Orton's Arm

I hate to disagree with you, because there's so much in your post we see eye-to-eye on. In some ways, the Vietnam War was similar to the Korean War: the northern, genocidal, communist half of a country invades the non-communist southern half. The U.S. comes to the aid of the southern country. Except that in the Korean War, the U.S. was perfectly willing to advance its army into North Korea. Hence we were able to quickly destroy North Korea's ability to wage war, and thus come to a firm resolution. A variety of political considerations and circumstances prevented this policy from being adopted in the Vietnam War. One factor was LBJ's desire to con the gullible American public into thinking he was a moderate (ha!). He chose a middle road between Goldwater's willingness to do whatever it took to win, and the pacifists' desire to simply pull out. In this case, so-called "moderation" proved more dangerous and destructive than either of the extremes would have. Given LBJ's refusal to advance American troops onto North Vietnamese soil, and given the fanaticism of the Viet Cong, there was only one way that war could end. It would end when one side got tired of sending its young men into the killing grounds of South Vietnam. And the North Vietnamese' willingness to keep sending young men into that meat grinder was a lot higher than ours.

His point is valid: the theory of global warming is based on computer models. That brings up the question: let's say there's a 50% chance that what we're doing is causing the Earth to become more Venus-like. Should we start changing our behavior, or should we wait to be absolutely sure our present course will lead to disaster before thinking about change?

Prominent liberals, acting based on their liberal ideology, have indeed created significant problems. LBJ's Great Society program, for example, created the welfare class; and destroyed the families of those in that economic class. Subsequent liberals left the anti-marriage financial incentives in place. Welfare was ultimately reformed by California governor Ronald Reagan in the '70s, and by Newt Gingrich's Congress in the 1990s. Nor do liberals (broadly speaking) have a strong track record on crime, on opposing communism, or on the immigration crisis. I seldom see liberals doing much to curb the steady growth of government spending. On the contrary. But the weakness and moral bankruptcy of the liberal movement doesn't mean their opponents are any better. Neoconservatives such as George W. Bush have a weak record on the environment, on opposing corporate abuses, and on immigration. He's also done nothing to curb the steady growth of federal spending. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have spectacularly failed. Both political parties need to die; and to be replaced with parties that represent the interests of the American nation.

Marvin Harrison just finished helping the Colts win the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, the Texans are wondering whom they can start opposite Andre Johnson to take some of the pressure off of him. While Moulds had a good career, he's not the same player as Harrison.

Cash to the cap means that we won't be getting all those high-profile free agents you've mentioned. If our free agency period consists of nothing more than re-signing Clements and Kelsay, I'll be perfectly happy. Cash to the cap: Let's say the Redskins have $21 million in cap space. They can sign a player, and give him a $20 million bonus, with let's say $1 million in base salary for his first year. It's a five year contract; so that $20 million gets spread out (amortized) in equal shares over those five years. His salary cap for 2007 is the $1 million base, plus 1/5 of that $20 million ($1 MM + $4 MM = $5 million total). That's what teams do when they actually have money. The Redskins would be left with $21 million - $5 million = $16 million of cap space. Cash to the cap is different. Let's say the Bills have that same $21 million in cap space. Then let's say they sign a player to that exact same deal. Instead of spreading out that signing bonus over the course of five years, the Bills would (in their own minds) treat the whole $20 million bonus as though it was hitting the cap in year 1 of the deal. So, in their own minds, they had $21 million of cap space before they signed the deal, the deal caused $21 million in actual cash to go out, so the Bills would stop signing any more free agents. This, even though they'd actually have $16 million in unused cap space.

I don't completely agree with either you or Molson. It's dangerous to unilaterally oppose all missions (as some liberals do), just as it's dangerous to unilaterally support all missions (as some conservatives do). Just because a president supports a war doesn't mean it's right. Take WWI, a war supposedly fought "to make the world safe for democracy." All that war accomplished was to make the world safe for France to exploit Germany. It was, in short, exactly the sort of European mess George Washington had warned us against. On the other hand, the Spanish-American War was good (from our perspective) because we gained massive amounts of territory from it. To what extent does the Iraq War advance America's interests? If the goal is to secure us against terrorism, far more could be achieved by closing the border than by invading a country halfway across the world. Not only that, the Iraq War is far more expensive--both in men and cash--than closing the border would be. Liberals are often confused by white guilt or by other equally groundless sentiments. The way many liberals idolized the Soviet Union was absolutely contemptible. But the liberal instinct to blame us for everything shouldn't cause us to assume we're always blameless. The average Muslim doesn't meet American farmers, or interact with American factory workers or other regular people. Their interaction with the U.S. consists of us bombing or invading their countries, or else American corporations trying to globalize away local Middle Eastern cultures. The invasion of American secularism and materialism is, in some ways, more threatening than the invasion of the American military. Yes, America should aspire to high levels of military strength. And no, we don't need permission from the UN to use that strength. But we do need to seek out a much higher level of moral authority than we presently have. We're currently importing people while exporting jobs. If the American government doesn't even have the moral authority to stop this nation from being assimilated into the Third World, how on earth do we have the moral authority to impose our own short-sighted and materialistic system on a nation that's half a world away?

Ancient European writings tell of a fierce clan. Every winter, warriors from this clan attacked their enemies. While they killed as many as they could, their rituals demanded a minimum of twelve bodies each year. Their heads were prepared according to ancient rituals: Mount the first skull straight ahead Someday all our enemies will be dead Chop the second head in twain Because coming in second is fraught with pain The enemies’ corpses were kept frozen all winter. In early spring, their blood was ritualistically mixed with soil, and with the seeds that were being planted. This ritual earned the clan the name of Blood-sow or Bluid-sow. Feed the third head to the swine The lands that were his are now mine Baste the fourth head in oil, and set it alight Use it to illuminate the night For over a thousand consecutive years, the Blood-sow clan was able to kill enough of its enemies to fulfill its ancient ritual. The clan was regarded with an intense mixture of hatred and fear. Bury the fifth head in the earth Let his clan die without rebirth Put the sixth head in a cave no one can see His people will never again be free Difficult terrain and unwieldy possessions made it hard for the clan to travel by land. Though they lived by the coast, the Blood-sows were not good sea-farers. The resultant immobility is a reason why Blood-sow Keep was often sacked by Viking invaders. Crush the seventh with a stone Let this man’s name no longer be known Hang the eight from the branch of a tree, to fill with dread Those of our enemies who are not yet dead In 1387, the entire region in which the Blood-sows lived was conquered by hostile foreign invaders. The Blood-sows mounted a guerrilla campaign against these invaders, and so were known as Patriots. Many years later, the Blood-sows turned to commerce, and so were known as Bills. Yet each year, they still killed the twelve enemies required by their ancient ritual. Feed the ninth head to the fish And you will be granted a single wish Mount the tenth head on a spear Let his clan never reappear Displeased with city life, the Blood-sows gave up their life of commerce, and became Cowboys. The good horsemanship thus acquired made them even fiercer warriors than they’d been before. They increased the number of their enemies they killed each year. Place the eleventh head in a box Let his clan be smitten by pox Use the twelfth to see how far you can throw And let all fear the name of clan Blood-sow! During World War II, the Nazis unleashed the blitzkrieg, or lightning war. The Blood-sows’ lands quickly fell to this attack. By then, of course, they’d dropped the archaic “Blood-sow” or “Bluid-sow” in favor of the more modern “Bledsoe.” If you were to look strictly at the number of enemies killed over the course of the clan’s existence, you’d conclude the Blood-sows belong in the Halls of Valhalla. Critics, however, say that the average number of enemies killed per year isn’t high enough, and that the Blood-sows are being rewarded more for longevity than for greatness. Given that, it’s not yet known whether the Blood-sows will be accepted into the Hall.

Excellent link. Thanks.

One option the Bills have is to move Crowell to the middle, with Ellison and Spikes on the outside, and Wire as the backup. A LB corps like that wouldn't be ideal, but it'd be good enough to get you by. Good enough that the Bills wouldn't be forced to take a LB with their first or second pick, if a better difference maker was available at some other position. To be honest, I'm not that particular about which position the first round pick plays, so long as he can be a difference maker. A WR or TE that requires double coverage, an OT that can block good DEs without any help, a DT that makes himself a frequent and unwelcome guest in the other team's backfield--all would be fine by me. But whatever position he plays, I want him to be an active force in altering football games; not just some guy who holds his own.

I see what you're saying, but the type of person who gets a kick out of sadism toward animals generally isn't very nice to people either. Or what would you do if some guy came up to you and said, "Listen, I know I may have let my pet kittens starve just the other month. But don't worry about that neglect. I want to marry your daughter, and I'll take great care of our future children." Would you believe him?

