reduced level of comprehension. They lose the capacity to
*offer* more information, defaulting to this dumbed down
attitude.

In fact, it is a good idea as it gets your point across to
everyone.

This is where it gets murky. How *low* do you set that threshold?
Should Little Johnny who's currently TEETHING be able to understand
your comments? Surely *he's* interested in the direction the country
would be headed under your leadership!

You should be speaking to a level that *voters* can understand.
And, "speaking" just covers your choice of words and sentence
structure. I can explain how a computer works to an 8 year old!
It will take me a lot of words and childhood analogies. But,
by the end, the little tike will understand its workings
as well as his parents or grandparents!

What;s missing in the political rhetoric is patient explanation
of the perceived problems, proposed solutions and *why* the
solution WILL address the problem. If there are pesky little
details that complicate the reality of these situations, then
it falls upon the person making the pitch to explain these,
not dismiss them as "unfortunate details".

*How* are you going to bill Mexico for The Wall? Cite some
legal precedent that the eggheads can verify. Then, explain the
significance of this to Joe Plumber in words he can understand.
If you don't have the intellectual capacity to figure out how
to relate to that wide variety of intelligence and life experiences
in your audience, then talk to the speech writers that you are
PAYING and let them figure it out for you.

If, I did, for example, most would not understand me as my education went
through grad school.

There is an easy way to analyze speech or writing through the Gunning fog index:

Most of these indices have serious drawbacks due to their simplicity.
You can write reams of prose without using a three syllable word
(i.e., driving your readability score down) and cover something complex.
Or, something trivial.

Note the Twain passage I cited in the "eReader options" thread. Technically,
it is written at a relatively low readability level. Yet, reading it
would strike many as "complex". Just look at the punctuation counts,
number of subphrases in each sentence, etc. Most readability metrics
gloss over a lot of this.

When I prepare documents for publication, I routinely check the Flesch
Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, ARI, SMOG, and Gunning Fog Index
(these figures are available from within my "word processor") while I'm
writing -- just to see if I'm getting too far afield of my target audience
(though, admittedly, my target audience tends to be fairly advanced).

Writing for a third grade level would be crippling! "See Spot run. Run
Spot, run!"

On 1/14/2016 11:58 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
There is nothing wrong with speaking or writing at a level below the
level of your education. In fact, it is a good idea as it gets your
point across to everyone.

True, dat....

But if that lower level is warranted (as I am sure it is if smart guys
like Richard Nixon and Oral Roberts believed it was in their
time)....then, below a certain level, we are uncovering what seems to me
like a problem: limited thinking ability in the general populace.

Exactly. I have a colleague who contends that most people are incapable
of abstract thought -- and this in his assessment of *technologists*
(not "plumbers", etc.).

If you keep pandering to people who don't want to think about difficult
issues ("My brain hurts!"), then you teach them NOT to think about
difficult issues: "Just TRUST ME! I have all the answers!!"

Use a calculator for all your arithmetic needs and within a month,
you'll find you can no longer do long division, etc. If you don't
regularly pick apart arguments to expose their flaws/fallacies/assumptions,
then how quickly will you lose *that* critical ability?

I write phenomenally reliable software (!). I do this by CONSTANTLY
criticizing every assumption *I* make in my design of the softwa
"How would *I* break this -- intentionally or otherwise?" Colleagues
despair when I approach their products because they *know* I'll break
it within the first minute or two -- despite the fact that they've been
testing and "perfecting" it for months! They've lost the ability to
see the flaws in their own designs.

Has it always been that way ? Might the level actually be higher now
than 100 years ago ?

Read the Twain passage I cited in the ereader thread. Remember, twain
wrote for the public at large, not for the "elite". His readers may not
have been able to craft a sentence as elegantly as he -- but they
UNDERSTOOD what he was saying!

Interesting questions..... and I have no clue what the answers are...

But when smart demagogues start saying stupid things to win over stupid
people (OK....for the sake of PC: "Low-Information Voters")... it seems
to me like things are poised to go downhill.

Yes. If you think government is too big, doing too much, then wouldn't
you want a candidate to explain more -- so YOU could be more INFORMED
(thereby requiring LESS of your government)?

But, that assumes people *want* to be informed. IME, they want NOT to have
to bother thinking about most of these things. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRIVIAL!
If they *were* trivial, they'd be easy to think about AND easy to come
up with the "right" solution. Instead, people are willing -- eager! -- to
settle for specious reasoning ("Yeah, that SORT OF makes sense...") so
they can dismiss a difficult subject.

