I'm sorry, did you take the time to read my post? I quote myself:
Giffords was also the target of tasteless rhetoric a few months before she was shot.
Perhaps that wasn't stated strongly enough for you, and that you automatically assume that since I don't buy into the hysteria that I somehow approve of "assassination metaphors"? So here I'll try again:
I think that Sarah Palin represents the worst of conservative America, along with those who use make similar comments. I dislike most things about her, not the least of which is her rhetoric about Assange and the talk about "targeting" political opponents.
That being said, I think it is also totally irresponsible to automatically jump to the conclusion that this Gifford's attacker was politically motivated in any reasonable sense and furthermore that he was incited to violence by Palin et. al. and lets al try to shame the right into submission. Particularly when initial evidence refutes the point of view that the attack had any such motivations. Making assumptions and pseudo-causal arguments like that is the stuff that conspiracy theories and political diatribes are made of. This line of reasoning was essentially tipped off by a sheriff in Arizona talking about all of the political "vitriol" surrounding the last election cycle.
It is my position that politics in America will not improve until BOTH sides stop being hysterical about every little thing that politicians say, inflammatory or not. Ad hominem attacks are the status quo in politics, and only serve to distort the true facts. How many enlightening or useful discussions have you had where either party was just looking to "one-up" the other person? Here's a hint, if you're focusing on the particular wording someone uses as opposed to understanding their meaning, you're doing it wrong. I've had many very insightful conversations with liberals (I identify myself as a moderate conservative) that have changed my views on certain issues. For example, by looking at the facts and overlooking the rhetoric, I've come to the opinion that Bill Clinton, in spite of his many personal failings, was in many very important ways more conservative and more in line with my views than George Bush Jr.
My original post was simply an expression of my disdain for hysteria in politics which these lawyers are continuing.
This also ignores the tax compliance costs built into our current system. The deductions are not automatic, they have to be carefully planned for in most cases. How much time is spent each year by corporations considering the tax implications of a particular business move? And then how much overhead is there to doing the necessary paperwork to prove tax compliance in the event of an audit? It is an astounding amount of waste, and leads to companies wanting to do business where taxes are lower and simpler to pay than in the U.S.
Also, while deductions do bring the tax rate down, there is also the state and local taxes that business are hit with, and those associated compliance costs.
We have a horrible, horrible tax system. These issues also affect individuals as well as businesses, I'm just focusing on corporate taxes because of the silliness of the thinking that corporations pay any tax whatsoever. Their taxes and compliance costs are built into the price of goods that we buy and that they export to other countries.
Ummm.... what about the second highest corporate tax rate in the world ? It sits at about 39%. I think that just might have something to do with wanting to leave.
Corporate taxes are a joke. They just get passed on to the consumer anyway, and they make businesses less competitive internationally. But it is politically rewarding to go after the big evil corporations and for them to pay their way.
Really, and end to corporate taxes is a big reason why I strongly support the FairTax . It would no longer hide the taxes we pay, and special interests would not be able to carve out exceptions for themselves life they do all the time now.
Scientists are humans, just like anyone else. Frankly, I think 1.97% is pretty low considering it is the combined total of all "fabricated, falsified or modified data or results". Notice that all of those aren't quite equal either. "Tweaking" results to tease out the answer you want (while still unethical and damaging to scholarship) is not as bad as outright falsification. Especially since it is not always clear where the line is between "modifying data", and doing valid statistical analysis like throwing away outliers. Yes, there are standards for outliers, but they are not universal, and confounding factors can occur during the experiment that make ethical decisions more difficult (i.e. the tester didn't read part of the script right, test subject's cell phone went off during test, survey answer was ambiguous and hard to read, the list goes on.)
The reality is that no one study should be taken as fact in isolation. It should either be corroborated by existing evidence (i.e. - it shines a new light on existing theories without contradiction), or by similar studies validating the results, or both.
Nutrition is a perfect example. How many studies have come out in the past 20 years that directly contradict (or seem to) prior studies done in that area? If someone followed each new "discovery" intently, they'd be so screwed up in their eating habits they'd probably end up being malnourished. However, looking back over a series of seemingly contradictory studies, we can see patterns which we've been able to make more sense of. We now have a greater understanding of "good" vs. "bad" cholesterol and the idea that fats aren't necessarily the root of all evil, and many similar findings. We still don't know all the answers, but we know lots more than any one study told us. This is how research works. It is also why graduate students writing dissertations are required to include a large section on "related work" so that they can get the full appreciation for where their research fits into the big picture, rather than basing their entire hypothesis on just one study or finding which might be contradicted in the next conference.
Also, you can always assume away the effects of friction. It's great!
At least that's what my high school physics teacher taught me...
We can safely conclude:
4. There are no terrorists. 5. The government is lying.
I seriously hope that was an attempt to be funny rather than revealing some "obvious" conspiracy theory.
It is just as easy to conclude (and far more likely to be true) that:
1. There are terrorists, but they either feel they have made their point and achieved their goal of causing terror and its associated overreactions or they are incapable of mounting a significant overseas attack, or unwilling to mount one that would not cause similar damage to 9/11.
2. The government is not outright lying about the terrorist threats, but is doing what it does best: protect itself.
If Bush had done nothing after 9/11 to increase security, he would have been crucified much sooner and in a worse way than he was. Even as it stands, very few people are embittered towards him for domestic defensive security policies, but for foreign offensive security policies. Politicians (and therefore government) have set up a system whereby they can remain blameless in the face of society crumbling around them. They could spend trillions more on homeland security and no one would be held personally responsible for any sort of public outcry except perhaps the president, who would still do his best to sidestep any blame. This is how the game works. Big, fat, bloated, wasteful, and expensive defensive strategies that allow lawmakers to hide behind the guise of being over-cautious will always win over strategies that involve personal risk through bold, decisive action that will likely be criticized by someone, somewhere.
So no, those are not "safe" conclusions, and expose some pretty hefty biases on your part.
they'll do both no matter how wasteful.
Sadly I think you're correct. Ideally I'd say to cut the budget from the TSA and put it towards the national debt -- or at this point just towards putting our national budget in the black again. I figured that putting it towards another anti-terror project would be at least a bit politically viable. But, sadly, it is easy for the government to begin funding something and awfully hard to stop funding it.
The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley