My Photo

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

BlogStats


« ‘Does God Watch Paint Dry?’ | Main | The Great Pension Heist is Discovered (updated 17jul12) »

09 July 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f86f2ad8833017616490acd970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Liberal Mind – The Continuing Conundrum of Conditional Contingencies:

Comments

Douglas Keachie

So if we make sure we spend time checking religious status of all those folks who are Muslim but not terrorists, that will be more useful for identifying than carefully looking at all the other signs of a potential terrorist? The time wasted with irritated innocent Muslims will probably prevent the latter activity from going forward at full speed ahead, and the net result may be counter-productive. On the other hand, encouraging good, non terrorist Muslioms, to join in the hunt, instead of antagonizing them, may be very productive.

Now, just what the connection here to Obama's campaign is, I'm not sure. Also, you talk of said campaign in generalities, with no concrete examples of the illogics you claim he is attempting to buffalo and bamboozle the minorities with. Care to list a few? One man's logic is another man's propaganda. Is Romney any different with his lesser educated white religious minorities?

Todd Juvinall

George, I said this on another blog but maybe you could expand on the point. I would also like to know how much money we have spent in defending the rest of the planet since WW2.

"The USA taxpayers have paid that military bill since WW2 for Europe and since 50 for the Korean Peninsula and Japan. Yet these countries unhindered by that expense still drove their countries economies into the ground. How is that possible? I think it may be time to let them defend themselves again but hell, what if the Rooskies move west and the Chinese move East?"

The point I think I am making is the Euro-socialist government model was unfettered by the weight of defense and diverted the dollars to "feelgood" stuff. Now the liberal experiment is under the gun because it is shown to be unsustainable and has left them broke and undefended if we pull out. I winder how the resident liberals spin this?

George Rebane

DougK 653pm - sorry that I didn't say it well enough for you to understand. You set up a scenario that is both unrealistic and insane, attribute it to me, and then start attacking it. Haven't we circled that barn before?

The connection to Obama's campaign is that the man (and Democrats in general) adopt the described conditional probability, knowing that if Romney (or any Republican counterpart) attempted the explanation of the correct basis for the conditional probability, then they could easily be attacked with the charge that, 'Well, now you're calling all Hispanics/blacks dumb.' And that charge would stick with the overwhelming proportion of the light thinking voters, and therefore such a response as mine would be devastating. Hence no Republican on the national scene will deliver it, and will instead take the pandering hit.

George Rebane

ToddJ 719pm - You are correct; every country under the post-WW2 American umbrella has not had to bear anywhere near the full cost of their national defense. We have done it for them, and they (some gratefully) admit it.

And further to your point - yes, their so unburdened socialist programs still created economies that could not sustain themselves. Along the way, we started emulating them more and more, and now all of us find ourselves with our tits in the wringer.

David King

George Rebane | 09 July 2012 at 09:14 PM
Todd Juvinall | 09 July 2012 at 07:19 PM

Ah yes, the great equalization.

Taxes
Healthcare
Defense
Energy
Patent law

What I can't figure out is why anyone would be enamored with Europe. Could be as simple as jealousy of that which is poorly understood?

They're so enlightened! Lol.

billy T

Dr. Rebane, I don't quite understand all the Ps and Ys. Are you saying all dolphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins? Or are you saying all cactus are succulents, but not all succulents are cacti? Do understand the Xs though. When Huey Long was running for state office back in the day, he went to a rural region where he was quite unpopular. He told the illiterate audience that if they don't like Huey Long, just put a big X by his name to cross him out.

George Rebane

billyT 1211pm - A better example is the one that's in the figure. It says that almost all terrorists are Muslims, but that a very small fraction of Muslims are terrorists. So if you're interested in catching terrorists, put most of your effort on checking out people who are Muslims.

Same thing with illegal aliens. Almost all of them are Hispanics, yet only a fraction of all Hispanics in America are illegal aliens. So if the intent is to catch illegal aliens, then devote most of your efforts to checking out Hispanics.

But this is where progressive politics enters the equation. Number one, they don't understand the utility of using the probabilities involved, and second, their concerns for America don't put apprehending terrorists and illegal aliens high on the list. They pretend that avoiding 'discrimination' is the part of 'social justice' for which they are willing to sacrifice the country on its way to the promised fundamental transformation.

However, discrimination is not a concern when the HSA identifies the characteristics of the people who for them represent the biggest terrorist concern. (These are contained in the little white sliver of the red rectangle in the figure.)

billy T

Well said Dr. Rebane. Look what happened to former NPR commentator Juan Williams. He had the gall to say that while boarding a plane at the airport, he felt apprehension boarding with two Muslim males in full Arab garb. He was fired. Stating the obvious is a no-no in the tolerate liberal world. Free speech and all that rot. Yep, if you live along the Southern Border, chances are the illegals breaking into our country are from Latin America, or Mexican Nationals to be more precise. Is it ok to say that, or will the thought police lynch me? Sure, Boston is full of Irish Nationals that have overstayed their visas. Libowels think differently. Illegal does not mean race. Illegal means criminal. Is that so difficult to grasp? If I hear another person say that our nation was built by immigrants to deflect the topic off of illegal immigrants, I might toss my cookies. To the libbowels illegal means legal. And where is the outcry by the greenies? Near the border in California is a protected wetlands. The place is full of piles of trash, nay, mountains of discarded water bottles and feces. Ok, if you or I or any US citizen turned a protected wetlands into a big trash can, the outcry and fines would reach the heavens. But, if you are breaking into our country illegally and desecrating our wetlands, then no fines, no problem. I guess that is the real issue here. I said "our" country. To the libowels that word is wrong and racist. They must join hands at the border and face south while loudly singing "This land is my land, this land is YOUR land".

Ryan Mount

> Boston is full of Irish Nationals that have overstayed their visas.

Not sure why I loved this comment so much, but I did. +1 billy T.

Dixon Cruickshank

Keachie: So if we make sure we spend time checking religious status of all those folks who are Muslim but not terrorists, that will be more useful for identifying than carefully looking at all the other signs of a potential terrorist?

Well your almost there, then you lost it - what would be the #1 sign to be looking for in a terroist - Muslum - you can fill in the rest of the list

Didn't take long for you to prove George's point though and in less than 10,000 words and 4 links - thank you

The comments to this entry are closed.