Is anyone else surprised by how genuinely Obama, at times, seems to want to end terrorism?
Let's review a bit of his history in this regard:
1) Soon after Obama took office, reports suggested that the number of US drone attacks on terrorists in Pakistan increased noticeably.
2) Recently Obama went public with the declaration that Pakistan was slow in fighting terror:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/07/india.obama.pakistan.comment/index.html?hpt=T2
I'm surprised at his attempts to stop terrorism because he has demonstrated a clear history of anti-US behavior, and I'm shocked that he would suddenly demonstrate pro-US behavior by going out of his way to promote the fight against terrorism.
Some of his anti-US behavior is outlined here:
http://nosuchthingasanopinion.blogspot.com/2010/11/who-would-have-thunk-it.html
Other anti-US behavior is reflected in his fiscal policy actions, which are often illogical (I have yet to write about his actions expansively. I don't want this site to be perceived as one that is primarily conservative and anti-Obama). Part of the reason I assume his fiscal policy actions are motivated by anti-US behavior is because they are illogical, and he seems smart enough to be able to figure that out.
Should I begin to more fully consider that Obama might actually be pro-US? Well, if that's the case, it could mean that he's either incapable of determining that his fiscal policy actions are illogical (or, he is capable of determining that, yet chooses to be illogical and biased by choosing policies that disproportionately damage large percentages of people while simultaneously benefiting small percentages of people). However, to be fair, there are many people who are intelligent and illogically biased. However, they are not fit to be President!
However, there are some explanations that could account for his anti-terrorist actions and still not contradict the idea that he is anti-US:
1)Perhaps Obama feels that attacking terrorism in foreign countries is more of a benefit to foreigners than to Americans. After all, the chance of a terrorist attack being committed in the USA is still very small, and the chance of an attack in a foreign country like Pakistan is much, much higher.
2)Perhaps Obama feels kinship to Muslims (and foreigners) and wants to eliminate the fact that some foreigners and Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorism, which results in a negative perception of some foreigners and Muslims. This is plausible, given Obama's residence in Indonesia, and very plausible given that there is evidence that suggests that Obama was a Muslim as a child (a book has printed his school identification card, which lists his religion as "Muslim").
It is very surprising to see Obama go out of his way to fight terrorism in some respects. However, it should also be pointed out that there have been credible reports that he and his administration (as well as associates they have been exposed to) have had connections with terrorists and/or suspected terrorist related sympathizers. But that's fodder for another post.
The Right get a lashing for talking about Obama's past, e.g. that crazy pastor and the birth certificate issue, but the truth is that there is something not right about Obama. I've never understood his appeal, as he's completely devoid of personality.
ReplyDeleteYour response doesn't make any fucking sense.
ReplyDeleteQuoting yourself is not a legitimate source.
Obama is Christian and was born in Hawaii (this was confirmed by the state's Republican governor).
And a Playfish quiz does not make you a braniac. It's designed for CHILDREN. How and why you take it at face value is beyond me.
Also, there are six billion people out there, and the smarter ones aren't necessarily the ones using Facebook...
Guys. Hillary Clinton should have totally been the president. She beats everybody.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't we all feel kinship to foreigners? After all, everyone in America (save for a few indigenous tribes) is an immigrant or the descendant of one.
ReplyDeleteExactly, at different times, it was all like "no Irish need apply", we even prevented Jews from moving in at some points during WWII, which is really sad. Let's not forget the immigration restraints on Japanese people, as well as the ones on Chinese. The restraints on Japanese people, as well as our taxation of their goods was one of the reasons their government went crazy and went to war with us in WWII. We were afraid of them "stealing our jobs", as with the Chinese. Your feelings about Muslims are the same that Americans felt about Japanese-Americans during WWII. "They're dangerous, everyone who likes them has got to be crazy." I have a friend who's Muslim. He's cool.
ReplyDelete..out-smart you?!?...lol...
ReplyDeleteThere are NO smart persons on this planet who think the way you do.
The whole world, the International Community, already knows the United States to be THE biggest manufacturer and exporter and user of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological, chemical etc...It, the United States, is also the single country which has historically dropped the most of some of these worldwide in the past and it is also the single one which does today.
Dropping bombs, especially illegally, and especially on civilians, destroying whole countries, IS "terrorism"at its best. You guys win the prize. You are #1. Congratulations!