In my earlier example, I described how, if $5000 per year was going to be spent on a given child's education anyway, the parents should choose which particular school gets that money. I wouldn't like to see a huge discrepancy between education spending levels for rich and poor kids. That said, parents who pay high levels of property taxes may insist (with reason) that their children's voucher payments should be higher. In the end, a compromise solution may be the best I can hope for; with present per-child spending differences muted, but not altogether abolished. That said, public schools are extremely inefficient in their use of funding. Catholic schools, for example, can and do produce superior results at only a fraction of the per-child cost associated with public education. Even if present per-child dollar discrepancies weren't reduced at all, a voucher system would allow children from all economic backgrounds access to a far superior level of education than is presently the case. The supply problem you've described means that it will take several years before a voucher system's benefits are fully experienced. It will take time for the best-run schools to increase their educational capacity; as well as for the worst-run schools to wither away or become specialized niche providers. Our present public school system would be very well suited for the niche role of providing remedial education to the least intelligent students, for example.

To answer your questions, individual schools themselves would decide which students to accept, and how many. In the case of a rural area only big enough for one school, the students would have exactly as much choice under a voucher plan as they have right now. The size of voucher payments wouldn't necessarily be contingent on your level of property taxes.

You bring up excellent points. I agree schools should be doing more to hold loser parents accountable for their children's success. I feel something like that is worth doing regardless of whether a voucher program is instituted; just as a voucher program would be worth doing regardless of whether the accountability measures you've described are put into place. A voucher program without your accountability measures would clearly benefit the 70+% of students whose parents are at least somewhat concerned about their educations. As for the remaining 30%, their schools would be selected more or less at random. While that's far from ideal, those students would be no worse off than they are in the failing inner city public schools to which they are presently consigned.

Unions generally do what's best for the union. Typically, the teachers' unions have lobbied for solutions which involve more teachers, and more bureaucrats. (The National Educators Association represents both teachers and education bureaucrats.) More employees means the union gets more dues, and it gives the union a larger membership base with which to lobby. But if the education system in this country were to ever be fixed, it would be much harder for the teachers' unions to make the case for this constant expansion in headcount and spending. Back in the 1970s, textbooks were dumbed down in ways which made them less challenging for students of average intelligence, let alone the gifted. Public schools teach to the level of the slowest student, while demonstrating extreme reluctance to separate students on the basis of ability. This ensures that teachers' unions will continue to benefit from the combination of high spending/poor results. The solution to this problem is to abandon today's bureaucrat-choice education model, and to adopt a parent-choice model instead. Let's say that the federal, state, and local governments have decided to spend $5000 this year educating your child. If you as a parent want that money (and your child) to go to a unionized and ineffective public school, that's up to you. But if instead you want that money to be spent effectively, you should be able to choose a private school that may be much more challenging and useful to your child than the public school would have been.

I suggest you reread what Darin wrote in his post.

Very funny. But even Bungee Jumper's said that I'm not a Leftist, which isn't something that's usually said about Molson Golden.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Wacka believes everything that, for example, Rush Limbaugh tells him to. Does this make him the intellectual inferior of someone like yourself, who believes everything Bungee Jumper tells him to?

In your world, Ramius's biology background makes him the Voice of All Science, while Wacka's biology background doesn't prevent him from getting consigned to the "utter moron" category. This, despite the fact that Wacka's posts evince a much greater degree of intelligence than do Ramius's. Then there's RKFast, who is one of the more intelligent posters on these boards. Your implication is that those two are utter morons, because their biases prevent them from seeing the truth. I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye, before you get too harsh about criticizing the splinters in theirs.

Those guys were too old/dead weight. You could maybe argue the same is true for Fletcher and even Spikes, but it's definitely not the case for Clements or even Kelsay.

I see that in your world, making a comment about your posts=stalking. That's no more insane than some of the other stuff I've seen you post on these boards.

Once you make a promise, you have to keep it. As much as I'd love for the Bills to hold onto Clements, they can't use the tag.

Pictures? Pictures! Please, spare us from your pictures. No, really, it's not necessary. I truly mean it. I'm leaving now, and I won't be back for a very long time. When I return, my browser will be set to not display any pictures.

The links in question are valid because their logic is valid. You were too stupid to see the validity of the logic in the Hyperstats and Wikipedia links, so I found links from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Berkeley, etc., which said the same thing. Then, instead of making fun of words like "Hyperstats" or "Wikipedia" you started accusing me of hiding behind big names like Stanford. You claimed to agree with the Stanford and University of Chicago links, while disagreeing with the Berkeley link. That's odd, because all three sources said the same thing, which was also the same thing Hyperstats said, and which I'd been saying from the very beginning.

A shorts bus. Is that a bus where you're not allowed to wear long pants?