Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I want to fix the roof on my house, it's going to cost some money, but paying a roofer a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean he's going to do a good job.

Seems pretty obvious doesn't it? But the California Teachers Union, and the Democrats in the California Assembly and State Senate don't seem to get that. Most liberals I know don't seem to get that. We are already paying some money, and under Davis we increased that money and things didn't get any better. Maybe it is time to replace the roofer or use other incentives than money to get the roofer to do a better job, because last time we gave him more money his work still sucked.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
No but you dismissed anything put out by the WSJ Op ed page or the CATO intitue and defended the NYT, to back up your argument.

I dismissed Reynolds. I agree that worthwhile thoughts sometimes are expressed by the WSJ op ed page (though rarely) or by Cato. But I don't think I defended the NYT, notwithstanding Sebby's efforts to bait me into siding with Krugman.

This started when I praised President Bush's speech on the subject. Why do you disagree with the President on this subject? Don't you think Treasury has some decent economists on its payroll?

Sebby said that this issue is being way oversimplified by most people. The terms are vague and therefore the statistics can be manipulated to support any vague assertion. Until you specifically define what you mean by income inequality, and what strata of society you are identifying, your statements are meaningless. Terms like rich, working class, the poor are all way to vague to have any meaning. Same goes for terms like "disproportionate rises in income, income gap, rise in income inequality etc.

In order to have a real discussion, you need to talk about quintiles of the entire population and how much their income is actually rising or falling. And then look at the hard numbers.

This is the Reynolds game. Try to muddy things and make it all complex, and then argue that there are two sides. Why do you hate our President?

His point was proven by all the articles he posted and you posted.

I don't recall posting any articles, which shows just how much complexity on this debate you can handle.

Any article that doesn’t specifically describe how its numbers were reached, how they define a strata of society, how they are defining change (or widening gap) and display the actual numbers they were looking at, is about as useful as brass knuckles in a gun fight.

Insofar as you are describing Reynolds' WSJ op-ed piece, I agree completely.

When you have something to contribute to this conversation other than epistemological masturbation, go for it.

[Hank Chinaski]

I believe that it was burger who hammered through the rule that a thread title cannot include a poster's name. It was part of the block of rules designed to break Penske. anyway, that rule would seem to require this temporary title be changed quickly, either to something of Burger's choosing or by default reverting to the 4999th poster.

Is that any better? -- T.S.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no you got problems I'm sure. we all do. but you aren't the guy getting fucked by the loss of jobs. there are Philly suburbs where 100k would make you the richest guy on the block. when i said talk to guys from your HS who didn't go to college, i meant people living in those suburbs, not yours.

Fuck Sebby, go read all the shit you post about Vodka brands. Do you know there are people who drink Smirnoff, or even Mohawk regularly?

I'm just an upper middle class jackoff. My vodka costs $10 more than somebody else's; we're not that different. My wife's got student loans that'd give the guys in those suburbs angina.

I work with a guy who doesn't have a college education right now. He's got more cash than me by miles. No advantages. he just went out and started a business and worked hard. Now he's pretty fucking well off.

For every guy getting hurt there's another one taking a chance. You get what you pay for. People don't like to hear that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is the Reynolds game. Try to muddy things and make it all complex, and then argue that there are two sides. Why do you hate our President?

When you have something to contribute to this conversation other than epistemological masturbation, go for it.

Saying that when people are using statistics they need to clearly define their terms, describe in detail where their numbers came from, and actually show the numbers they are using is epistemological masturbation?

I guess if I where in your position, and took the stances you do, I would want my terms to stay vague and the source of my numbers to remain murkey.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Saying that when people are using statistics they need to clearly define their terms, describe in detail where their numbers came from, and actually show the numbers they are using is epistemological masturbation?

I guess if I where in your position, and took the stances you do, I would want my terms to stay vague and the source of my numbers to remain murkey.

I take the position that the President was right. Why do you hate America?

eta: Because you apparently haven't been paying attention: I believe Sebby started arguing with a line in the Washington Post article about Bush's speech which observed that there is a general consensus among economists that income inequality is increasing, which line Sebby attributed to me. Although I didn't originally write it, I agree with it. There is such a consensus, notwithstanding that you can frame and examine the issue from different perspectives, using different definitions and statistics. Sebby's efforts to disprove the consensus turned up four links, three of which (conservative economist Tyler Cowen in the NYT, a guy named Kane on NRO, and someone from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve) said he was wrong. The fourth was a WSJ op ed from a hack at Cato named Reynolds. I had previously posted an article addressing Reynolds' work, which is a craptacular rearguard effort to confuse people into thinking there are two sides to the argument.

If you're interested in Reynolds' work, you can find fairly devastating critiques of it elsewhere on the interwebs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
For every guy getting hurt there's another one taking a chance. You get what you pay for. People don't like to hear that.

I agree. The "unskilled middle class" is now destined to be the "unskilled lower middle class." and the only way out is to work hard and smart, and there will be tons of people who don't work smart and they will be hurt. I don't think there is much we can do about that.

So claiming the unskilled middle class is still around is silly. Oh, and a little AA to give kids a chance is a great idea. If for no other reason than to give a poor black kid the idea that maybe he should try- that maybe there is a chance for him.

[Spanky]

Israeli Covert Operations in Iran

French President Jacques Chirac started quite the uproar with his apparent faux pas made public on Thursday in which he downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat. Chirac says he thought he was speaking off the record when, during an interview with The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, he said an Iranian nuclear weapon would not be much of a threat because "Tehran would be razed to the ground" if it ever tried to deploy such a device.

Chirac's comments (which were quickly retracted) directly undermine the West's stance on Iran -- and they do not reflect the official French position, which was summed up Thursday in a statement from the Elysee Palace that read "France, with the international community, cannot accept the prospect of Iran with a nuclear weapon."

But despite the commotion, Chirac's statements are not all that far off the mark. It might be tempting to write off the Iranians or North Koreans as "axis of evil" regimes that are just crazy enough to cook off a nuke, but Tehran -- like all rational actors -- knows the implications and the utility of a nuclear program. A nuclear-capable Iran would primarily use its nuclear program, not to turn Israel into a radioactive wasteland, but for deterrent value to safeguard the clerical regime from possible U.S or Israeli intervention. Israel, however, does not care to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime, and does not intend to see an Iranian nuclear weapons program come to fruition.

The Israelis, therefore, have their own ways of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. A pre-emptive Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is unlikely in the near future for a number of reasons that we have discussed before, including the time Israel still has before Iran reaches a technologically critical stage in its nuclear development, the strategically dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear sites and the tenuous U.S. position in Iraq. An offensive strike on Iran would still leave wide open the issue of a resolution in Iraq, which would further constrain the U.S. military position in the region.

But while the time for overt military action is likely still in the distance, Israeli covert action against Iran appears to be gaining steam.

The death of a high-level Iranian nuclear scientist, Ardeshir Hassanpour, was announced by Radio Farda and Iranian state television Jan. 25 -- a week after his death occurred. The Radio Farda report implicitly related the cause for Hassanpour's death to exposure to radioactive rays, though the details were murky. Stratfor sources close to Israeli intelligence have revealed, however, that Hassanpour was in fact a Mossad target.

Hassanpour is believed to have been one of Iran's most prized nuclear scientists. Some reports claim he was named the best scientist in the military field in Iran in 2003, that he directed and founded the center for nuclear electromagnetic studies since 2005 and that he co-founded the Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, where Iran's uranium-conversion facilities are located.

Decapitating a hostile nuclear program by taking out key human assets is a tactic that has proven its effectiveness over the years, particularly in the case of Iraq. In the months leading up to the 1981 Israeli airstrike on Iraq's Osirak reactor -- which was believed to be on the verge of producing plutonium for a weapons program -- at least three Iraqi nuclear scientists died under mysterious circumstances.

Yahya al-Meshad, a key figure in Iraq's nuclear program, traveled to Paris in 1980 to test fuel for the reactor; he was soon stabbed to death and was discovered by a hotel maid in his room the next morning. A prostitute who went by the name Marie Express reportedly saw the scientist the night before he died. She was then killed in a hit-and-run accident by an unknown driver who got away. After al-Meshad's death, two more Iraqi scientists were killed separately -- both by poisoning -- and a number of workers at Osirak began receiving threatening letters from a shadowy organization called the Committee to Safeguard the Islamic Revolution -- likely a Mossad front to enhance the workers' paranoia and hinder Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

Mossad's latest covert assassination campaign falls in line with Israel's psychological warfare strategy to undermine Iran's confidence in pursuing its nuclear agenda. The longer the Iranians are forced to second-guess Israel's intent to launch a pre-emptive strike, the more pliable Iran becomes in negotiating with the United States toward a political agreement on Iraq.

Tehran wants, ideally, to secure a Shiite buffer zone in Iraq while also reaching the point of no return in its nuclear program; but the Iranian regime must move carefully on the nuclear issue to avoid inviting airstrikes on its soil. Israel and the United States are betting for now that Iran's concerns over Iraq will override its pursuit of nuclear power -- which, however, leaves Tehran in a prime position to use the nuclear controversy as a major bargaining tool in extracting concessions from the United States over Iraq. But things do not always go as planned, and Israel appears to be setting the stage for Plan B.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
I'm just an upper middle class jackoff. My vodka costs $10 more than somebody else's; we're not that different.

My favorite scotch went from about $49 a bottle in 1996 to about $119 a bottle now.

I'm just venting.

[Spanky]

1234 GMT -- IRAN -- Iran has started to lay pipes and electric cables for an underground uranium enrichment plant, a diplomat accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency told The Associated Press on Feb. 2. The unnamed diplomat said Iran has enlisted hundreds of laborers and technicians to move forward quickly with the program at the Natanz underground facility. The current work is preliminary, the source said.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no you got problems I'm sure. we all do. but you aren't the guy getting fucked by the loss of jobs. there are Philly suburbs where 100k would make you the richest guy on the block. when i said talk to guys from your HS who didn't go to college, i meant people living in those suburbs, not yours.

Fuck Sebby, go read all the shit you post about Vodka brands. Do you know there are people who drink Smirnoff, or even Mohawk regularly?

And I'd bet most of them wouldn't shed too many tears of sympathy about your $11K property tax bill.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
My favorite scotch went from about $49 a bottle in 1996 to about $119 a bottle now.

I'm just venting.

But it's 11 years older so it should be more expensive.

I liked the ocassional glass of Lochadoo (sp?), this black sweet tarry scotch. It would only be the first liquor drink of the evening and I wouldn't have a second- I'd move into the JWB- but i liked it. Then it was no longer available in the States.

On vacation in Japan I found it and drank it most nights. Bad hangovers, plus shouldn't i be trying Suntory whiskey?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
And I'd bet most of them wouldn't shed too many tears of sympathy about your $11K property tax bill.

S_A_M

Dude, I've paid in blood for what I've made. I had some of the most godawful jobs imaginable. The alcohol isn't just for fun.

Done a hardknuckle loan workout in Philly lately? I lived in the scummiest world imaginable for years, and then I got even scummier. There aren't enough showers to clean me.

I am one of the few lawyers who'll admit guilt about it. It was all filthy, sleazy blood money.

But yes, for a while, it was fun. In a very sick way.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
My favorite scotch went from about $49 a bottle in 1996 to about $119 a bottle now.

I'm just venting.

Lagavulin? That's (relatively) temporary. Prices should come back down in the next couple years.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dude, I've paid in blood for what I've made. I had some of the most godawful jobs imaginable. The alcohol isn't just for fun.

I'm not suggesting you didn't earn what you have, but its tough to argue that someone who can afford a home worth seven figures (unless PA property taxes _vastly_ exceed those in the Dc suburbs) -- including the $11K property tax bill -- is middle class.

S_A_M