We've had "photo traffic enforcement" here for a number of years.
Originally, speed traps. Then, red light traps. There was a recent
citizens' initiative to ban this technology (for a variety of valid
reasons). The folks wanting to keep the (revenue generation) scheme
in place kept claiming their presence reduces accidents. And, sited
some statistics that *seemed* to support their claim.

OTOH, for the same time period, statistics in areas where the cameras
had been REMOVED didn't show an *increase* in the years since their removal.

Ooops! And, no one eager to explain the apparent discrepancy in
a meaningful way that would help voters decide.

Instead, the "unfairness" of the technology (there are lots of flaws
with the implementation -- clearly designed to maximize "return"
for the third-party vendor) was the overwhelming sentiment and voters
banned all such technologies by a 3:2 margin.

None of the stake holders felt qualified to present their case with
CLEAR FACTS! So, did they not understand the situation? Were they
inarticulate? Or, just plain WRONG??

On 01/14/2016 08:37 AM, Don Y wrote:
And you see politicians *exploiting* that fear -- even MANUFACTURING it
when it may not truly exist! Again, makes you wonder what they think of
their
constituents...

Remember the peace dividend? It didn't take the pols long to find
another existential threat to impress the rubes.

On 01/14/2016 09:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Besides seeming too old, I think Sanders has another problem: he comes
right out and says that he, by himself, is not going to be able to make
the changes he is talking about. Instead, he needs a whole movement
behind him.... and I do not think that is going to happen anytime in the
forseeable future.

I do respect the cranky old fart. It must be a source of wonderment to
him to be doing as well as he is. Sanders knows his history. The last
overt Socialist was Eugene Debs and he ran for President in 1920 from
the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

I think the Nordic model has its merits -- as long as you're dealing
with a relatively small, homogenous population. Like Vermont, for
example. Even the Nordics have realized somewhat belatedly that
welcoming masses of low skilled people who do not share a religion (or
irreligion) or language is a disaster.

Sanders might be better served by going home and working on the Second
Vermont Republic.

On 1/14/2016 7:38 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/14/2016 08:37 AM, Don Y wrote:
And you see politicians *exploiting* that fear -- even MANUFACTURING it
when it may not truly exist! Again, makes you wonder what they think of
their
constituents...

Remember the peace dividend? It didn't take the pols long to find another
existential threat to impress the rubes.

The job of legislators is to write laws and spend money. Do you
really wonder why there are always MORE laws and MORE expenditures?

Cops are supposed to catch criminals. Do you think there will ever
be a time when *they* declare them "all caught" ("Gee, what do we do
now, cap'n?")

"Let's go invade Granada!"
"WTF? Granada? What's that -- some new CAR MODEL??"

On 1/15/16 6:52 AM, Don Y wrote:

"Let's go invade Granada!"
"WTF? Granada? What's that -- some new CAR MODEL??"
I don't think that Grenada gets it's due. Sometimes you just have
to make the world safe for second-tier medical students.

On 01/15/2016 04:52 AM, Don Y wrote:
"Let's go invade Granada!"
"WTF? Granada? What's that -- some new CAR MODEL??"

At least Reagan chose his invasions wisely. GHWB was on the right track
when he invaded Panama but then he got cocky.

On 01/15/2016 05:00 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 1/15/16 6:52 AM, Don Y wrote:

"Let's go invade Granada!"
"WTF? Granada? What's that -- some new CAR MODEL??"
I don't think that Grenada gets it's due. Sometimes you just have
to make the world safe for second-tier medical students.


They made out okay. One night they talked to Ted Koppel on the phone and
said 'No problemo except we're running out of beer. part on!' The next
evening they said they were in fear of their lives and were eternally
grateful to the Rangers for rescuing them.

Could the State Department's guarantee they would continue their
education in the US, possibly heavily subsidized, have anything to do
with it?

Then there was the ****ed off Thatcher. Did she think Reagan was trying
to upstage her jolly little war in the Falklands?

Per rbowman:
Sanders might be better served by going home and working on the Second
Vermont Republic.

I think he is performing a service by saying things that others fear to
say.... whether it will do any good is another question.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/15/2016 9:20 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
Sanders might be better served by going home and working on the Second
Vermont Republic.

I think he is performing a service by saying things that others fear to
say.... whether it will do any good is another question.

Sooner or later, things will get out of hand and there will be a "correction".
I'd hate to be a business (or, one of the 1%) when that day comes.

It is sad that greed and irresponsibility have become the norm.

Perhaps we should start replacing "fines" for crimes committed by
businesses with "jail time"? Of course, it wouldn't be proper to
incarcerate any of the principles -- especially as the ones
responsible may no longer be officers.

So, just suspend the organization's business license for the period
of "incarceration" -- deny them the "freedom" to conduct business
for that period of time.

This would essentially be the kiss of death for anything more than
a few *days*. Can't pay your employees, vendors, deliver products,
etc. Sort of like what incarceration does to *humans*. Of course,
the folks suspected of being responsible would be pariahs in the
eyes of other similar businesses ("Hell, no! WE don't want to hire
you and suffer that same fate!")

Don Y posted for all of us...


The job of legislators is to write laws and spend money. Do you
really wonder why there are always MORE laws and MORE expenditures?


That is what they think their job is, but it's not.

Cops are supposed to catch criminals. Do you think there will ever
be a time when *they* declare them "all caught" ("Gee, what do we do
now, cap'n?")

Never catch all of them. New supply at every birth. New supply at every
lawyers office. New supply from every judge.

"Let's go invade Granada!"
"WTF? Granada? What's that -- some new CAR MODEL??"

Yeah well, that's in the past. I look toward the future. do they have ISIS
in the trunk?


--
Tekkie

Don Y posted for all of us...



On 1/15/2016 9:20 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
Sanders might be better served by going home and working on the Second
Vermont Republic.

I think he is performing a service by saying things that others fear to
say.... whether it will do any good is another question.

Sooner or later, things will get out of hand and there will be a "correction".
I'd hate to be a business (or, one of the 1%) when that day comes.

It is sad that greed and irresponsibility have become the norm.

Perhaps we should start replacing "fines" for crimes committed by
businesses with "jail time"? Of course, it wouldn't be proper to
incarcerate any of the principles -- especially as the ones
responsible may no longer be officers.

So, just suspend the organization's business license for the period
of "incarceration" -- deny them the "freedom" to conduct business
for that period of time.

This would essentially be the kiss of death for anything more than
a few *days*. Can't pay your employees, vendors, deliver products,
etc. Sort of like what incarceration does to *humans*. Of course,
the folks suspected of being responsible would be pariahs in the
eyes of other similar businesses ("Hell, no! WE don't want to hire
you and suffer that same fate!")

You would have to explain to me how the innocent employee would benefit.

Jail would be a good thing for offenders, but how to separate the CEO's and
Congress-stupes is beyond me.

--
Tekkie

On 01/14/2016 09:22 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I suggest to the more extreme of those people that they take a few
months off, rent an apartment in Mogadishu and, if they survive, report
back on how things are with little or no government.


Pete,

This is a bad argument. Maybe not if you were conversing with
a libertarian.

Conservatives see the only three legitimate responsibilities
of the Central Government to be:

1) regulate the currency
2) protect from invasion
3) protect one citizen from another

The rest is for the states (10 amendment). A central
government is considered by Conservatives and those
who gave their lives in the Revolutionary War (read
Thomas Paine's Common Sense) to be a Necessary Evil
at best.

Looking at #3 above, your Mogadishu argument is not legitimate.
Us "Limited government" folks never once said that we would
ditch Law Enforcement. These is what we'z refer to as
"essential services".

Now, how would you argue that an over bearing central
government is actually a bonus to the citizenry?

Start with the Education department. It meddles and meddles
and meddles where it has no business. It costs out the nose.
And, education keeps getting worse. It is a political
payoff to the education unions that should not exist
in the first place. And it certainly does not need a
SWAT team, even with #3 above.

In my opinion, the education department should be canceled.
Lets the States handle it like they always did. The closer
to the people the better the government.

Then go on to the endowment for the arts. Why should
we be extorted to pay for others' entertainment?

Why is it that the consumer can not decide what light bulbs
he wants, what toilets he wants, what washing machines
he wants? The worst tyranny is that which is done
FOR OUR OWN GOOD! And that is because there is
no end to it.

Conservative believe that the individual is the best
person to make decisions over his own life. Liberals
believe that government can have a positive influence
over the individual through the governments power
of cohesion. It is a freedom versus tyranny issue.

Unless you properly understand the following, you
can not make a reasoned argument with us as to why we
are wrong.

Common Sense (1776)

Society in every state is a blessing, but government
even in its best state is but a necessary evil. We
have it in our power to begin the world over again.

Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas
they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by
our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY
by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by
restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the
last a punisher.

Once you understand what is being said in the above
and why so many Americans gave their lives for it,
then you can make a reasoned argument as to why it is
we are wrong.

I will give you a "do over" on your "Mogadishu" argument.

-T

On 01/15/2016 08:20 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
Sanders might be better served by going home and working on the Second
Vermont Republic.

I think he is performing a service by saying things that others fear to
say.... whether it will do any good is another question.


If Burnie unseats Hillary, then bye bye to arresting Hillary
and putting Binden in at a brokered convention.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:17:09 -0800, T wrote:

I suggest to the more extreme of those people that they take a few
months off, rent an apartment in Mogadishu and, if they survive, report
back on how things are with little or no government.


Pete,

This is a bad argument. Maybe not if you were conversing with
a libertarian.

I think Pete ought to read a book from a Army Commander on the ground.

_Streets of Mogadishu: Leadership at its Best, Political Correctness
at its Worst!_

Bill Clinton _caused_ Black Hawk Down. He never issued a "kill"
order. Reduced military sources designed by the military. He did
exactly what happened in Vietnam. Civilian government leaders playing
political correctness that got troops killed and a lost battle. ****es
me off!.

Clinton put our forces under command of the UN. And later questioned
this Commander in the White House as if he was a liar. Spit.

"Task Force RANGER became involved in the most intense combat
for American troops since the Vietnam War. Streets of Mogadishu
addresses not only this situation commonly referred to as Black Hawk
Down, but also the untold stories of that military engagement, the
real events of Task Force RANGER combat operations from leadership to
the negative impacts of political correctness on military decisions."

http://www.amazon.com/Streets-Mogadishu-Leadership-Political-Correctness/dp/0615511643

I'll gift/loan my autographed copy, if needed.

On 01/15/2016 09:20 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I think he is performing a service by saying things that others fear to
say.... whether it will do any good is another question.

Doubtful. I'd argue he is a social democrat rather than a democratic
socialist. Crony capitalism to too embedded in the US to suffer much
alteration from little nips and tucks.

On 01/15/2016 02:13 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:17:09 -0800, T wrote:

I suggest to the more extreme of those people that they take a few
months off, rent an apartment in Mogadishu and, if they survive, report
back on how things are with little or no government.


Pete,

This is a bad argument. Maybe not if you were conversing with
a libertarian.

I think Pete ought to read a book from a Army Commander on the ground.

_Streets of Mogadishu: Leadership at its Best, Political Correctness
at its Worst!_

Bill Clinton _caused_ Black Hawk Down. He never issued a "kill"
order. Reduced military sources designed by the military. He did
exactly what happened in Vietnam. Civilian government leaders playing
political correctness that got troops killed and a lost battle. ****es
me off!.

Clinton put our forces under command of the UN. And later questioned
this Commander in the White House as if he was a liar. Spit.

"Task Force RANGER became involved in the most intense combat
for American troops since the Vietnam War. Streets of Mogadishu
addresses not only this situation commonly referred to as Black Hawk
Down, but also the untold stories of that military engagement, the
real events of Task Force RANGER combat operations from leadership to
the negative impacts of political correctness on military decisions."

http://www.amazon.com/Streets-Mogadishu-Leadership-Political-Correctness/dp/0615511643

I'll gift/loan my autographed copy, if needed.


"political correctness on military decisions". How many lives
have we lost over this stupidity?

I think Pete was just referring to the lawlessness of the
Mogadishu. He could have just as well picked Libya.

On 01/15/2016 03:13 PM, Oren wrote:
Bill Clinton_caused_ Black Hawk Down. He never issued a "kill"
order. Reduced military sources designed by the military. He did
exactly what happened in Vietnam. Civilian government leaders playing
political correctness that got troops killed and a lost battle. ****es
me off!.

Don't forget the GHWB was the one to come up with Operation Provide
Relief and Operation Restore Hope. Relief and hope should have been
dispensed from 30,000'.

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 6:00:24 AM UTC-6, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 1/15/16 6:52 AM, Don Y wrote:

"Let's go invade Granada!"
"WTF? Granada? What's that -- some new CAR MODEL??"
I don't think that Grenada gets it's due. Sometimes you just have
to make the world safe for second-tier medical students.

