Say Anything Blog

The idea that people tend to be more forgiving to those they tend to agree with or like then to those they tend to disagree with or dislike is hardly a major scientific finding.

I think the key in political debate is to remember that most of the people you are talking to really are trying to do what’s best for the nation (except, in the case of politicians, when they’re trying to do what’s best for their big-money contributors).

Liberals support minimum wage increases because they genuinely believe that increasing the minimum wage makes America a better place.  Now I couldn’t disagree with that conclusion more, but I’m not going to use my disagreement as a basis to tell Democrats that they don’t like this country, etc.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

But it also explains the puzzling reference to feminists, MSM, liberals, lefties, anyone not acceptable to conservatives, as liars. Not honorable people with a difference of opinion, but deliberate liars, all.

I find it interesting that the only example you give is negative towards conservatism.  You don’t deal with the leftie partisans referring to conservatives as “right-wing extremists” and “Nazis” because we want to follow the Constitution, or practicing antiChristian bigotry, while approving of other religions.  Why the double standard?
You do imply that all of those you label as “partisan thinkers"(thus invalidating what might be very well-considered values and principles), but you give no examples of that thinking on the left.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Margie: Another point I would dispute with you is the assumption that everyone on “the other side of the aisle” is just as emotionally attached to their point of view as you and yours are.  I find most conservatives to be motivated by ideas, not feelings.  There is, IMO, a fundamental difference; it’s not symmetrical.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Margie,

The fact that a person has a positive emotional response or attachment to those persons or ideas that are pleasing is really no excuse for a consistent and determined unwillingness to approach issue of public policy on a thoughtful and rational basis.

This is certainly a factor.  Taking Rob’s example of the minimal wage.  How many times do liberals have to ignore the facts behind the debate?  Sure I’ll acknowledge that there are maybe 100,000 people that are making the minimum wage that will be helped by the minimum wage going up.  When are the lefties going to acknowledge the people being hurt by the minimal wage going up?

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW: It’s not even safe to assume that people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder are benefited by minimum wage laws.  Even a first-year econ student can tell you that fewer of them will be hired as a result.
Besides, under what Constitutional principle does the govt set wages in our free enterprise system?  They are entitled to do it for govt workers, but not for private businesses.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Rob:

The idea that people tend to be more forgiving to those they tend to agree with or like [than] to those they tend to disagree with or dislike is hardly a major scientific finding.

To be fair to the researchers, what they showed was that this well-known tendency can be observed using MRIs, including when the internal reward mechanism gets stimulated.

In the future MRI like devices might be used to examine the truthfulness of an answer, whether the answer was based on first-hand knowledge or just being made up, and so forth. 

Of course, I would hope this doesn’t ever get used on the civilian population.  But it promises to be more effective mechanism for interrogation of terrorists and other high value subjects (including say, somebody who had kidnapped a child, where there is urgency in knowing the answer quickly).  We’re a long way off from reading a person’s mind with a machine, but not so far from being able to ascribe the motivation in a response, whether and to what extent the person is truthful, and so forth.

In the future MRI like devices might be used to examine the truthfulness of an answer, whether the answer was based on first-hand knowledge or just being made up, and so forth.

The operative word here is “might”.  In truth, both PET scans and MRIs are more accurate in measuring emotion, as opposed to thought.  If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Margie is an admitted emotional, so the info she considers relevant is centered on emotional response, which, for her, is determinative.  That is not necessarily so for all of us.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Even a first-year econ student can tell you that fewer of them will be hired as a result.

Yes, but a few of them may be helped while a greater number may be hurt.  The leftist are unable to accept that there may be unfavorable consequences to their “good intentions.”

Of course the world is full of examples of unfavorable consequences to liberalism.  But they just won’t accept it.  “This time it will be different.”

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW: Actually, it’s a doctrinaire response.  Private business is evil, and govt is good; that is all that matters.  It’s not about the actual consequences, it’s about the prevailing ideology.  The lefties are actually the prime example of what Margie is describing; not so much true for conservatives, who actually want to see the lower rungs become upwardly mobile.  Conservative economics is not about “feel good”, it’s about “do good”.  Big difference.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

R108,

I’m not sure how one would measure it, but I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of those for whom en=motional response is not determinative will be found on the Right side of the aisle.

Here’s another small example:  Next to the claim that he “stole” the 2000 election (I never did understand the details of how that was accomplished...) the single biggest accusation faced by President Bush is that he lied to get us into the war in Iraq ("Bush lied… people died.")

Of course, there is only the accusation, and no proof of any such lies, but my point is that those who bray about Bush having lied, are the very same ones who excuse the lies of Bill Clinton, lies told under oath, in court, and lies for which a federal judge found him guilty of perjury and for which the Arkansas Bar Association revoked his license to practice law.

So much for rational thought.

Margie:

But it also explains the puzzling reference to feminists, MSM, liberals, lefties, anyone not acceptable to conservatives, as liars. Not honorable people with a difference of opinion, but deliberate liars

A person is acting honorably, only if that person to the best of his ability is being honest.

Thus if somebody were to say based upon the best available information “Iraq has WMDs,” then we might say that person was acting honorably but just wrong.  Hm… how many times has the “Bush lied” meme been passed around on the left on this one?  Clearly he was wrong, but does that make him a liar?

Now what happens when a newspaper leads off article after article with a distorted summary of what that a given memo actually says?  And especially if those distortions all align with the newspapers known political bias?  And we can objectively conclude that these summaries are indeed distorted because they are at odds with the contents of the memo (substitute “report,” “counter-terrorism program” etc as need be)?

Is it not safe in such a circumstance to conclude that these mischaracterizations must either be the work of incompetence or miscreance?  And if the paper otherwise competently handles its affairs, then what other interpretation is possible besides “deliberate distortion”?

Simply because sometimes people misinterpret other people’s motivations, doesn’t mean that there aren’t times where we can clearly discern them.  This is usually, as with the New York Times handling of news from Iraq, in cases where there is a clear and self-evident pattern of miscreance, such as with the NYTs mishandling of the facts.

Robert108:

In truth, both PET scans and MRIs are more accurate in measuring emotion, as opposed to thought.

I would suggest they are more accurate at determining which parts of the brain are engaged, by the patterns of activity that are noted.  If long-term memory, one pattern.  If the “creative story telling” another pattern might be engaged.

All of us have an emotional response to facts, otherwise you would not spend the amount of time that you do on this blog. It indicates a deep emotional response to certain issues.We just respond in different ways to the same facts.That seems odd until you take into account the impact of diverse enviromental backgrounds. The question is, is it possible to overcome a deep-seated point of view in order to consider facts in a more objective way? I think this research gives an unfortunate answer to this. You cannot deny your passion for your own stance and claim objectivity. Robert, I certainly don’t. Yes, this research applies to Republicans and Democrats alike. If I visited a liberal blog, which I don’t, because they would only echo my own thoughts which I don’t consider constructive, I’m sure I would find a plethora of closed minds and destructive name calling.

All of us have an emotional response to facts, otherwise you would not spend the amount of time that you do on this blog.

Once again, you are projecting your motivation on me, and you are wrong.  If you would like the facts, the reason I do this is to counter the lies and deception I find in the public discourse, mostly stemming from ignorance about economics and the consequences of that ignorance in the formulation and implementation of public policy and opinion.  I deeply question emotional response, both my own and that of others, in decision-making, instead preferring to gather information and letting the emotional mud settle before I make my decisions.  That philosophy has served me very well in life.
Once again, you fail to provide examples of leftie bias.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Ya’ll have provided sufficient examples of liberal bias, some of which I agree with, such as ascribing untruthfulness to the President prior to the war, rather than the more likely idea that those wmd now riside in Syria or Pakistan, or that he was given invalid information by an intelligence agency trying to please the Commander.

Must be lonely in that intellectual Ivory Tower, Robert. You are still denying your own humanity in allowing emotions to influence you.

Carrick: I submit to you that every brain is somewhat different, and generalizing about areas of the brain being specifically involved in certain mental processes is necessarily inaccurate.  Once again, the operative word here is “might”.
In addition, if you analyze Margie’s position, it yields the conclusion that none of us is qualified to make anything other than emotion-based judgement, so who can we trust?  The usual answer is to trust govt officials, or as the Marxists say, “The State”, since we can’t be trusted to make decisions on our own.  This “appeal to authority” is a common component of leftie thought.  Margie can speak to her own emotion-based thought process, but has absolutely no business attributing it to anyone else.
This is why the lefties don’t trust individual independence, and are therefore fundamentally unAmerican.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Bat: Not to mention the big lie on national TV, accompanied by the self-righteous fingerwagging.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Margie, there is a difference between being passionate about something, and the ability to be objective.  As to your specific question:

The question is, is it possible to overcome a deep-seated point of view in order to consider facts in a more objective way?

