The Totally Useless, Non-Scientific BBO Opinion Poll for Current Events

[Winstonm]

Sorry, Kenrexford, but I think you established the dichotomy with this:

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

 

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

 

It is quite apparent that our pre-Obama foreign policies (both Dem and Rep) have been woefully clueless. Compound those mistakes with the Bush neoconservative administration and its ideas that the U.S. could somehow impose its military might and creat a pax Americana has been shown to be too ludicrous for words.

 

So I have some sympathy for your viewpoint that a change of direction is needed - a change of direction is exactly what we got from President Obama and so far it has worked out much better than anything previously tried. Perfect? No. Better? Certainly.

 

Building a wall around the perceived bad guys is impossible. A combination of diplomacy and might when required seems a better course; then, determining "when required" becomes the problem.

[mycroft]

The only solution, frankly, is raise our security somewhat, get out of the Middle East completely, and wait 40 years. Anything else will just trigger the burr in the side of the ME we've been triggering for at least 150 years.

 

Since that is a non-option for a number of reasons (not least the humanitarian disaster it would be until things settle out, not that what we will do will be much better) I don't hold out much hope.

 

What will happen, instead, is exactly what has happened since at least 1900; various "strong countries" will push their agendas in the region, knowing that they are safe from direct military retaliation; the retaliation will come in dribs and drabs and non-militarily; that will be another issue requiring revenge, which will then become an agenda in the region. Lather, Rinse, Repeat; nobody's willing to be the first to stop and absorb the damage that will happen (with or without retaliation, frankly, but any attempt to just "not let this change us" will eventually fail), and nobody has the political will to do so for the length of time it will require to actually break the cycle.

 

We now have yet another "strong country" pushing their agenda: Gwynne Dyer is being his usual bearer of bad news.

 

I am very glad I live in a country where the chance of random death by some (para)military actor is less than the chance of death crossing the street. I am willing to put in enough "money for security" and give up enough "freedom for security" to ensure that those chances don't equal out and no more. Unfortunately, that's a lot less than is currently being spent, and there's nothing, really, more that I can do about it.

[Trinidad]

Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

This is like saying to someone at a hardstyle dance event: "Did you not hear that 736th beat?"

 

Trump has been belittling everybody whose name starts with ... a letter. Are we really supposed to keep track when he gets to the 'B' for 'W'?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

This is like saying to someone at a hardstyle dance event: "Did you not hear that 736th beat?"

 

Trump has been belittling everybody whose name starts with ... a letter. Are we really supposed to keep track when he gets to the 'B' for 'W'?

 

Rik

There is, of course, an exception for names that start with the letter 'TRUMP'.

 

Rik

[Al_U_Card]

 

We now have yet another "strong country" pushing their agenda: Gwynne Dyer is being his usual bearer of bad news.

 

 

Dyer is right about the Kurds. Betrayed by everyone and determined to establish an autonomous, independent nation that relies on local councils to govern responsibly....one reason why they are so persecuted...

[kenrexford]

Sorry, Kenrexford, but I think you established the dichotomy with this:

 

 

It is quite apparent that our pre-Obama foreign policies (both Dem and Rep) have been woefully clueless. Compound those mistakes with the Bush neoconservative administration and its ideas that the U.S. could somehow impose its military might and creat a pax Americana has been shown to be too ludicrous for words.

 

So I have some sympathy for your viewpoint that a change of direction is needed - a change of direction is exactly what we got from President Obama and so far it has worked out much better than anything previously tried. Perfect? No. Better? Certainly.

 

Building a wall around the perceived bad guys is impossible. A combination of diplomacy and might when required seems a better course; then, determining "when required" becomes the problem.

Both Bush and Obama do the same thing in the end. Bush and the Neo cons use our military force to take out the dictator and then create a vacuum. I mean sure we could stay there forever but that's not realistic. We seem to have some insane hope that we will create Walmart shoppers in the Middle East and sock hop Americana if we just give them the chance. Naive.

