[kenberg]

Long ago I became aware of the fact that partly due to increasing longevity and partly due to the need for longer schooling, a typical person will spend a smaller percentage of his life working full time than was once the case. I remember thinking that this issue went somewhat unnoticed since women entering the workforce took up the slack. There is no third sex.

As always, we have to look in more detail. Am I, 77, retired, drawing social security and a pension, a drain on society? Maybe, but how to count it. I made enough money as a teen to pay taxes. After my degree I worked full time until I was 65 and have worked a fair amount since on part time basis. I put a lot of money into the pension system that is now paying me, I put money into social security, I paid out quite a bit in taxes. I still play a fair amount in taxes.

I know a 30 something young man on Social Security disability. His disability, as near as I can tell, is that he doesn't like to work. Work is the curse of the drinking class.

I like to think that his case and mine are different, but it is true that neither of us is working full time.

My point is not what a solid citizen I am or am not. My point is that just looking at the overall numbers is surely misleading.

Here is an article by Samuelson that speaks a little about this. I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge that it just touches the surface.
https://www.washingt...m=.6ae5b3e7744d

[Winstonm]

After last night's NBC Matt Lauer debacle, I can't imagine any sane, rational, reasoning, adult ever casting his or her vote for Donald Trump. I am now more convinced than ever that if there are still those who will vote for Trump, there must be some explanation that lies outside the regions of logic and reason and more within the netherworld of emotions and psychology.

It is terrifying to me that we allow someone like Matt Lauer, whose sole job is to be likable and non-threatening to "personalities" to act as a "news person" moderator of last night's quasi debate/interview.

Perhaps its time to stick our heads out the window and shout, I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking this anymore! And then turn off our televisions permanently.

[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-08, 12:21, said:

After last night's NBC Matt Lauer debacle, I can't imagine any sane, rational, reasoning, adult ever casting his or her vote for Donald Trump. I am now more convinced than ever that ...

https://youarenotsos...firmation-bias/

Quote

Confirmation Bias
The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.
The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

[PassedOut]

olegru, on 2016-September-08, 12:43, said:

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.
The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Two-Thirds of Trump Backers Think Obama Is Muslim

Quote

Two-thirds of voters with a favorable opinion of Donald Trump believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim, and a quarter of them believe that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered, a poll released Tuesday shows.

The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States and only 13 percent believe he’s a Christian.

...

Among other theories the poll surveyed, 27 percent of Trump supporters said they think vaccines cause autism and 7 percent thought Sen. Ted Cruz 's father was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, as Trump claimed.

...

Five percent of those with a favorable opinion of Trump said they believe Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, a long-running Internet meme which compares images of Cruz with those of police sketches of the serial killer who terrorized Northern California in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Given that there is no possible way to determine objectively things like where Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) was actually born, it's only natural for folks to have completely opposite opinions. As you suggest, one source of information is as good as any other.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2016-September-08, 12:43, said:

https://youarenotsos...firmation-bias/

Thanks for the old news. Refreshers are good.

I am aware of my own confirmation bias. I do not actively listen to one side - but I have leaned to exclude any side that displays continual distortions of facts to fit their agenda. It is getting more difficult to ferret out accurate information.

But I am willing to change my mind when facts do not support my opinions. Are you?

[kenberg]

i was bad. I know I was bad. I did not watch it last night. Did I actually miss anything?


The big news item appears to be that DT said that he was always opposed to going into Iraq and Lauer did not contest this with quotes from 2003. Ok, but if this is the biggest event of the evening I will quit beating myself up for my lackadaisical failure to watch. Oh, and Clinton acknowledged that using a private server was an error. And she didn't smile. Was there anything else? Did anyone bring up, for example, the ongoing stuff in Aleppo? This was supposed to be about Commander-In-Chief issues, right?

I didn't see it so I have to go easy on my criticism.

Fwiw, I was instead reading The Girl on the Train. I very much recommend it.Upon reflection, I will change this to saying that I liked it a lot. Many people don't, and I can understand why.

[Winstonm]

Quote

....The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States....

According to Wikipedia, a bit more than 14 million people voted for Trump in the primaries, rounding to 14 million for simplicity. That means - if these are the same people polled by Public Policy Polling - that there are 8,260,000 people in the United States so stupid they must be reminded to breath.

This bodes well for health industry job growth as it expands the available opportunities for breathing coaches outside of childbirth.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2016-September-08, 20:53, said:

According to Wikipedia, a bit more than 14 million people voted for Trump in the primaries, rounding to 14 million for simplicity. That means - if these are the same people polled by Public Policy Polling - that there are 8,260,000 people in the United States so stupid they must be reminded to breath.

This bodes well for health industry job growth as it expands the available opportunities for breathing coaches outside of childbirth.

I'm sure that Trump supporters frown on such statements as being politically incorrect.

[olegru]

Hi Winston.
I checked NBC debacle. Well ... My apologies. If year ago somebody told me I would vote for Clinton, I would call him crazy.

[kenberg]

As has been mentioned, Clinton has a long list of plans on her website. For Combating terrorism and keeping our homeland safe, she has, for example

"Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS."

Ah yes, pursuing diplomatic strategy. Why didn't I think of that? All those opposed to diplomatic strategy please speak up.
But that's it?

Voting always involves a leap of faith. This year the leap is a total plunge that would make Evel Knievel proud. Go Hillary.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-September-09, 07:24, said:

As has been mentioned, Clinton has a long list of plans on her website. For Combating terrorism and keeping our homeland safe, she has, for example

"Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS."

Ah yes, pursuing diplomatic strategy. Why didn't I think of that? All those opposed to diplomatic strategy please speak up.
But that's it?

I took that statement to exclude alternative strategies that have been proposed, such as extensive carpet-bombing, killing the families of terrorists, torturing terrorists, stealing oil, and so on. I don't expect a detailed list of diplomatic tactics any more than I'd expect a detailed list of military tactics.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2016-September-08, 21:18, said:

I'm sure that Trump supporters frown on such statements as being politically incorrect.

In my work career in the Bible belt hotbed of Tulsa, Oklahoma, I have spent a lot of time in homes of those whose lives revolved around the television broadcasts of Fox News, Pastor John Hagee, et al, and in listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

I doubt these people take time out to frown (or think) about anything except what Bill, Sean, Rush, and Hagee tell them to frown about.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2016-September-08, 21:20, said:

Hi Winston.
I checked NBC debacle. Well ... My apologies. If year ago somebody told me I would vote for Clinton, I would call him crazy.

No hard feelings. FWIW, I was a fuuly committed Republican revolutionist in 1994, baclomg Gingrich, et al. I like to think I am now a better person for the changes in my thinking and beliefs that allowed me to investigate the validity of my own thinking and beliefs and abandon them. At least, I hope I am an improved version.

I no longer consider myself either Republican or Democrat but a humanist. I do not think there is a magical being guiding our courses; human problems must be dealt with by humans trying to help each other. That is hard enough.

Btw, I can understand someone not voting for Hillary Clinton; but I still cannot fathom support of Trump unless by one who is emotionally unbalanced, either permanently or temporarily. There can be no other answer.

[Winstonm]

Donald Trump seems to think the election is nothing more than a race for tv ratings.

[blackshoe]

heh. If so, is he wrong?

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2016-September-11, 13:50, said:

heh. If so, is he wrong?

What's your take on that?

[kenrexford]

kenberg, on 2016-September-09, 07:24, said:

As has been mentioned, Clinton has a long list of plans on her website. For Combating terrorism and keeping our homeland safe, she has, for example

"Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS."

Ah yes, pursuing diplomatic strategy. Why didn't I think of that? All those opposed to diplomatic strategy please speak up.
But that's it?

Voting always involves a leap of faith. This year the leap is a total plunge that would make Evel Knievel proud. Go Hillary.

I could give a translation to that that makes her position looks stupid. If I understand your policy then her plan is to get everybody together and discuss things. That's not exactly a plan. You can't exactly talk your way out of a conflict in the Muslim world that has about a thousand year head start on you. Moreover it is actually arguably the diplomacy and the Brilliance that came out of that that actually was the cause of the rise of Isis.

The battles in the Middle East and frankly in the Muslim world are not like the battles of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction is not cause for them to stop fighting. Mutually assured destruction would mean that Allah is winning. The only way to have some semblance of a cooling down of conflicts is the have one side in charge in their area.

The Diplomatic solution of getting a bunch of people to sneak around weapons to this side or the other seems to have not worked very well.

Of course we could try some other things for other problems. Similar might be a group hug to stop urban violence. Postcards on YouTube to stop terrorism. We could have lots of councils and groups and studies you get a lot accomplished. Will be quite impressive.

[shyams]

kenrexford, on 2016-September-11, 18:25, said:

You can't exactly talk your way out of a conflict in the Muslim world that has about a thousand year head start on you.

I thought they have a 600 year lag on the Christian world. I wonder how Christian orthodoxy shaped the world 600-800 years ago.

kenrexford, on 2016-September-11, 18:25, said:

The battles in the Middle East and frankly in the Muslim world are not like the battles of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction is not cause for them to stop fighting. Mutually assured destruction would mean that Allah is winning. The only way to have some semblance of a cooling down of conflicts is the have one side in charge in their area.

This is a gross misinterpretation of what most Muslims (even those in the Middle East) aspire to in life.
Many years ago, Sting had a single called "Russians" {album: Dream of the Blue Turtles}. The song refrain probably applies to any human conflict.

[mike777]

As far as the population aging, news flash the population has been aging for decades and decades, perhaps hundreds of years.....


Not sure how any of this negates the fact the many jobs are simply not coming back. Robots take more, humans take more and more machine parts. All of this evidence seems to support my thesis rather than negate it, NOT prove it, just evidence towards it.


A thesis that suggests we look forward to a future where most humans do not work full time o outside the home, a future where government allocate more and more assets to how will humans fill their day rather than a government focused on creating jobs, more jobs and more jobs outside the home.. A jobs focus which for at least me has been my number one voting priority for all of my life.
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------


As far as the Muslim Jihad issue from what I understand out of 1.6 billion muslims 80-90% are against radical jihad or are neutral. that leaves only 150 to 300 million or so in moral support of radical jihad. The vast majority are against or neutral. The vast majority are against or neutral in attacking the Vatican, in fact attacks against the Vatican State or the Catholic POpe have been few to none.

---------------------------

--------------------------


I go back to the American Revolution. Roughly 1/3 were for revolution, roughly 1/3 were for the British, roughly 1/3 were neutral.

[kenrexford]

shyams, on 2016-September-11, 18:37, said:

I thought they have a 600 year lag on the Christian world. I wonder how Christian orthodoxy shaped the world 600-800 years ago.


This is a gross misinterpretation of what most Muslims (even those in the Middle East) aspire to in life.
Many years ago, Sting had a single called "Russians" {album: Dream of the Blue Turtles}. The song refrain probably applies to any human conflict.

Who cares what the polls say? The real concern is what happens. We could have a vote and see the anti jihadists win in a landslide, but would that have any impact at all on the ground? This is exactly the sort of nonsense study that is utterly pointless.

For that matter I cannot imagine a more obvious example of the Bradley effect than a poll of people in the Middle East. It's sort of like some of my clients. Have you ever been in trouble? No. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? No. When was the last time that you were in prison? 2009. Makes no sense. But the translation. Do you support Jihad? No.