The short answer is “yes,” with training, and this is by using a process for analyzing the data that tends to eliminate our personal biases.

Carrying emotional baggage means that we have certain predilections for how we will interpret a specific set of events.  For example Bush and WMD versus Clinton and Lewinsky.  In the first case, there simply is no evidence of dishonesty, in the second, the evidence was strong enough for Clinton to receive punitive action for his misdeeds.

When considering questions like “did Bush lie?” we have to first 1) demonstrate that what he said was wrong (or at least that he thought it was wrong when he said it) and 2) that his motive in saying it was to deceive.

I think it’s safe to say that he was wrong about the extent of the WMDs, but objectively there is little reason to argue that he would have thought otherwise.  (Hell, even the New York Times was convinced there were WMD at the time.)

When a person states an untruth, if that untruth tends to favor that person’s position, or if it negates our own, we are much more likely to conclude that this person lied.  That part is human nature.  But if a person has a pattern of systematically stating untruths, then I think we would all agree that person (or organization) is lying, even if we can’t prove their motivations.

Are you angry yet, Robert? Would parts of your brain light up if I stated that you spurn the scientific facts I offer because you are incapable of considering any facts contradictory to your point of view? But this post was directed at human failings, not pointed necessarily at any one party. I used the examples I have encountered personally. I did not mean to exempt anyone.

Margie: You seem to be angry, but you are mistaken to project your mental state on me.  I also think the science in this study is more speculative than solid, but that’s another matter.  I do realize it is very difficult for you to comprehend that anyone makes decisions on a different basis from the yours.
The examples you gave were only about your assertion of the claimed failings of conservative thought, which is why I have asked you several times to give a balanced account by giving equivalent examples of flawed leftie thought, and you have yet to do so.  This is a priori evidence of bias on your part.
Your “facts” consist of citing one study that supports your contention, in a casual manner. Are there other studies that either agree or disagree with your position?  You don’t say.  If you want to claim scientific basis for your opinions, you will have to be more rigorous to have any credibility.  I would be much more convinced if you gave a reasoned argument for your position, instead of the “everybody does it” assertion.  I know different, just by my own example.  Otherwise, all you have given us is your emotion-based opinion that everyone is similarly emotion-based.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Of course I am biased toward my own viewpoint. Who isn’t? My biggest annoyance and anger derives from people who are not willing to ascribe any good motivation to people with different beliefs, and I include Democrats in this. They are either idiots, dishonorable liars or simply not capable of arriving at the “right” conclusions.

Police classes in self-protecion have repeatedly told people to rely on and give credence to their instincts, even when there are no verifiable facts to tell them that they are in danger. Which is neither here nor there, but opens the question of whether perhaps sometimes our emotions are a more reliable guide than facts, which so often vary according to source.

Must be lonely in that intellectual Ivory Tower, Robert. You are still denying your own humanity in allowing emotions to influence you.

Well, when you lack facts, go to personal attack!  This is the typical emotional response to someone who is able to remain rational under attack.
I think what distinguishes humans is exactly the ability to be rational, rather than emotionally reactive.  Any animal can be emotionally reactive, but only humans can be contemplative and rational.  In short, the ability of a person to rise above emotional reactivity is the hallmark of humanity.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Must be lonely in that intellectual Ivory Tower, Robert

no, he has his computer. hubba hubba.

That statement was not a personal attack, but flowed naturally from your assertion that you always make decisions based on fact, never an emotional response.
The are you angry, yet, crack was personal and I should apoligize for it. It was an attempt to elicit an emotional response, thus invalidating that claim. It failed to do so.

Of course I am biased toward my own viewpoint.