 

Obama avoids using US troops. Instead he uses assassination in the empowering of complete lunatics as a means of taking out the strong man thereby creating the same vacuum. The one benefit to Obama is efficiency. Whereas bush left a vacuum for someone to fill Obama found the crazy people to fill it ahead of time. And for that matter Obama avoided using US troops to accomplish the goals of the crazy people.

 

Hillary Clinton will do something similar. We will get a bunch of people together who either agree with bush or who agree with Obama. Those people will agree as an International Community to engage in assassination and enabling of crazy people.

 

The better solution may be what we had all along. Dictators serve one useful function. They do what we're not willing to do to the crazy people. Sure they also do this to normal people. That's really bad. I agree. But at least it's stable. At least the crazy people were kept at Bay by the military.

 

Now there is something to be said for the idea of using Force to take over these areas to control them long enough for the crazy people to be held back and for the normal people to establish good governance. That frankly seems to be what happened after World War One. But I don't think using colonialism as a means of protecting people is exactly the kind of solution that the world Community really wants to engage. There is an historic precedent for occupying in controlling a neighbor who is a hostile that cannot be stopped. But that requires quite a long commitment and quite a large cost to a lot of people on both sides.

 

The problem may be of our own making. I don't know that the Ottoman Empire was quite as belligerent internally. Breaking up the Ottoman Empire may have created an environment where strong men were less accountable and more tribal. It did have an effect of eliminating a potential superpower. And perhaps that was necessary. And perhaps we have some sort of moral obligation to attend to the problems that arose because of that decision.

 

I just do not see any end game that could possibly be a success because of the core problem. In whatever form the Middle East Maybe we Face the same core problem. Jihad is integral to Islam. If Islam is a superpower they are belligerent. If Islam is colonial it is too expensive for us to control. And frankly not moral. If Islam is controlled by tribal strongmen the Innocence will be harmed. If Islam is uncontrolled complete violent chaos a Mad Max world results. The choice is between 4 evils.

 

The strongman dictator who is tribalistic has several advantages. It cost us less. Death to innocent people is more predictably reduced. There is less risk of a superpower status. Granted we can have lots of little nuclear threats all over the place but at least the total Firepower would be reduced on an individual basis. The need for an occasional strike could be focused as with Saddam Hussein.

 

The fantasy of just talking them into peace and Harmony is a joke.

[Winstonm]

Both Bush and Obama do the same thing in the end. Bush and the Neo cons use our military force to take out the dictator and then create a vacuum. I mean sure we could stay there forever but that's not realistic. We seem to have some insane hope that we will create Walmart shoppers in the Middle East and sock hop Americana if we just give them the chance. Naive.

 

Obama avoids using US troops. Instead he uses assassination in the empowering of complete lunatics as a means of taking out the strong man thereby creating the same vacuum. The one benefit to Obama is efficiency. Whereas bush left a vacuum for someone to fill Obama found the crazy people to fill it ahead of time. And for that matter Obama avoided using US troops to accomplish the goals of the crazy people.

 

Hillary Clinton will do something similar. We will get a bunch of people together who either agree with bush or who agree with Obama. Those people will agree as an International Community to engage in assassination and enabling of crazy people.

 

The better solution may be what we had all along. Dictators serve one useful function. They do what we're not willing to do to the crazy people. Sure they also do this to normal people. That's really bad. I agree. But at least it's stable. At least the crazy people were kept at Bay by the military.

 

Now there is something to be said for the idea of using Force to take over these areas to control them long enough for the crazy people to be held back and for the normal people to establish good governance. That frankly seems to be what happened after World War One. But I don't think using colonialism as a means of protecting people is exactly the kind of solution that the world Community really wants to engage. There is an historic precedent for occupying in controlling a neighbor who is a hostile that cannot be stopped. But that requires quite a long commitment and quite a large cost to a lot of people on both sides.

 

The problem may be of our own making. I don't know that the Ottoman Empire was quite as belligerent internally. Breaking up the Ottoman Empire may have created an environment where strong men were less accountable and more tribal. It did have an effect of eliminating a potential superpower. And perhaps that was necessary. And perhaps we have some sort of moral obligation to attend to the problems that arose because of that decision.

 

I just do not see any end game that could possibly be a success because of the core problem. In whatever form the Middle East Maybe we Face the same core problem. Jihad is integral to Islam. If Islam is a superpower they are belligerent. If Islam is colonial it is too expensive for us to control. And frankly not moral. If Islam is controlled by tribal strongmen the Innocence will be harmed. If Islam is uncontrolled complete violent chaos a Mad Max world results. The choice is between 4 evils.

 

The strongman dictator who is tribalistic has several advantages. It cost us less. Death to innocent people is more predictably reduced. There is less risk of a superpower status. Granted we can have lots of little nuclear threats all over the place but at least the total Firepower would be reduced on an individual basis. The need for an occasional strike could be focused as with Saddam Hussein.

 

The fantasy of just talking them into peace and Harmony is a joke.

 

Jihad may indeed be a part of Islam but according to this it is not an excuse for terror or terrorism.

 

Otherwise, I think you are exaggerating the threat from terrorists and terror, and that you see it as such an important threat goes a long way IMO to understanding why you are swayed by a touch-talking con man running for President.

[hrothgar]

 

I just do not see any end game that could possibly be a success because of the core problem. In whatever form the Middle East Maybe we Face the same core problem. Jihad is integral to Islam. If Islam is a superpower they are belligerent. If Islam is colonial it is too expensive for us to control. And frankly not moral. If Islam is controlled by tribal strongmen the Innocence will be harmed. If Islam is uncontrolled complete violent chaos a Mad Max world results. The choice is between 4 evils.

 

The strongman dictator who is tribalistic has several advantages. It cost us less. Death to innocent people is more predictably reduced. There is less risk of a superpower status. Granted we can have lots of little nuclear threats all over the place but at least the total Firepower would be reduced on an individual basis. The need for an occasional strike could be focused as with Saddam Hussein.

 

The fantasy of just talking them into peace and Harmony is a joke.

 

And to think that Trump supporters are stereotyped as a basket of deplorable ignorant racists...

 

Ken, since you are such the expert, please explain which branches of Islam you are talking about, which countries we're describing, and the roughly what centuries you want to discuss.

 

Just so we're clear, my basic line of discussion will focus on the following:

 

1. I don't believe that Islam is inherently more violent that any of the other Abrahamic religions

2. That the current unrest in the Middle East has its basis in socio-economic factors rather than the inherent characteristics of the religion

3. That the Sunni - Shia divide is best understood as an ethnic division rather than a religious debate (in particular, the Iranian decision to covert to twelver Shia was a conscious attempt to creation an Iranian identity)

[Cyberyeti]

 

1. I don't believe that Islam is inherently more violent that any of the other Abrahamic religions

 

Islam gets a bad press on that score for a couple of reasons:

 

It has retained certain traditions at state level long given up as barbaric by the other Abrahamic religions. Judicial amputations etc.

 

It exports its (non state) violence outside its core areas unlike almost all of the other religions. Basically most of the Christian nutters are in the Southern US which is where I would consider the centre of radical Christianity to be atm. The Jewish nutters are the settlers, in the area of Israel if not technically in it. Neither of these are blowing people up in faraway lands (although their state may be).

[kenrexford]

And to think that Trump supporters are stereotyped as a basket of deplorable ignorant racists...

 

Ken, since you are such the expert, please explain which branches of Islam you are talking about, which countries we're describing, and the roughly what centuries you want to discuss.

 

Just so we're clear, my basic line of discussion will focus on the following:

 

1. I don't believe that Islam is inherently more violent that any of the other Abrahamic religions

2. That the current unrest in the Middle East has its basis in socio-economic factors rather than the inherent characteristics of the religion

3. That the Sunni - Shia divide is best understood as an ethnic division rather than a religious debate (in particular, the Iranian decision to covert to twelver Shia was a conscious attempt to creation an Iranian identity)

Senseless blather. It's more like defending pitbulls. pit bulls can be sweet dogs. I get that. But most people who buy pit bulls want mean dogs. So they end up mean dogs. You can give all the theory you want us to help pit bulls are actually sweet dogs. But the proof is in the existence.

 

You start with the principle that Islam is no more inherently violent than other abrahamic religions. Okay. You obviously are not consistently analyzing. Christianity as a theory is inherently pacifist. It is only in its practice that it has manifested violence. Judaism is inherently violent. It is only in its practice that is manifested boring. Islam has the distinction of being both inherently violent in theory and in practice.

 

What about the socioeconomics of the Middle East? How precisely did the socio-economic arise? Do you somehow think that the Middle East which has constantly been the center of Commerce and now an oil Mecca magically turned socioeconomicly destitute? Was there a meteor that hit?

 

Then you have some erudite analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict. Lots of people in the west have an erudite analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict. In fact anyone who has an erudite analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict likes to point out how brilliant they are with their analysis of the sunni-shiite conflict. They might even throw in the fact that they know about alawite distinctions. Quite impressive. However at its core it is rather basic. Large scale Hatfields and McCoys. Just West Virginia with Allah telling them the other side of the river is the pure side. And kill the damn Hatfields.

[kenrexford]

Jihad may indeed be a part of Islam but according to this it is not an excuse for terror or terrorism.

 

Otherwise, I think you are exaggerating the threat from terrorists and terror, and that you see it as such an important threat goes a long way IMO to understanding why you are swayed by a touch-talking con man running for President.

For as many decades as I can remember at least since the fall of the Soviet Union politics has been about two issues. Sure there might be other fluff issues but there are basically two issues. Number one it's the economy stupid. Number 2. What the heck are we going to do about the Middle East?

 

I have no earthly idea what's going on in South America these days. I mean I hear things every once in awhile but generally have no clue. Sub-Saharan Africa is barely discussed except on TV ads for the children. Cool things are happening in India apparently. Don't really know much. All of Asia east of a line due north of India is relatively boring. Russia has a strong man who likes to bark every once in awhile. Europe is bickering. What the whole conversation is always about the Middle East. Crazy people doing crazy things killing maiming whatever. Trying to get over here or in the European to Asia or wherever and blow things up there too.

 

My point is the terrorism per se is not necessarily all that. It's really bad because a lot of people are dying. For that part of the world just won't stop distracting us from everything else. Who gets top Wars there and stop meddling there and let the crazy people do whatever the crazy people do maybe we could get our economy In-Shape schools in shape and heck maybe even colonize the moon or Mars. It's like a family who is obsessed with dealing with a drug addict uncle. Sometimes the family health requires that we just let the uncle go do his thing and then show up at the funeral.

[Winstonm]

For as many decades as I can remember at least since the fall of the Soviet Union politics has been about two issues. Sure there might be other fluff issues but there are basically two issues. Number one it's the economy stupid. Number 2. What the heck are we going to do about the Middle East?

 

I have no earthly idea what's going on in South America these days. I mean I hear things every once in awhile but generally have no clue. Sub-Saharan Africa is barely discussed except on TV ads for the children. Cool things are happening in India apparently. Don't really know much. All of Asia east of a line due north of India is relatively boring. Russia has a strong man who likes to bark every once in awhile. Europe is bickering. What the whole conversation is always about the Middle East. Crazy people doing crazy things killing maiming whatever. Trying to get over here or in the European to Asia or wherever and blow things up there too.

 

My point is the terrorism per se is not necessarily all that. It's really bad because a lot of people are dying. For that part of the world just won't stop distracting us from everything else. Who gets top Wars there and stop meddling there and let the crazy people do whatever the crazy people do maybe we could get our economy In-Shape schools in shape and heck maybe even colonize the moon or Mars. It's like a family who is obsessed with dealing with a drug addict uncle. Sometimes the family health requires that we just let the uncle go do his thing and then show up at the funeral.

 

I think you have your shoes on the wrong feet. Most middle east terrorists are Arabs who happen to be Muslim rather than Muslims who happen to be Arab. Radicalization is not a religious phenomenon.

 

The Arab problem is social, economic, and political - and ancient. But the problem is not their religious preferences.

[The_Badger]

Here's a bit of 'light relief' (among the 14 pages of replies on here) for us statistically-minded bods courtesy of Columbia University.

 

And yes, I know, it's quite bizarre what university students study these days...

 

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/notrump_falk_gelman_icml.pdf

[hrothgar]

 

What about the socioeconomics of the Middle East? How precisely did the socio-economic arise? Do you somehow think that the Middle East which has constantly been the center of Commerce and now an oil Mecca magically turned socioeconomicly destitute? Was there a meteor that hit?

 

 

The Middle East got hit by five significant meteors (I'll arrange them chronologically)

 

1. The first was the Mongol invasion, the subsequent destruction of the irrigation system in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and the desertification of Iraq

2. The second was the discovery of sea routes to India and China which allowed trade to bypass the old Silk Road

3. The third was the inflationary cycles caused by the large influx of Spanish silver into the Mediterranean trading area

4. The fourth was the British and French colonial efforts with their deliberate attempts to foment ethnic tensions and consciously cultivate a privileged minority who would rule over a larger subject class

5. The last was oil itself. (There's all sorts of literature about the curse of being an oil exporter with a larger population)

 

(The fact that you seem unaware of any of this is kinda telling)

 

I'll note in passing that my father wrote a rather amusing article 35 years ago or so.

 

He noted that there is an weather pattern that crops up in Europe on occasion. In Switzerland and southern Germany its called a föhn. Its a very hot, dry wind. What makes this interesting is that the wind seems to have a significant effect on folk's behavior. In fact, the German legal code called for reduced sentencing if one committed a crime when this wind was blowing.

 

Coincidentally, this is pretty much the same weather pattern that you have in the Middle East 24x7.

I'm not sure if he was completely serious, but he used to say that you take sane Europeans, drop them into the Middle East for 30 or so years, and you end up with modern Israel.

 

And, of course, there is also the fact that this started out as a discussion of Islam and less than 20% of the world's muslims live there.

As I recall, the areas nations with the large muslim populations are in the Indian subcontinent and Indonesia...

[kenberg]

Here's a bit of 'light relief' (among the 14 pages of replies on here) for us statistically-minded bods courtesy of Columbia University.

 

And yes, I know, it's quite bizarre what university students study these days...

 

http://www.stat.colu...gelman_icml.pdf

 

I believe more study is needed here, perhaps I will apply for a grant. In particular, we have to examine whether No Trump is positively or negatively correlated with the declarer's view of a Trump presidency. "Trump" might be upsetting, but "No Trump" might be soothing. Or vice versa, of course, it all depends.

 

We also need to examine whether more hands are passed out than before. It could be that players are so upset by having to choose between a Trump contract and a No Trump contract that they avoid the whole issue by passing.

 

I believe there is a great opportunity here. If we play our cards right we should be able to support several graduate students on a research grant.

[Zelandakh]

For as many decades as I can remember at least since the fall of the Soviet Union politics has been about two issues. Sure there might be other fluff issues but there are basically two issues. Number one it's the economy stupid. Number 2. What the heck are we going to do about the Middle East?

Rather depends on what you mean by "the economy". I would say that "fluff issues" such as those attached to the aging population are in the long term far more important than the Middle East question, particularly for America with the immigration levels being rather different from those of some European countries. And there are other current questions too that might yet turn out to be historically critical - an Iranian nuclear device for example. It is far too early to say that the 2 issues you list are the key political actions of the current time.

[kenrexford]

Rather depends on what you mean by "the economy". I would say that "fluff issues" such as those attached to the aging population are in the long term far more important than the Middle East question, particularly for America with the immigration levels being rather different from those of some European countries. And there are other current questions too that might yet turn out to be historically critical - an Iranian nuclear device for example. It is far too early to say that the 2 issues you list are the key political actions of the current time.

The aging population is an economy issue.

The Iranian nuclear threat is a Middle East issue.

 

I agree with you that the fluff issues are or should be more important. Because of the bush and clinton schools, they are put on the back burner.

 

Your post seems to be a rebuttal, but you get an amen from me.

[Winstonm]

This has an interesting chart concerning terror attacks in the U.S.

[billw55]

This has an interesting chart concerning terror attacks in the U.S.

What a strange graph and article. They compare ideological categories with one ethnicity (Jewish) and also Latino which is a collection of many ethnicities. They include "extreme left wing groups" but ignore right wing ones. And that is just the graph. The first paragraph rants about Jewish extremists, then they go on to compare terrorism to crime and call out the FBI for entrapment of would-be Muslim terrorists. (Some of this in quotes from elsewhere, but quotes are selected.)

 

There may be some interesting data, but overall I will not be putting much stock in this article.

 

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

What a strange graph and article. They compare ideological categories with one ethnicity (Jewish) and also Latino which is a collection of many ethnicities. They include "extreme left wing groups" but ignore right wing ones. And that is just the graph. The first paragraph rants about Jewish extremists, then they go on to compare terrorism to crime and call out the FBI for entrapment of would-be Muslim terrorists. (Some of this in quotes from elsewhere, but quotes are selected.)

 

There may be some interesting data, but overall I will not be putting much stock in this article.

 

I don't think the issue is the non-Islamic classifications but the comparison of 6% Islamic extremists to 94% Other. To be fair, this chart only goes until 2012 so it omits the shootings in California and Florida that were Isis-inspired, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. Perhaps frequency of attacks is increasing. The article is mute on that point.

 

The main point I had in providing this information was to emphasize that the chance of being injured by an Islamic terrorist is quite low in the U.S. so the over-the-top response many have to the threat is misguided - and probably encouraged by the images and stories of terrorist attacks from around the world as well as here that makes terrorists attacks appear epidemic.

 

To me, the amount of fear is disproportionate to the threat; reminds me of some who live here in Oklahoma and fear tornadoes to the point where every cloud on the horizon is seen as a threat. Even here, tornadoes are infrequent; terror attacks even more so.

 

This is not to say we should ignore the threat of terror or abandon efforts to stop terrorists. It is an effort to remind ourselves to place threats in proper perspective.

[hrothgar]

The Middle East got hit by five significant meteors (I'll arrange them chronologically)

 

1. The first was the Mongol invasion, the subsequent destruction of the irrigation system in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and the desertification of Iraq

2. The second was the discovery of sea routes to India and China which allowed trade to bypass the old Silk Road

3. The third was the inflationary cycles caused by the large influx of Spanish silver into the Mediterranean trading area

4. The fourth was the British and French colonial efforts with their deliberate attempts to foment ethnic tensions and consciously cultivate a privileged minority who would rule over a larger subject class

5. The last was oil itself. (There's all sorts of literature about the curse of being an oil exporter with a larger population)

 

 

What, no respond from ken?

Guess he was just blowing smoke as usual...

[kenrexford]

What, no respond from ken?

Guess he was just blowing smoke as usual...

 

Your challenge is stupid. There is nothing all that impressive about listing ridiculous factors and then suggesting that the extreme detail proves that you are correct.

 

I mean, just to humor you, let's look through your brilliances.

 

1a. Mongol invasion. The Mongols invaded Europe. The Muslims invaded Europe. Europeans from every part of Europe invaded every other part of Europe. WWI and WWII were fought in Europe and decimated Europe.

 

1b. Destruction of the irrigation systems and desertification of Iraq. The Middle East was a place of lunatics before any of this. Consider, e.g., Assyria. Lunatics. Islam did not create the lunacy. Islam arose from the lunacy and reinforced it. Besides, we are now supposedly in a tech world, where crops are not all that important (i.e., Japan).

 

2. Sea routes. I am sure that you are correct, in that sea routes took away the monopoly. However, in the face of this, the Muslin world opted against colonializing and developing an effective navy, or lost in that race, instead opting to enslave and sell the slaves. Why is that?

 

3. Inflationary cycles. Bread cost something like a billion dollars in Germany. The Germans accordingly went nuts. So, sure, inflationary cycles can and do cause people to go nuts. But, have the monetary policies of the Middle East been in place for about 1400 years? God help us if the FED is around screwing things up in the year 3346.

 

4. Colonialism. So, the Muslin world should be mad at the West for talking the Muslim world into being more openly and aggressively racist/sectarian? I mean, please. Before colonialism, there was one privileged minority who beat the crap out of any dissent. After colonialism, there were over a dozen little privileged minorities who each had their own little piece of the pie who beat the crap out of any dissent. Why? Because the dissent was never a well-reasoned nuance of democratic ideals. The "dissent" was "Allah wants us to kill you, not you to kill us."

 

5. Yes, the availability of oil is also killing the United States. We are quite cursed. We even have lunatics like Sarah Palin begging us to drill baby drill and thereby speed up our ruin. If we would only shut down the refineries and drilling, and buy the oil from others, we would be in much better shape. I agree.

 

You will undoubtedly have more points or counters to this. However, "meteors" hit everywhere. How a society reacts to meteors tells something about that society. I cannot recall any society deciding that death to all others is the primary solution for all problems. Hitler came close, but I would not want to be in his company. The only other real parallel seems to be Krikkit.

 

 

 

 

 

[mike777]

I hope readers will take the time to watch the entire discussion:

 

".....The key problem: Lack of shared prosperity

 

Porter says the key issue for America today is a lack of “shared prosperity,” as working and middle-class citizens are struggling.

 

“The lack of shared prosperity has rightly been a central issue in the 2016 campaign, but the diagnoses and proposed solutions are way off the mark,” the report points out.

 

As the middle class began to stagnate amid globalization and technological change, instead of increasing investments, the US made “unsustainable promises” to maintain the “illusion of shared prosperity,” the report notes. That included extending credit, expanding entitlements and increasing public-sector benefits......" Michael Porter

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-competitiveness-project-harvard-business-school-hbs-michael-porter-030021739.html

 

 

"...the manifestation of competitiveness is productivity, Porter explains. A nation can only compete successfully and pay rising wages through high value of output per worker and per dollar of capital invested.

 

But productivity growth has been stuck below long-term levels, hitting negative territory in the last three quarters...."

[mike777]

I don't think the issue is the non-Islamic classifications but the comparison of 6% Islamic extremists to 94% Other. To be fair, this chart only goes until 2012 so it omits the shootings in California and Florida that were Isis-inspired, as well as the Boston Marathon bombing. Perhaps frequency of attacks is increasing. The article is mute on that point.

 

The main point I had in providing this information was to emphasize that the chance of being injured by an Islamic terrorist is quite low in the U.S. so the over-the-top response many have to the threat is misguided - and probably encouraged by the images and stories of terrorist attacks from around the world as well as here that makes terrorists attacks appear epidemic.

 

To me, the amount of fear is disproportionate to the threat; reminds me of some who live here in Oklahoma and fear tornadoes to the point where every cloud on the horizon is seen as a threat. Even here, tornadoes are infrequent; terror attacks even more so.

 

This is not to say we should ignore the threat of terror or abandon efforts to stop terrorists. It is an effort to remind ourselves to place threats in proper perspective.

 

 

Winston you leave out important information and do not put the threat in "proper perspective" regarding the chances of being injured by Islamic terrorist. Trillions have been spent to lower the chances. Armies have been sent around the world to lower the chances. Posters keep quoting how low the chances are but that is after spending trillions, after great blood, sweat and tears and sacrifice by military families. We have turned our airports into armed camps where we wait in lines for hours to fly.

[Winstonm]

Winston you leave out important information and do not put the threat in "proper perspective" regarding the chances of being injured by Islamic terrorist. Trillions have been spent to lower the chances. Armies have been sent around the world to lower the chances. Posters keep quoting how low the chances are but that is after spending trillions, after great blood, sweat and tears and sacrifice by military families.

 

The "armies sent around the world" are what created the opportunity for Isis to gain ground. The present course of action with fewer ground troops and more drone strikes seems to be working at least as well, if not better, than other options.

 

I don't leave out the military; neither do I blindly praise all military efforts. Some actions have been good; many have backfired.