to a critic of this study and my conclusions:
First, personal experience can be wrong. "I heard someone say" is about as weak intellectual authority and factual basis as one can find. Who said it? A drunk? An addict? A crook? A lunatic? A paid propagandist? Word-of-mouth can be valid for esthetic judgments, so if about everyone who has seen Gigli says that it is a piece of cinematic bilge, it probably is. But it remains impossible to quantify esthetic judgments. Can one give a quantitative explanation that Johann Sebastian Bach's Suites for Solo Cello are somehow superior to run-of-the-mill rap 'music' or that Canaletto is somehow better than chromos of dogs playing poker?
Second, most knowledge that we have is second-hand. I have no first-hand knowledge that Seattle exists. I have never been there. I know people who have been there, and I have good cause to believe that those who tell me that the city exists aren't pulling a fast one on me. Without second-hand knowledge we have only our personal experiences and neither the wisdom of the ages, the historical record, credible maps and photographs, economic rationality, nor even any ethical basis other than what one feels like at the time.
Can objective reality be distorted by people who have an agenda? Sure. One must be vigilant to reject such nonsense as ancient astronauts, Holocaust denial, and gutter racism. One must be alert to propaganda (which explains why I distrust FoX "News" Channel and consider advertising suspect). I find (statistics) more reliable than any gut feeling, and for good reason I don't fully trust my instincts and impulses. Sure, there are people who win big jackpots at casinos; someone invariably ends up winning the Super-Duper Megabucks lottery. But on the whole people are wasting their money if they patronize casinos or buy lottery tickets. On the whole they are better off saving (compound interest) and investing (if you can't beat the plutocratic pigs, join them). Gambling is a zero-sum proposition at the best.
...HDI suggests that in accordance with life expectancy at birth and educational attainment, that people not born with inherited advantages connected with a place will fare better in Minnesota on the whole than in Mississippi. Statewide credit scores suggest that economic distress is more commonplace in Mississippi than in Minnesota. So if one has the choice of starting a retail business in Minnesota or in Mississippi, which would be wiser?
Credit scores suggest that in Minnesota, where people are more likely to have paid for their heating bills and their multiples sets of clothing and have something left over than in Mississippi, where more people are likely to be maxed out on credit and have trouble meeting the rent. If you have a choice between teaching in Minnesota or Mississippi? Probably Minnesota, because school districts likely have stronger tax bases, and it is more encouraging to see kids do better in school. In Mississippi one probably needs to be connected to the Right People to fare well in life. In Minnesota one doesn't.
OK -- but you hate shoveling snow. Tough! Live with it! It is good exercise, and that may be one reason for life expectancy at birth being 81 in Minnesota and 75 in Mississippi. Is it worse than a toothache? Poor people have more dental problems. Is it worse than being short on cash and being tempted by payday lenders who solve one financial problem only to saddle you with a bigger one? I'm not saying that retiring in Minnesota from somewhere in the South will suddenly give you good health and give you a solid retirement fund.
No. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are better Presidents than Dubya. Both Clinton and Obama are more cautious and contemplative. Whacking Osama bin Laden may look much like an underworld hit, but at that the current President figured what the likely reactions would be. After the attempt on the life of his predecessor for a justified military 'adventure' to deliver Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton ordered a missile strike on the Iraqi ministry that launched the plot. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians protested, as they too had approved of the liberation of Kuwait.
Operation Iraqi Liberation offended the sensibilities of countries that usually take the side of the United States. Dubya saw only the oil revenue.
Republican "adventures" are acceptable if they protect American lives (Grenada, Panama) or liberate a victim of aggression (Kuwait). We liberals largely went silent on those.
Some things must be regulated. Ruinous, exploitative practices tempt people with the prospect of extraordinary profits and in the end bring ruin. Some politicians have the wisdom to insist upon probity in financial dealings. Some enable well-connected scammers. Of course it is possible to get good economic results with thrift, enterprise, toil, and the stewardship of scarce resources -- an old conservative economic argument that has normally gotten desirable results for all concerned. Dubya enabled the quick-buck operators, and paradoxically it may be Barack Obama who presides over the return to the old way of getting economic success.
Face it -- Dubya was a failure on foreign policy and on economics not so much because he was stupid (he isn't) but instead because he has been a sucker for recklessness in foreign policy and economics. Crony capitalism is good at the most for enriching a few well-connected people. That is not libertarianism; it depends upon dividing the market into sectors of control. The acquisitive motive remains, but few people can derive benefit from it. When enough people are ruined it fails. But such is not libertarian economics.
The fault that most liberals see in libertarianism is the potential conflicts between freedom. Libertarians have no defense against monopolistic profiteering, peonage contracts, loan-sharking, drug-trafficking, child labor, Ponzi schemes, and pathological drinking without compromising libertarian ideology. Gross inequality of freedom is hardly incompatible with libertarian purism.
1. New Hampshire has voted for the Republican nominee for President only once after 1988. It is a "blue" state.
2. If New Hampshire does as well as other states in these objective measures despite low taxes, then maybe there is something unusually efficient about public services. Maybe it is no-frills government and people make their adjustments. Bad roads? That is good for selling shock absorbers and tires.
3. What I said about Minnesota may apply, if not to as ferocious an extent. Severe winters compel people to adjust -- to budget for winter clothes and heating fuel, to put in insulation, prepare vehicles for winter... Life may not be easy, but some hardships strengthen people. Raking leaves and shoveling snow are both good exercise. Need to live in a cold state? You had better earn a good living -- get enough schooling and make sure to join a union if you do blue-collar work so that you can get god pay. Hardships in Mississippi look like plain, "simple" poverty. "Simple" poverty may simply take away choices or force Satanic choices. Just look at the statewide credit scores. Such may have causes other than gross inequality -- poor educational achievement?
4. New Hampshire has no state sales or income tax -- but it has high property and "sin" taxes. One pays one way or another, even if a landlord is an effective conduit of taxes. Good public services, including schools and police -- require money.
5. The states at the bottom share cultural similarities. Note that I had good things to say about Nebraska and Utah, states that do well with limited government.
Much of the difference in life expectancy relates to cancerweed use, which likely correlates to other pathologies.
http://www.tobaccofreedelawarecounty.org...te2006.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, 2006
Kentucky is #1; Utah is #51. Being #1 probably makes Kentucky a great place to live -- for a respiratory therapist. Otherwise one pays for some the bad habits of others.
Kentucky adults had an adult smoking rate of 28.5, in contrast to a national rate of 20.1 in 2006.
States in order of rank among adult smokers:
1. Kentucky
2. West Virginia
T3 - Mississippi, Oklahoma
5. Indiana
6. Alaska
7. Arkansas
8. Louisiana
T9 - Alabama, Missouri
11. Tennessee
T12 - Michigan, Ohio
14. South Carolina
15. Nevada
16. North Carolina
17. Delaware
18. Wyoming
19. Pennsylvania
20. Iowa
21. Florida
22. Maine
23. Wisconsin
24. Illinois
25. South Dakota
26. New Mexico (at the US average!)
27. Kansas
28. Georgia
29. North Dakota
30. Virginia
31. Rhode Island
32. Montana
T-33 Nebraska, New Hampshire
35. Oregon
36. Minnesota
T- 37 Arizona, New York
T- 39 New Jersey, Vermont
T- 41 Colorado, District of Columbia, Texas
44. Massachusetts
45. Maryland
46. Hawaii
47. Washington
48. Connecticut
49. Idaho
50. California
51. Utah
No other state comes close to the low adult smoking rate in Utah, at 9.8. California, second-lowest, is at 14.9 The cultural connection between low cancerweed use and Utah should be obvious. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). Such likely explains why Utah does so well on measures of health while not doing so well on other things. Smoking is an expensive habit, and the public treatment of people with smoking-related diseases surely costs state and local governments money that might otherwise be spent on education, public works, or welfare -- or lead to tax cuts. Smoking also costs revenues because smokers become disabled and retire earlier, and don't contribute as much to state sales or income taxes.
I was about to ask the question "Why does Oklahoma do so much worse than Kansas?", states with similar topography and political history. Oklahoma, unlike neighboring Arkansas or near-neighboring Louisiana, has no strong heritage of Jim Crow... but by now the effects of pre-1965 Jim Crow practice has largely been mitigated where it happened. Virginia, which had it, acts much like a Northern state on the whole.
Rank State Adult tobacco use
T3 Oklahoma 25.1
27 Kansas 20.0
Enough said. If we Americans could only "smoke like Mormons" -- which means, not at all -- we would solve many of our fiscal problems. Another contrast between neighboring states:
Rank State Adult tobacco use
15 Nevada 22.2
51 Utah 9.8
One can have a pair of 'Mormon lungs' without being a Mormon. That is, tobacco-free.
First, personal experience can be wrong. "I heard someone say" is about as weak intellectual authority and factual basis as one can find. Who said it? A drunk? An addict? A crook? A lunatic? A paid propagandist? Word-of-mouth can be valid for esthetic judgments, so if about everyone who has seen Gigli says that it is a piece of cinematic bilge, it probably is. But it remains impossible to quantify esthetic judgments. Can one give a quantitative explanation that Johann Sebastian Bach's Suites for Solo Cello are somehow superior to run-of-the-mill rap 'music' or that Canaletto is somehow better than chromos of dogs playing poker?
Second, most knowledge that we have is second-hand. I have no first-hand knowledge that Seattle exists. I have never been there. I know people who have been there, and I have good cause to believe that those who tell me that the city exists aren't pulling a fast one on me. Without second-hand knowledge we have only our personal experiences and neither the wisdom of the ages, the historical record, credible maps and photographs, economic rationality, nor even any ethical basis other than what one feels like at the time.
Can objective reality be distorted by people who have an agenda? Sure. One must be vigilant to reject such nonsense as ancient astronauts, Holocaust denial, and gutter racism. One must be alert to propaganda (which explains why I distrust FoX "News" Channel and consider advertising suspect). I find (statistics) more reliable than any gut feeling, and for good reason I don't fully trust my instincts and impulses. Sure, there are people who win big jackpots at casinos; someone invariably ends up winning the Super-Duper Megabucks lottery. But on the whole people are wasting their money if they patronize casinos or buy lottery tickets. On the whole they are better off saving (compound interest) and investing (if you can't beat the plutocratic pigs, join them). Gambling is a zero-sum proposition at the best.
...HDI suggests that in accordance with life expectancy at birth and educational attainment, that people not born with inherited advantages connected with a place will fare better in Minnesota on the whole than in Mississippi. Statewide credit scores suggest that economic distress is more commonplace in Mississippi than in Minnesota. So if one has the choice of starting a retail business in Minnesota or in Mississippi, which would be wiser?
Credit scores suggest that in Minnesota, where people are more likely to have paid for their heating bills and their multiples sets of clothing and have something left over than in Mississippi, where more people are likely to be maxed out on credit and have trouble meeting the rent. If you have a choice between teaching in Minnesota or Mississippi? Probably Minnesota, because school districts likely have stronger tax bases, and it is more encouraging to see kids do better in school. In Mississippi one probably needs to be connected to the Right People to fare well in life. In Minnesota one doesn't.
OK -- but you hate shoveling snow. Tough! Live with it! It is good exercise, and that may be one reason for life expectancy at birth being 81 in Minnesota and 75 in Mississippi. Is it worse than a toothache? Poor people have more dental problems. Is it worse than being short on cash and being tempted by payday lenders who solve one financial problem only to saddle you with a bigger one? I'm not saying that retiring in Minnesota from somewhere in the South will suddenly give you good health and give you a solid retirement fund.
JordanGoodspeed;474129 Wrote:So, Democratic adventures = Good. Republican adventures = bad?
No. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are better Presidents than Dubya. Both Clinton and Obama are more cautious and contemplative. Whacking Osama bin Laden may look much like an underworld hit, but at that the current President figured what the likely reactions would be. After the attempt on the life of his predecessor for a justified military 'adventure' to deliver Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton ordered a missile strike on the Iraqi ministry that launched the plot. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians protested, as they too had approved of the liberation of Kuwait.
Operation Iraqi Liberation offended the sensibilities of countries that usually take the side of the United States. Dubya saw only the oil revenue.
Republican "adventures" are acceptable if they protect American lives (Grenada, Panama) or liberate a victim of aggression (Kuwait). We liberals largely went silent on those.
Quote:(to)Quote: You libertarians support tyranny by enabling and enforcing the right of big business bullies to enslave and ruin our world and peoples' lives. We progressives advocate the end of this tyranny. Any questions?
You have any basis for that assertion, or is it just another article of faith? You know, like how Dodd-Frank was passed and protected us from future financial crises?
Some things must be regulated. Ruinous, exploitative practices tempt people with the prospect of extraordinary profits and in the end bring ruin. Some politicians have the wisdom to insist upon probity in financial dealings. Some enable well-connected scammers. Of course it is possible to get good economic results with thrift, enterprise, toil, and the stewardship of scarce resources -- an old conservative economic argument that has normally gotten desirable results for all concerned. Dubya enabled the quick-buck operators, and paradoxically it may be Barack Obama who presides over the return to the old way of getting economic success.
Face it -- Dubya was a failure on foreign policy and on economics not so much because he was stupid (he isn't) but instead because he has been a sucker for recklessness in foreign policy and economics. Crony capitalism is good at the most for enriching a few well-connected people. That is not libertarianism; it depends upon dividing the market into sectors of control. The acquisitive motive remains, but few people can derive benefit from it. When enough people are ruined it fails. But such is not libertarian economics.
The fault that most liberals see in libertarianism is the potential conflicts between freedom. Libertarians have no defense against monopolistic profiteering, peonage contracts, loan-sharking, drug-trafficking, child labor, Ponzi schemes, and pathological drinking without compromising libertarian ideology. Gross inequality of freedom is hardly incompatible with libertarian purism.
Quote:Getting back on topic:
You know, it's funny that the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_Hampshire"]most libertarian state[/URL] in the Union happens to be in the top five, despite a much lower tax base. Can't believe that slipped through pbrower's "objective" grading. Maybe you boys should go back to the drawing board on that one: people might start to get the wrong idea.
EDITED to Add, because DC is not a state.
1. New Hampshire has voted for the Republican nominee for President only once after 1988. It is a "blue" state.
2. If New Hampshire does as well as other states in these objective measures despite low taxes, then maybe there is something unusually efficient about public services. Maybe it is no-frills government and people make their adjustments. Bad roads? That is good for selling shock absorbers and tires.
3. What I said about Minnesota may apply, if not to as ferocious an extent. Severe winters compel people to adjust -- to budget for winter clothes and heating fuel, to put in insulation, prepare vehicles for winter... Life may not be easy, but some hardships strengthen people. Raking leaves and shoveling snow are both good exercise. Need to live in a cold state? You had better earn a good living -- get enough schooling and make sure to join a union if you do blue-collar work so that you can get god pay. Hardships in Mississippi look like plain, "simple" poverty. "Simple" poverty may simply take away choices or force Satanic choices. Just look at the statewide credit scores. Such may have causes other than gross inequality -- poor educational achievement?
4. New Hampshire has no state sales or income tax -- but it has high property and "sin" taxes. One pays one way or another, even if a landlord is an effective conduit of taxes. Good public services, including schools and police -- require money.
5. The states at the bottom share cultural similarities. Note that I had good things to say about Nebraska and Utah, states that do well with limited government.
Much of the difference in life expectancy relates to cancerweed use, which likely correlates to other pathologies.
http://www.tobaccofreedelawarecounty.org...te2006.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, 2006
Kentucky is #1; Utah is #51. Being #1 probably makes Kentucky a great place to live -- for a respiratory therapist. Otherwise one pays for some the bad habits of others.
Kentucky adults had an adult smoking rate of 28.5, in contrast to a national rate of 20.1 in 2006.
States in order of rank among adult smokers:
1. Kentucky
2. West Virginia
T3 - Mississippi, Oklahoma
5. Indiana
6. Alaska
7. Arkansas
8. Louisiana
T9 - Alabama, Missouri
11. Tennessee
T12 - Michigan, Ohio
14. South Carolina
15. Nevada
16. North Carolina
17. Delaware
18. Wyoming
19. Pennsylvania
20. Iowa
21. Florida
22. Maine
23. Wisconsin
24. Illinois
25. South Dakota
26. New Mexico (at the US average!)
27. Kansas
28. Georgia
29. North Dakota
30. Virginia
31. Rhode Island
32. Montana
T-33 Nebraska, New Hampshire
35. Oregon
36. Minnesota
T- 37 Arizona, New York
T- 39 New Jersey, Vermont
T- 41 Colorado, District of Columbia, Texas
44. Massachusetts
45. Maryland
46. Hawaii
47. Washington
48. Connecticut
49. Idaho
50. California
51. Utah
No other state comes close to the low adult smoking rate in Utah, at 9.8. California, second-lowest, is at 14.9 The cultural connection between low cancerweed use and Utah should be obvious. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). Such likely explains why Utah does so well on measures of health while not doing so well on other things. Smoking is an expensive habit, and the public treatment of people with smoking-related diseases surely costs state and local governments money that might otherwise be spent on education, public works, or welfare -- or lead to tax cuts. Smoking also costs revenues because smokers become disabled and retire earlier, and don't contribute as much to state sales or income taxes.
I was about to ask the question "Why does Oklahoma do so much worse than Kansas?", states with similar topography and political history. Oklahoma, unlike neighboring Arkansas or near-neighboring Louisiana, has no strong heritage of Jim Crow... but by now the effects of pre-1965 Jim Crow practice has largely been mitigated where it happened. Virginia, which had it, acts much like a Northern state on the whole.
Rank State Adult tobacco use
T3 Oklahoma 25.1
27 Kansas 20.0
Enough said. If we Americans could only "smoke like Mormons" -- which means, not at all -- we would solve many of our fiscal problems. Another contrast between neighboring states:
Rank State Adult tobacco use
15 Nevada 22.2
51 Utah 9.8
One can have a pair of 'Mormon lungs' without being a Mormon. That is, tobacco-free.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.