This is a simple statement of human failing.  It is true on the face of it, but there is much beneath the surface.  The real question is how you arrived at that viewpoint?  If you got there by emotionally reactive process, it’s one thing; if you got there by reasoning and examining the facts and consequences of various beliefs, it’s another thing.  I don’t feel threatened when people question my positions, because I have arrived at those positions after long and careful consideration, in addition to life experience and academic training. My confidence is not dependent on the agreement of others.  There is a difference.  Not all positions are a result of bias; many of them are based on real knowledge.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1bi·as
Pronunciation: ‘bI-&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French biais
1 : a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45 degree angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit
2 a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green in lawn bowling b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency c : the swerve of the bowl
3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
4 a : a voltage applied to a device (as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

That statement was not a personal attack, but flowed naturally from your assertion that you always make decisions based on fact, never an emotional response.

What I actually wrote: 

I deeply question emotional response, both my own and that of others, in decision-making, instead preferring to gather information and letting the emotional mud settle before I make my decisions.

Not exactly your overgeneralized version, is it?
BTW, thanks for acknowledging your failed effort to get me to be emotionally reactive to your statement.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Believe it or not, some of us liberals can be intellually honest and sincere in our beliefs. We are not all enemies of the state

Must be lonely in that intellectual Ivory Tower, Robert

no, he has his computer. hubba hubba.
Sparkie Arbuckle on December 5, 2006 at

There you go again, Sparkie: projecting your consciousness on others.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Police classes in self-protecion have repeatedly told people to rely on and give credence to their instincts, even when there are no verifiable facts to tell them that they are in danger.

Margie,

True enough.  But those very same policemen will arrest your ass in a New York minute if the perp your shoot lands on the wrong side of the threshold.

Instinct or intellect, we are still accountable for the consequences of our actions, regardless of our motivation.  Which is why most children are taught to control their temper tantrums.  (The rest grow up to be Democrats!)

Believe it or not, some of us liberals can be intellually honest and sincere in our beliefs. We are not all enemies of the state

Agreed.  I only go after the ones who are lying and fabricating.  BTW, “Enemy of the State” is a Marxist term, not a conservative one. It is used in commie govts as a prelude to execution, generally. I guess I would characterize the lying lefties as “enemies of individual independence”, because they are.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Must be lonely in that intellectual Ivory Tower, Robert.

Sparkie,

Actually, its a good deal more up here crowded than you might imagine.  Damn good company. too.

Believe it or not, some of us liberals can be intellually honest and sincere in our beliefs.

Margie,

And those of you are intellectually honest are the ones whose opinions, and feelings, are listened to by the rest of us.

” the rest grow up to be Democrats”
“ the lying lefties”

Lumping a whole group and labeling them is almost the definition of prejudice and proves my point exactly.

Margie: Once again, you overgeneralize.  When I refer to the “lying lefties”, I am referring to the lefties who lie, not all of them.  I know you really want to justify your erroneous opinion of me, but it just won’t wash.  Actually, you have once again proved my point with your distortion of what I said.  I already pointed out and illustrated one example of your doing that.
BTW, I never said “the rest grow up to be Democrats”, so you make a false association there.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Lumping a whole group and labeling them is almost the definition of prejudice and proves my point exactly.

Margie,

And here you were doing so well, too… My apologies.  Next time, I’ll be sure to label my sarcasm just for your personal benefit.

In the meantime, unless you can show where I specifically said “the lying lefties” as you have quoted in your comment, I’ll be glad to accept YOUR apology in return.  Or are you now guilty of the very same “lumping” together that you disparaged?

R108,

I’m going to leave this to you.  I have an appointment with my attorney, and I don’t honestly think Margie here can quite handle the two of us at once.  Regards,

B1

Carrick: 

I think it’s safe to say that he was wrong about the extent of the WMDs, but objectively there is little reason to argue that he would have thought otherwise.  (Hell, even the New York Times was convinced there were WMD at the time.)

A very good point.  In addition, it would have been completely irresponsible for any President not to respond to any possibility that an enemy of the US has WMD.  After all, the lefties blame 9/11 on the President because he didn’t make a pre-emptive response to the possibilty of a terrorist attack.
On the other hand, he is blamed for making a pre-emptive response to the the possibility of Saddam having WMDs, which was a far more serious matter.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

No, that was Bat One, I was cherry-picking for examples of lumping.

You are right that there is a difference in calling a specific individual a liar and a whole organization one. Is every liberal paper in the country biased? Is every conservative paper accurate in their reporting? Why don’t we read about the difference in causalty figures in different papers? Wouldn’t such a thing be pretty obvious? Much of your claims of dishonesty are based on opinion, emotion, not facts.