I thought it was some kind of health food cereal? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Granola Monster

Per T:
On 01/14/2016 09:22 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I suggest to the more extreme of those people that they take a few
months off, rent an apartment in Mogadishu and, if they survive, report
back on how things are with little or no government.


Pete,

This is a bad argument. Maybe not if you were conversing with
a libertarian.

Conservatives see the only three legitimate responsibilities
of the Central Government to be:

1) regulate the currency
2) protect from invasion
3) protect one citizen from another

The rest is for the states (10 amendment). A central

.....(lotta good stuff clipped)....

I will give you a "do over" on your "Mogadishu" argument.

That was pretty good.

I don't agree with all of it - but you clearly nailed me on Mogadishu.

One thing I take issue with - and it's not just your post; it's more a
me-against-the-rest-of-the-world thing - is the use of the word
"Conservative".

I don't like it's use as a blanket description of Republican Party
positions - especially those which advocate changing the status quo.

I don't know a better word.... "Right-Wing" is too pejorative.... but
"Conservative" to me is pretty much Merriam-Webster's third definition:

"a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or
institutions : traditional

b : marked by moderation or caution a conservative estimate

c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance,
style, or manners"

Based on that, I would say that people who want to change the status-quo
(no matter whether they perceive it as good or bad) are not
"Conservative".

Also, I'm big on the "Moderation or caution" aspect.

A conservative person, faced with a situation that has a significant
possibility of becoming catastrophic, will take remedial action to
prevent that situation.

They will *not* argue for delaying action because there is still some
doubt as to whether it actually will turn catastrophic... they will play
the odds and incur the expense to make sure it cannot happen.

"Conservative" people pay for homeowner's insurance - unless they are so
wealthy that losing a house is non-catastrophic for them.

Based on that, the Repub position on climate change is not conservative
at all.

Ditto the admonition to reduce the size of government - and, therefore
change the status quo. Certainly, the admonition to reduce government
"... to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in
the bathtub." is anything but conservative.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

But increasing the size/role of government is not conservative either.

OTOH, those who take a position against gay marriage (which, BTW, I
support) actually are conservative in Merriam-Webster's sense of the
word.

I am not saying that Conservative=Good or Non-Conservative=Bad.... there
are times for each.... And plenty shades of grey......

But I do quarrel with the blanket use of "Conservative" to describe
policies, actions, and political parties that are actually quite the
opposite.


--
Pete Cresswell

Per T:
If Burnie unseats Hillary, then bye bye to arresting Hillary
and putting Binden in at a brokered convention.

Cresswell Predicts:
If Bernie Sanders gets the Dem nomination it will be the equivalent of
Trump getting the Repub nomination: the other party will win in a
landslide.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 01/16/2016 08:08 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Cresswell Predicts:
If Bernie Sanders gets the Dem nomination it will be the equivalent of
Trump getting the Repub nomination: the other party will win in a
landslide.

And if it's Trump v. Sanders? Maybe the Libertarians will finally win
an election for something beyond dog catcher.

If Sanders gets the nomination I will vote for him, sort of a mercy
vote. Of course this state is reliably red in presidential elections so
it won't make any difference.

On 1/16/2016 12:55 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/16/2016 08:08 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Cresswell Predicts:
If Bernie Sanders gets the Dem nomination it will be the equivalent of
Trump getting the Repub nomination: the other party will win in a
landslide.

And if it's Trump v. Sanders? Maybe the Libertarians will finally win an
election for something beyond dog catcher.

I think more of the right are fearful of Trump (loose cannon)
than the left are fearful of Sanders.

If Sanders gets the nomination I will vote for him, sort of a mercy vote. Of
course this state is reliably red in presidential elections so it won't make
any difference.

Another fault with the "representative democracy".

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:38:33 -0800, T wrote:

"political correctness on military decisions". How many lives
have we lost over this stupidity?


To many. The military is supposed to kill people and break things.

I think Pete was just referring to the lawlessness of the
Mogadishu. He could have just as well picked Libya.

Agree. The book I mentioned goes into the lawlessness in Mogadishu,
among other things.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:00:20 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

I don't think that Grenada gets it's due. Sometimes you just have
to make the world safe for second-tier medical students.

IIRC the invasion was also to get Cuban military troops/advisers out.

Per Oren:
To many. The military is supposed to kill people and break things.

I heard a general officer being interviewed a few years back.

He was commenting on the undesirability of using military forces for
other than military activities.

IIRC, his exact words were "The military's job is to kill people and
destroy property."

And one of my ROTC instructors in college used to say that the military
was the most efficient system for getting people to kill other people at
the risk of their own lives - but the least efficient system for doing
anything else.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per rbowman:
And if it's Trump v. Sanders?

My money would be on Trump.

Sanders has age, the "Socialist" word, and high degrees of authenticity,
integrity, and honesty - all working against him in a dog-eat-dog fight.

IMHO Trump, having plenty of money and no scruples at all would wipe the
floor with him.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:37:28 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Oren:
To many. The military is supposed to kill people and break things.

I heard a general officer being interviewed a few years back.

He was commenting on the undesirability of using military forces for
other than military activities.

IIRC, his exact words were "The military's job is to kill people and
destroy property."

And one of my ROTC instructors in college used to say that the military
was the most efficient system for getting people to kill other people at
the risk of their own lives - but the least efficient system for doing
anything else.

I have an E.O.D. Air Force medallion that was given to me.

"Providing The Enemy An Opportunity To Die For Their Country" :-)

On 01/16/2016 01:02 PM, Don Y wrote:

Another fault with the "representative democracy".

I lose interest rapidly once it gets beyond local items on the ballot as
anything other than a spectator sport. This state's primary is in June
so 2008 is the only time the presidential races weren't a done deal and
even that year McSame had it sewed up.

As far as the November election, Montana has went blue twice in the last
60 years; 1964 when Goldwater imploded and 1992 when Perot got 26% of
the vote. Even then Clinton only got 37 to Bush's 35. 2008 was one of
the closer elections but McCain won by 2%, 49 to 47. Ron Paul got a
little over 2% even though he wasn't even running. After 4 years of hope
and change it was back on track in 2012, 55 to 41 with the Libertarian
getting close to 3%.

So, even assuming I was the one vote that turned the state blue, not
likely, then there is the matter of the 3 electoral votes making any
difference. Might as well buy Powerball tickets.

We did have one very close local election last cycle. Unfortunately,
while I could contribute to my friend's campaign he is another district
and I couldn't vote for him.

On 01/16/2016 03:37 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
IIRC, his exact words were "The military's job is to kill people and
destroy property."


They're definitely not social workers. Considering that most of the bots
on the ground are young men in their late teens or early twenties, I
wouldn't expect much sensitivity to cultural differences, nor do I think
it's fair to expect it.

On 01/16/2016 01:40 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:00:20 -0500, "Kurt V. Ullman"
wrote:

I don't think that Grenada gets it's due. Sometimes you just have
to make the world safe for second-tier medical students.

IIRC the invasion was also to get Cuban military troops/advisers out.


iirc, Cubans were as sparse on the ground as WMDs in Iraq. Then there
was the minor problem that Grenada had been a Crown colony until 1974
when it became a Commonwealth realm, headed by the monarch Elizabeth II,
Queen of the United Kingdom etc, etc.

Good thing Maggie Thatcher had a soft spot for Reagan or she might have
declared war on the US.

On 01/16/2016 03:40 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
And if it's Trump v. Sanders?

My money would be on Trump.

Sanders has age, the "Socialist" word, and high degrees of authenticity,
integrity, and honesty - all working against him in a dog-eat-dog fight.

IMHO Trump, having plenty of money and no scruples at all would wipe the
floor with him.


I'll agree Sanders has liabilities but I don't know about the wipe the
floor part. In his last run for mayor of Burlington he ran against a
Democrat who was endorsed by both the Democrats and Republicans. It
would be worth it just to see Sanders revert to his roots and go all
Brooklyn on Trump.

On 1/16/2016 5:23 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/16/2016 03:37 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
IIRC, his exact words were "The military's job is to kill people and
destroy property."


They're definitely not social workers. Considering that most of the bots on the
ground are young men in their late teens or early twenties, I wouldn't expect
much sensitivity to cultural differences, nor do I think it's fair to expect it.

Join the Army. Travel to exciting, exotic places. Learn exciting skills.
Meet exciting and exotic people. And kill them!

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:19:49 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

Join the Army. Travel to exciting, exotic places. Learn exciting skills.
Meet exciting and exotic people. And kill them!


See the world from the back of an Army Deuce and a Half. Or a ship's
portal in the Navy.

Hooah!
--
"Never accuse a Soldier of being a Marine"