Furthermore, the fact is and remains that your country, the United States, came to exist thru and by "terrorism" and genocide. The biggest single genocide history has ever seen, that of Native Indigenous tribes.
To pretend that Obama is "anti-US" or a "socialist" or a "lefty" etc...is simply a mis-representation of his escalated US Imperialist policies and it is not even good for the domestic shituation present in that country.
It is only in places like Miami, the ass of the United States and of Latin America, that such remarks are made and believed religiously concerning this politician. Not a single intelligent person thinks this way no-where else on this planet.
Furthermore, neo-liberalists like him (and probably you) are typically American.
Your perspective is beyond biased, it is very "American" and totally ignorant of what goes on in the International Community.
What else is new?
About the fact that only 2 weeks ago the International Community again, and for the 19th consecutive time, voted against the illegal blockade of Cuba at the United Nations(UN). The vote, again, for the 19th consecutive year, received overwhelming approval 187 nations to 2(US and Israel).
The day will come when the world, the International Community, will be tired of having to put up with a parasitic and aggressive foreign policy at the hands of the economical leadership of an un-democratic country like the United States, whether under Bush or Obama, or anyone else who wins the marketing campaign which is considered an "election" in that backwards country.
PS-go back to school
Is "suspected terrorist related sympathizers" the new "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"? Your imprecision is adorable, but unconvincing.
ReplyDeleteReader 65,
ReplyDeleteSo do you think we ought to have let Saddam keep murdering people?
The number of innocent civilians unfortunately killed since the start of the war is still infinitesimally small compared to the hundreds of thousands that would have continued to have been killed under Saddam's tyrannical rule.
I'm not judging you, just wanted to know your opinion is all.
Me? I probably would have let them get on with it. They're all throwbacks.
I want to see the blog author's face so I can know what a retard that thinks he's a genius looks like.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteNobody knows if Obama is currently a Christian or not. There is reason to doubt his being a Christian, since a book has published his school records that show he was Muslim while in Indonesia. Although it’s serious to lie about your own religion, I’m more concerned with his policies.
Only a fool (or someone naïve) believes he was born in Hawaii, because nobody born in Hawaii would spend 1.4M+ on lawsuits instead of releasing his birth certificate.
And by the way, the pledge made by Hawaii contradicted their own earlier comments-at first they said the COLB was an unofficial form (which it had been for decades), then they switched to say it's now considered an official document (but still not the long form birth certificate).
This is a great starting point for research:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=197385
Here's an entire archive of dozens of articles:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546
About the Playfish test…if you knew anything about intelligence, you’d know that children’s IQ tests and adult IQ tests both have similar elements: math, visual spatial ability, memory, etc.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hilary should have won (although I feel she's very corrupt too, unfortunately).
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
“Shouldn't we all feel kinship to foreigners? After all, everyone in America (save for a few indigenous tribes) is an immigrant or the descendant of one.”
You can feel kinship to foreigners, but it's a different story when you're using USA taxpayer money to use the army to protect those foreigners from terrorists.
And there's no sense in making the claim that everyone in America is related to foreigners anyway (implying that other countries don't have as many foreigners).
Because everyone in the world is a foreigner if you go back far enough (evolutionary migration).
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou write
"The restraints on Japanese people, as well as our taxation of their goods was one of the reasons their government went crazy and went to war with us in WWII."
Was that really the case? If so, that's interesting. Although it's strange of the Japanese to feel that the USA shouldn’t be able to put restraints on Japanese people living in the USA...after all, they would be Americans (or landed immigrants, etc) by then.
"Your feelings about Muslims are the same that Americans felt about Japanese-Americans during WWII".
Wow. You are one radical person. I never at all suggested Muslims are dangerous overall. I simply said they are MORE dangerous than non-Muslims when it comes to their likelihood of being a terrorist. That’s indisputable.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"There are NO smart persons on this planet who think the way you do."
Of course, you are basically right! I ranked 74th out of about 1,000,000 people, so there would be very few smart people as smart as I.
You write:
"The whole world, the International Community, already knows the United States to be THE biggest manufacturer and exporter and user of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological, chemical etc..."
I never disputed this. What does it have to do with my article? You seem to think that I would be offended by your comments, and so you offer them.
"It, the United States, is also the single country which has historically dropped the most of some of these worldwide in the past and it is also the single one which does today.
Dropping bombs, especially illegally, and especially on civilians, destroying whole countries, IS "terrorism"at its best."
It's hardly terrorism to be defending yourself against an expected attack, but I do think that the USA has probably done some disturbing things (interfering with the rulers of countries in the 1950s, etc).
However, it's not necessarily fair to say that the USA is someone more at fault than others. If you were to provide other countries with the same level of power as the USA has, they might be as likely, or MORE likely, to act the same way.
"Furthermore, the fact is and remains that your country, the United States, came to exist thru and by "terrorism" and genocide. The biggest single genocide history has ever seen, that of Native Indigenous tribes."
Of course it's wrong to kill indiscriminately!
But it's bizarre to suggest that the killing of the natives occurred in a quantity greater than every other genocide and starving, such as those in North Korea, Russia and Rwanda.
It's also bizarre to suggest that Americans today are responsible for killing natives; is a child of a rapist
an evil person since they came to be about as a result of wrongdoing?
And even if you could make the claim that people today ARE responsible for their ancestors, there were many people from many countries, many colonial countries involved in killing natives, not just the English.
It's also bizarre to suggest that the USA came about through genocide. I doubt natives occupied so much land that there wasn't room for hundreds of millions of Americans to co- exist with natives, as they do today. I’m sure America would probably exist regardless of how many natives were killed.
I'm not minimizing any killing of natives, I'm simply putting it into perspective for you.
How could a blockade against Cuba be illegal? The UN doesn't set the laws. Countries have their own laws!
It's bizarre to think that the UN should be able to set the law. That's not manageable at all, there are too many competing interests!
I don't need to go back to school. I outsmarted you in every way. The sad thing is that you will go through life and make decisions based on faulty information, wasting your life.
Reader 65 and 74,
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the motives for the invasion of Iraq were. I suspect corruption may have been involved, because apparently the CIA report pre-war said that Iraq was unlikely to use their WMDs.
That said, there was plenty of evidence that Iraq had WMDs, so there was plenty of cover for an invasion.
You certainly can't blame the USA for the violence after the invasion, since it was almost all due to terrorism. Do you believe that the USA is responsible for the actions of others?
You can’t blame the USA (or anyone) from going to war to protect themselves, although I do think you might be able to blame the USA for dismantling the army. It may have been well intentioned, but may not have been a smart move based on the info at the time.
I do think that the war in Iraq was mostly a waste. Once WMDs were not found, I think the equation changed and I think that the lives and treasure spent didn’t justify the greater security gained by extending the stay in Iraq and killing terrorists. However, by the US staying, they sacrificed their lives to protect the Iraqi people from the terrorists.
If the US is so bad, why do so many people want to come here? And why do so many in other countries waste their time talking about America.
ReplyDeleteReader 74,
ReplyDelete"So do you think we ought to have let Saddam keep murdering people?"
It's unclear, but certainly not so simple. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since the start of the occupation (some estimates put the body count as high as a million), so I don't think your numbers argument works out quite so nicely.
At any rate, that wasn't really what I was protesting about NoSuch's post. Rather, I was bothered by the Right's satisfaction with making imprecise, hedgy statements (like Bush's famous "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities") which aren't so much false as they are meaningless. If you want to go about being "rational" about things, you can't hand-wave all the details.
At any rate, the entire premise of this post is bunk: NoSuch discards the possibility that Obama is "pro-US" because the two disagree on fundamental economic issues, and because he's "linked to a terrorist". (I've met Bill Ayers, and to call him a terrorist is preposterous.)
This is why we proofread, I suppose. Change one of my "at any rate"s to some other transitional phrase. Not as bad as three consecutive "however"s, but still embarrassing!
ReplyDeleteOh Reader 74 I'm boofing you! I'm boofing you because you are the author of this blog under yet another pseudonym. Oh baby you are so gay it's scary.
ReplyDeleteReader 75,
ReplyDeleteSo everyone who agrees with Nosuchthing IS Nosuchthing?
Aaaaah......the liberal mind - absurd yet nonetheless fascinating logic.
Reader 65,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"At any rate, that wasn't really what I was protesting about NoSuch's post. Rather, I was bothered by the Right's satisfaction with making imprecise, hedgy statements (like Bush's famous "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities") which aren't so much false as they are meaningless."
What do you think I said about WMDs that was imprecise?
I wrote:
"...because apparently the CIA report pre-war said that Iraq was unlikely to use their WMDs."
and
"That said, there was plenty of evidence that Iraq had WMDs, so there was plenty of cover for an invasion."
Vincent Bugliosi reveals that the CIA pre-war report concluded that Iraq was likely to have WMDs, but was not likely to use them.
Furthermore, perhaps the best evidence that Saddam had WMDs was the fact that after the inspectors were kicked out, Saddam refused to provide documentation to the UN to prove that he had disabled the weapons programs the inspectors had already found.
If anything was a flashing red warning that Saddam had WMD, it was his refusal to provide documentation to demonstrate he had gotten rid of the verifiable weapons from previously.
It was an easy decision to conclude he had WMD. It would have been a poor decision to conclude otherwise.
You write:
"At any rate, the entire premise of this post is bunk: NoSuch discards the possibility that Obama is "pro-US" because the two disagree on fundamental economic issues, and because he's "linked to a terrorist". (I've met Bill Ayers, and to call him a terrorist is preposterous.) "
I don't claim Obama is anti-US simply because of his economic policies, but because of other policies (such as the fact he reported his own country to the UN Human Rights Council! Why? Because Arizona was deporting illegal immigrant criminals who broke in the country and were taking jobs from Americans! If that's not anti-US, I don't know what is!)
There are many reasons that suggest Obama is anti-US, such as his documented refusal to wear the American flag lapel pin, etc.
Bill Ayers has admitted being the leader of a group that bombed the Pentagon and a police station. He was also banned from entering Canada in 2009 or 2010. Of course he's a terrorist, and admittedly so, I would venture.
Even worse, in a 2001 article, if i remember correctly, he was unrepentant and actually said he wished they had more explosives!
If you think Bill Ayrs is not a terrorist...God help us.
NoSuch,
ReplyDeleteIt's people like Reader 65 who make me despair. With minds like hers, is there any point in arguing with her?
From my experience, these liberal types will not be swayed, no matter how much logic is fired at them and no matter how wrong they are.
I was thinking yesterday about how suicidal the West has become (particularly Britain and America) with regard to national security issues, etc. One of the reasons, I believe, for how we're having so many problems getting anything done is due to complaining women. Have you noticed there are far more women moaning about "human rights", "illegal wars" and "global warming", for example.
Basically, I think giving women the vote and the power to talk about politics publicly is destroying our civilisation.
Reader 74,
ReplyDeletevery interesting point. Not many people bring that up, but indeed I had noticed that women alter the equation significantly.
I remember Ann Coulter once said that if women didn't vote, Republicans would've won every election except one dating back something like 50 to 60 years.
Look at the exit polls from the 2010 election:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/exit-poll/US/r/
Women voted 49/48 Democrat, while men voted 55/42 Republican. That's a significant difference, and it's crucial to remark that the differences between men and women in 2010 are quite a bit understated in comparison to the past. Women were much more conservative during 2010 than in the past:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/03/women-independent-voters-biggest-swing/
In 2010, however, white women were 57/40 Republican (this surprised me), and black women were 93/6 democrat.
In 2010, white men were 62/35 Republican, white women were 57/40 Republican.
62 versus 57 is a significant difference between white men and white women, certainly enough to swing the election, but not massive. However, as I said, the difference between men and women has historically been much greater than that, so I don't know if the 5 point gap will stay that low.
Overall, historically women have been significantly more liberal than men, and this is partly because minority women are overwhelmingly liberal.
I can only hope that women continue to become more conservative. That will be needed for conservatives to be successful.
Overall, I agree with you that the tendency of women to be more liberal than men is harming the country drastically. I agree that liberals tend to be more irrational (or perhaps just plain biased, wanting a certain outcome regardless of whether it's logical or harmful). I'm sure some conservatives are like this as well; my point is simply that a greater proportion of liberals are illogical.
I hate that this is true, but my personal opinion is that women are more likely than men to be incapable of making a smart choice for the country. (Although if white women continue their trend and their 57/40 preference catches up to men's 62/35, then the only issue will be trying to convince minority women to vote Republican. They also vote more liberal than minority men, 93 versus 85).
The reason I break down the votes by race is because the differences are startling, and show that there are huge differences in thinking between the races.
cont'd below
cont'd from above
ReplyDeleteWhy do I say that it's my opinion that women are more likely than men to be incapable of making the ideal choice for the country? Well, their genetic makeup involves consensus and reaching out to groups (My use of the word incapable is probably not the best one. It might seem insensitive. There are many men there I think are incapable of voting logically, but there are likely simply more women).
I just read a good book showing brain scan differences, titled "Leadership and the Sexes: Using Gender Science to Create Success in Business". Evolutionarily, they are hard wired that way. And that probably provides them with a lot of benefits in life (including reducing conflict through consensus), but I think it tends to lessen the odds that they will choose the most logical vote.
Now, again, this isn't meant to single out only women...many men vote illogically as well, but the gap between 55 and 48 is significant, especially considering it's historically been larger.
By voting Democrat, women probably believe in building consensus and reaching out to all types of special interest groups, regardless of how illogical it is. Simply put, I think that the desire of many women to build consensus probably overrides their ability to make the most logical decision for society overall.
Another issue is this. First, let me say that even people with 140 IQs often seem to have trouble understanding deeper political issues. I believe that often it's people with 160 or higher IQs that have the required intelligence to make ideal decisions.
Now, there is reason to believe that there might not be as many women as men that have these very high IQs, resulting in women making a greater number of poor voting decisions.
It's true that women's IQ is basically equal to men, overall. But the Bell Curve distribution of the women's score MAY have fewer women at the very high and very low ends than men's.
If true, this would mean there are many more smart men than women, but also many more very dumb men than women.
And as I said, the difference in voting ability may come about at the very smart end.
Why do I think there may be a difference? Well, men seem to dominate competitions that may involve extreme intelligence, like winning the Nobel Prize. Men are overrepresented at the very high levels of science, etc.
Larry Summers publically stated as such.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of the corruption within the Republican either. I just want a party that is logical and non-corrupt. That means using mostly conservative (but a few liberal) policies.
Notice I haven't commented on whether women should be allowed to vote. Although people might consider it distasteful, using logic only, it might be better for society if women weren't allowed to vote, but by the same token you might say that it would be better for society if only intelligent people were allowed to vote, or only rational people, or only supergeniuses, or only unbiased people. After all, there are large numbers of irrational and biased men too. And making a decision like that, of such profound magnitude, would require a lot of research before considering implentation.
I can't believe how horrendously offensive this is. I wish you were joking, but sadly I know you're not. First off, you'll have to forgive me - I'm one of those women whose IQ is only in the 140s, so perhaps my pea brain isn't keeping up with your 'logic' but are you really suggesting that only people with IQs in the 160s should be able to make political decisions that influence the rest of the country? Really? People four standard deviations above the mean? Are the only people who can 'really understand' the needs of the general population? And because there are more men in this group of a handful of people, we should consider stifling women's voices altogether? The fact that people think like this frightens me so much you can't even believe it.
ReplyDeleteChristine,
ReplyDeleteI never made any recommendations at all, but I'm trying to get there logically. I'm going to write more in an article.
My point is simply this. I would think that society would be far better off if we were able to restrict voting to only those who will choose the best vote for society overall. (Although, if enough people are angry at not being able to vote, perhaps the country wouldn't be better off). It's just like playing a game: If you are going to send ballplayers to a baseball game, a country sends it's best players. Really, ideally, it should be no different with voters. I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong on this, but I can't see how someone could argue that it's ideal to want to send players that aren't your best to vote.
I mentioned people with 160 IQs. Yes, I'm serious that a 160 IQ might be ONE of the ideal traits of a voter (but not all). And 160 is just a round figure. I don't know what the ideal IQ is.
I never denigrated people with a 140 IQ. It's not right to denigrate anyone. I simply said that 140 might not be high enough to make the best decisions.
The idea is, if it's plausible, to have the best choices being made for society. That's it. That benefits everyone. The question is whether it's plausible or not. The biggest concern is that those in power will vote in their own interest.
You mention that perhaps those with 160 IQs won't understand the concerns of the others. Perhaps, and it shouldn't be assumed those with 160 IQs are the best. However, I would think that most policy decisions come down to evidence about aggregate information, so I see no reason why those with 160 IQs wouldn't likely be largely adequate.
And the question isn't whether those with 160 IQs are the perfect voter, just whether they are the best of the bunch.
And IQ is only one factor that I think the ideal voter would probably have. Another is rationalism (some high IQ people can be irrational). Another might be an ideal level of sensitivity (to be able to understand the emotional aspect of people's lives).
In fact, the ideal voters might be high IQ, emotionally aware people, and there may be more women than men in that category. Or perhaps an equal amount. There may be more men with extremely high IQs, but I'm sure there are more women with emotionally aware ability.
Maybe only those people should be allowed to vote. The point is simply to determine who the ideal voter is. After decades of voting, it's clear that large percentages of those who vote aren't even fully aware of the issues, much less the most capable to make the best decisions on the information.
You have to realize that one of the most important aspects of choosing an ideal voter is to choose someone who is rational and unbiased. Those people should vote for the interests of everyone...so, it shouldn't matter whether there are more men or more women among that group. I would have no problem at all with allowing a certain ideal group of people to vote, and certainly no problem is that group includes mostly women.
The question becomes, is it plausible that such a group will be able to avoid biased voting? Well, theoretically they should be able to avoid it, since they were selected using that criteria, however their new position of power might change them. But I'll write more about this later. And I'll probably end up using some of what I've written here!
Thank you both for showing yourselves to be what I thought you were. I think I'm done here.
ReplyDelete-Pseudonym
Reader 65,
ReplyDeleteInstead of the usual sarcasm, why not argue your case?
Are we wrong?
Explain why we are wrong.
If you can.
"Instead of the usual sarcasm, why not argue your case?"
ReplyDeleteFirst off, nothing I've said was sarcastic.
And why not argue my case? Because that's not how this conversation-thing works. You don't get to say that an entire gender is "destroying our civilization" and then ask me to calmly debunk your points. Sorry, but I have better things to do then argue with people who think women don't deserve the same basic rights as men.
Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege.
ReplyDeleteYou know the thing about liberal, middle-class, white, ivory tower women that really bugs me?
It's that we all know that when the men in dirty nightshirts come for them, these women will be screaming for their men to save them, and they'll want them to bring guns too.
Meanwhile, BUSH IS BAD, OBAMA IS GOOD, etc.
Just as well men invented everything before we allowed women equality, huh?
Reader 74,
ReplyDeleteI refer you to the reply in Arkell v. Pressdram.
NoSuch, I'm curious if you agree with Larry on these points.
Reader 65,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Larry that you aren't choosing to directly challenge the argument.
There's no reason to feel that I "think women don't deserve the same basic rights as men." On my end, this has nothing to do with feeling women are inferior. I've already mentioned that even if women are poorer voters, those same tendencies that lead to that might make them stronger in other areas of life.
It really bothers me that you would think that this is somehow a gender bashing thing, since I've said nothing of the sort. And I think that's part of the problem with this type of debate, people get their backs up, even when I go out of my way to avoid emotion.
Voting shouldn't necessarily be a human right, because it means people incapable of making a good choice can overrule those capable of making a good choice. I know this might seem like blasphemy, but it's quite logical.
And as for women vs men, the gap was only about 7 points. Significant, but not huge. So, if you want to eliminate voting for people who voted irrationally (and you define that as voting liberal), then you'd have to eliminate many men as well. So the question becomes-why don't you just eliminate all irrational people from voting? Well, you could, if you could test for that. Or, I suppose you could just eliminate all liberal voters from voting, but the problem is that some of them are rational too.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote. But I do wish more women would vote based on logic instead of emotion, and vote for the party which best represented the interests of the majority and not minority groups.
My main annoyance is with positive discrimination. For example, here in the UK we have a politician called Harriet Harman, who is obsessed with "gender equality". She is constantly lecturing people about how important it is that more women become involved in politics to "redress the balance".
Seriously, you couldn't make it up. People like her think that "equality" is a panacea. To make a country run at maximum efficiency, it should be based on a very simple libertarian and meritocratic system.
@74:
ReplyDeleteYour words:
"I think giving women the vote and the power to talk about politics publicly is destroying our civilisation."
"You know the thing about liberal, middle-class, white, ivory tower women that really bugs me?"
Some-one has is-sues...
Also, on the subject of IQ, research by Kanazawa (2010) indicates that liberals tend to have higher IQs than conservatives. How does this make you feel?
It seems like you make a solid theoretical argument about voting, but I do have some critique. My view and question are ones based on some gray areas, so you may have to bear with me a bit.
ReplyDeleteA duly elected government by the people has to be elected by the majority of ALL of its citizens, not just those that we deem able to vote. Otherwise that government has no mandate to govern all of the people. Thus my belief is that the criteria for voting has to be one that all natural-born citizens of a country, each and every one, has a equal chance of achieving or maintaining in order to vote, wealth, IQ, gender, all should be irrelevant.
One difference in this is that convicted criminals often forfeit their right to vote upon conviction of a crime, which I support, as their forfeiture of the legal right to vote is based upon something they have done themselves, and not by chance.
Citizens and voters don't have the ability to choose what quality the public education they live near is in, nor what the financial state of their family that they're born into is like. And without solid finances, higher education is much more difficult, especially coupled with lower quality secondary education.
My argument is that intelligence is partially based on random chance, and the average person with average intelligence may or may not have the opportunities to develop their intelligence. Therefore, intelligence cannot be the main determinant in voter eligibility.
Rationality is another trait you cite. But what is rationality based on? Are you born with it? Is it based on experience, which some may or may not share or be able to experience themselves? If so, that's also random chance, which disqualifies it from being used in my mind. Or what else could develop rationality? If you have better answers than I, or more information, feel free to correct me.
I feel like my post has meandered terribly, but to get back on track, and to try to conclude: Intelligence and rationality are desirable traits in voters, but because not every citizen has the equal opportunity to gain those traits, they cannot be used as realistic factors in determining who may or may not vote. This is because of the core belief that each and every voter has to be able to have the right to vote, otherwise, any government elected by the few would have no mandate to govern all.
I have problems with the apparent intelligence of fellow voters at times, personally, but to this I counter that education quality is the problem that needs answered. Removing the rights of voters due to lack of IQ is a superficial solution, as it doesn't treat the cause of the problem, which is lack of education funds, or poorly designed standardized tests, lousy schools and teachers allowed to stay in place without any sort of regulation or quality control, those among others are the real ailments, and removing the rights of voters who suffer from them does nothing to help them nor to help our country.
That was my critique. I don't disagree with you that the lack of intelligence in voters is a problem, but I do disagree strongly that simply removing voter rights is solution to the cause. My question is this. Do you feel that education quality needs to be improved, and have you considered this viewpoint before?
Reader V,
ReplyDeletesee this thread:
http://nosuchthingasanopinion.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-we-restrict-some-people-from.html
I believe I address all of your comments/questions there. If not, feel free to write back.
"I do think that the war in Iraq was mostly a waste. Once WMDs were not found, I think the equation changed and I think that the lives and treasure spent didn’t justify the greater security gained by extending the stay in Iraq and killing terrorists. However, by the US staying, they sacrificed their lives to protect the Iraqi people from the terrorists."
ReplyDeleteNoSuch, you're kind of right here. Are you saying that after we invaded Iraq, removed Saddam, searched for the WMDs but didn't find any, we should have just upped and left?
The equation did change, because after realizing that there were no WMDs, we had to make sure that the power vacuum did not lead to a worse government than Saddam's.
Reader 3,
ReplyDeleteonce the WMDs were found, I believe they should've planned to evacuate as many people as necessary while leaving enough people to accomplish these two objectives:
1)To help protect the Iraqi people. However, I don't believe that they should have stayed until the terrorism was completely under control, because the terrorism largely wasn't their fault. You can only blame the US for starting the process that allowed for terrorism to occur, but they weren't causing the terrorism themselves.
Similarly, if one makes a mistake and lets criminals out of jail, you can't blame them for the actions of the criminal afterward.
2)You want to evacuate as many people/treasure as possible. You don't want a hostile government to form...so you leave a few troops in Iraq or surrounding areas, and every time a hostile government starts to form, you could bomb them. There must be a better solution than what the USA actually did (cost/benefit analysis). The USA may have been successful with their goals, but it came at a massive cost.