Bat one, “lying lefties” came from Robert. As I said, I was cherry picking.

Why don’t we read about the difference in causalty figures in different papers? Wouldn’t such a thing be pretty obvious?

Answer: A common agenda.  There are other sources of information that differ radically from the MSM version of the events in Iraq; specifically the soldiers on the ground.
My knowledge of bias is factual.  Once again, you are guilty of projection.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Got to go, but thank you all. I still think the research results were right on and that all of us are more or less set in concrete in our political beliefs. But there is room for disagreement in every opinion.

Robert, I have a very high opinion of you, both as an intellectual who works hard at research and as a man. But I believe that you are influenced by emotion more than you are willing to admit to yourself. Gotta go, and thanks again.

Is every liberal paper in the country biased? Is every conservative paper accurate in their reporting?

I certainly don’t have this information; in any case, it’s irrelevant to our discussion.  The major source of news is the three major networks; ABC, CBS and NBC, and their satellites; CNN, CNBC and MSNBC, along with PBS.  To counter this, the only conservative news outlet is Fox News, which is only partially conservative.  Right there, you have a marked imbalance in reporting the news, on a daily basis, to the majority of Americans.  Most of the major newspapers, such as the NYT, the LAT, Boston Globe, and most of the leading papers in the large cities are also leftie leaning.  About the only “conservative” newspaper is the WSJ, and only partly at that.  The numbers alone indicate an imbalance in reporting, not to detail the nature of the coverage itself.
Incidentally, you can get informed about this by going to NewsBusters, which is a site dedicated to reporting media bias on a daily basis.  It is not about opinions; they actually repeat the words of the biased reporters in the MSM, along with video clips of them saying what they say.  It’s a conservative site, but it’s accurate in its reporting.
You see, reporting is biased if you simply lie about the event, as the news media did with the Tet Offensive, or it can be biased by simply ignoring parts of the story, like they do on a daily basis with Iraq, by only reporting US and Iraqi civilian deaths, and ignoring the massive social progress and the terrorist casualties.  This gives a distorted view of what is really going on over there.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

But I believe that you are influenced by emotion more than you are willing to admit to yourself.

Well, you would believe that, wouldn’t you?  It is presumptuous of you to think that you know more about my thought processes than I do.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Margie you seem to be of the opinion that there’s more than one best answer.  There isn’t.  Either the Liberal philosophy results in more people better off or the liberal philosophy does.  Both sides cannot be right.

What we do know is that the liberal philosophy when it’s implemented is a disaster.  Look at the train wreck that is Europe to compare too.  Our poor are better off then their middle class.  (Objectively, not by opinion.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a problem out there that could be fixed better with a liberal solution that with a conservative solutions.  Of course I would be skeptical, but if you made your case I’d be willing to listen.

But you have to face the facts that just because you wish something doesn’t make it so.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The train wreck that is Europe?  What fresh idiocy is this? Many EU states have a higher standard of living than the US.

Europe is not a train wreck!Why do you say that? What fresh idiocy is this? Many EU countries have a higher standard of living than the US. And Canada certainly does!

Many EU countries have a higher standard of living than the US. And Canada certainly does!

“Standard of living” is a relative term.  I’d rather be less healthy and have more money in my pocket then pay the taxes associated with socialized medicine.

And have you seen the unemployment rates in some of these countries?

But hey, if you like France and Canada so much, feel free to move.  I’d point out, though, that people are beating down the door trying to get into America.  You don’t exactly see that in many of these European nations.

Wonder why that is?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Margie, sorry I am late to the party! What date was this in the Times-Dispatch?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The train wreck that is Europe?  What fresh idiocy is this? Many EU states have a higher standard of living than the US.

BS.  Per capita income is nearly 40% higher in US than in countries such as France and England. 

US:  $41,600

France:  $29,600

Germany:  $30,100

UK:  $30,100

Meanwhile the US economy is growing 50% faster than the socialist economies of Europe. 

You don’t get to make up your facts CDUSA.  Of course according to Margie it doesn’t matter if you believe something.

Source CIA world Factbook.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

According to the US Department of Energy records (here), on October 20, 2006, the average retail price of gasoline per gallon in US dollars, in France was $5.56, in Germany. $5.72, in the Netherlands $6.46 and in the UK $6.17.  The US average price was $2.41 per gallon.

Also according to DOE records, the average price in US dollars for household electricity per kilowatt hour in 2005 (the latest year recorded and totaled) France was $1.41, Germany $1.48, the Netherlands $2.21 and the UK $1.38.  The US average price per kilowatt hour for residential electricity was $.93.

Now, what was that about a higher standard of living?

2h9: Today’s paper.

Anyone who would prefer to live in any nation but this one must know something I don’t. No other nation even comes close to matching us in any way.

Bat I think you’re a decimal off on all of your electricity prices.  Your point is still correct.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW: There is another dimension to the “average wage” figure:  In the US, there are actually a large number of people who make that actual wage, but in more class-stratified societies, there may be a few wealthy people and a lot of poor people, so the “average wage” is largly theoretical, simply being a number.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Another interesting statistic is on average how much of your income the government keeps:

US:  20%
France:  80%
Germany:  79%
UK:  79%

Of course they give part of that back to you with second-rate socialized medicine…

An interesting exception (at face value) is Norway, with 80%, but with a per capita GDP around $42,800/capita.  However that factors in $80 billion/year that Norway earns through petroleum of a total of $180 billion GDP.  Without that very lopsided income, that doesn’t translate into a country’s fiscal policy, unless your fiscal policy is “control a major world petroleum production site,” Norway is every bit as lackluster as the rest of Europe, with a per capita GDP of around $30,000/capita.

Actually the only really strong performers in the EU are Ireland (43% taxation rate, $41,100/capita) and Luxembourg (30% taxation rate, $65,900/capita).  It’s probably not a coincidence that these countries have eschewed the EU socialist economic models for an American styled economy.  Luxembourg also has very concentrated natural resources for a country its size, so that helps too.

Whistler,

My apologies for the misplaced decimal points.  I stand corrected.  Thanks.

I hadn’t realized that Ireland was doing that well.  Good for them.

I had looked at Norway after my comment.  Figure that as $16,000 per person in GDP.  Good for them, but it doesn’t mean their system works.  I read somewhere that the average worker can’t afford to eat out, they have to brown bag it.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

CIA World Factbook again:

Ireland is a small, modern, trade-dependent economy with growth averaging a robust 7% in 1995-2004… Per capita GDP is 10% above that of the four big European economies and the second highest in the EU behind Luxembourg. Over the past decade, the Irish Government has implemented a series of national economic programs designed to curb price and wage inflation, reduce government spending, increase labor force skills, and promote foreign investment.

Wow 7% growth for a year.  Good for them.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW:

Good for them, but it doesn’t mean their system works.  I read somewhere that the average worker can’t afford to eat out, they have to brown bag it

That’s a side effect (according to the Norwegian government) of taking such high revenues from the oil industry.  If I understand what they are saying it has pushed up the costs of goods and services due to the devaluation of Norwegian currency.

That’s a side effect (according to the Norwegian government) of taking such high revenues from the oil industry.  If I understand what they are saying it has pushed up the costs of goods and services due to the devaluation of Norwegian currency.

If they believe that they deserve what they get.  I heard that they also have to make their liquor rather than buying it.  (That’s a hard fact from the relitics from over there.)

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

What was the exact name of the article? I have trawled their archives and find nothing written by A.Bart Hinkle, and no reference to Barticles.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Margie,

Admittedly, I haven’t read all the posts so I may be an echo. 

The accusations are on both sides, Bush being the primary target of the left.  I might add that the leadership of the left is much more vocal and base in their rhetoric than is the leadership of the right.

The left says that every rightie is a war-monger who wants to poison water, take away the elderly’s SS, and lest I forget, they are all ignorant, intolerant, and racists.

That aside, civility and decency would be a breath of fresh air.  We can respectably disagree, debate, and point out our differences without acting like fools.

H.C., excellent conclusion. Thanks.

2h9, metro section for Barticles or , article titled Webb V. BushII, 12/05/06
I think. I sent a link to Rob via email because I don’t know how to put one on a blog yet.

Well darn, it just automaticly appeared! How about that?

I do not want to email Times-Dispatch. All I want is a link to the article. So far, Times-Dispatch has been far less than cooperative and forthcoming. This is not a good sign. I deal with local newspapers from all over the world, Asia,Africa,Europe, and America. It is always a bad sign when a news service refuses to reproduce an article on request. Not a good indication, at all.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem