one of the points in the presentation that struck me was the repetative use of pictures. The visuals are emotive, scary, horrifying. But in the end the same pictures repeat in different orders and locations to make it look like a lot of bad guys. In reality there are just not that many, perhaps its just that ugly pictures of the bad guys are hard to come by, or more likely there are not enough of the nasty ones.

Give them the resources of the Pentagon photo library and media clips you would think that they could come up with more than one picture of Hamas masked gun men, or victim of shooting, or victim of bombing, or even more than one picture of the al quada leadership. perhaps i am just being pedantic but they could have done a better job on that, perhaps they just don't care or maybe those are all the really scary images that exist.

I was always told that a good presentation used either unique photos on each page or set them as a repeating background. just like the rest of the presentation its a bit second rate.

Posted at January 11, 2008 7:25 PM in response to Islamofascist Nonsense

As ever the trolls are trolling in the wrong direction. It's not about will I or will I not use credit, that is a choice I make one that I know has a cost, its about who is willing to provide that credit at the lowest cost to me as the consumer. The market will determine who I am going to chose to provide the service provided it is a free and open market. If the market is rigged (few providers or providers colluding to fix prices) or the costs are hidden then I do not make the "right" choice and the market fails to work.

The market fails to work in several ways, I may chose the wrong (more expensive) provider introducing inefficiencies, the very thing the market is supposed to remove. I may simply determine that there is no way to judge who is the best provider and not use credit at all (several posts indicate that this is their choice). This is as many have noted the biggest loss for the provider as consumers chose not to use the service and they make nothing.

All this comes down to the providers who are trying to control the market (increasing profits) and the consumer who is trying to get the best possible deal from the market (reducing profits). If I can control the information from a to b, or make the flow of information so complicated it is not understood by any one, then I can control the market. That I believe is the point being made, not that credit is inherently good or bad, but that those who attempt to distort markets cause damage both to themselves and the consumers of their product.

Posted at December 30, 2007 7:24 PM in response to Hiding the Cost

The for proffit insurers must be rubbing their hands in glee, this plan essentially transfers money from the tresury to their accounts. Mandating insurance for everyone, then deciding that if you can't pay the government will, simply transfers our tax dollars to the bank accoutns of the insurance executives. Presently the US system of private health care wates 25 percrent of its premiums on "administrative costs". well it looks like Hillary wants to make it even easier for them to run a proffit. Remember death by spread sheet is driven by the proffit motive, that does not go away just because the number of buyers suddenly increase be 46 million.

A single payer system (medicare plus) is far more efficient, just ask the Canadians

Posted at September 22, 2007 5:22 PM in response to Update: Hillary's Plan

" If unhappy parents remove disruptive students from State schools, vouchers would enhance overall system performance."

Unhappy parents do not disrupt classes. few if any "disruptive" students end up at selective charter schools. The state system in fact becomes a mandated dumping ground for "disruptive" individuals, where as a charter school always has the option of inviting disruptive individuals to find alternative education. Even with all the advantages of selective entry, and selective dismissal, charter schools still fail a to significantly outperform state schools. One reason could, of course, be that so many charter schools are set up not on sound educational principles but promote an ideology or religon (is there a difference?) and in doing so actually deprive the student of a balanced open eduction.

Posted at September 22, 2007 7:35 AM in response to The Patterns Underlying Conservative Failures

I know something of economic theory and the jargon used, so following some of this was not too much of a challenge, but the use of acronyms really does detract from otherwise compelling argument. The unemployment meme has been challenged at some length recently as has market efficiency so those arguments are familiar and need no additional back ground. This would win lots of arguments with typical republicans who spout talking points but have no sound basis for their assertions, it may not win with those who have looked at the topic in depth, an example can be found in the final section “share holders do not chose managers”, true to some extent, but they do chose which shares to buy and are less likely to buy from badly managed companies….. The piece would benefit from a little more explanation and defining the acronyms before first use.

Posted at July 11, 2007 9:10 PM in response to The Ten Boxes of Heterodoxy, or Why Economics Sucks

Reed
One huge assumption that you make is that other regional powers will sit by and "let" it happen. If Pakistan goes bad India is far more likely to intervene than any other country, China has a common (small) border too.

India and Pakistan have already fought four wars in less than 60 years, they continue with low level actions in Kashmir. If a Civil war erupts in Pakistan that in any way threatens India there is a very large military force, including first strike capability, that will act long before the US does. Pakistan is an "allied" to us, except of course for the bits that the central government already fails to control. If the rest of the country goes the same way then there are others who will act before we do.

Posted at July 9, 2007 8:11 AM in response to Turmoil

The analogies are interesting

A good soldier follows orders, Libby followed orders (Cheney) and the consequences should be directed at those who gave the orders.

Yes Libby did it, but he was acting on instructions. The UCJ allows a soldier to refuse an illegal order but in the heat of battle they often do not. Of course one would also expect the officer who gave the order to be an honorable gentleman and face the consequences of having given an illegal order (good luck with Cheney on that one)

The right wing nutcases truly believe themselves to be at war (possibly a holy war), in this instance they are at war with liberals and progressives in America (civil war any one?) and one of their foot soldiers has been asked to fall on his sward to protect a superior. Now all of the other foot soldiers are rallying to his aid even as the officers run away and hide.

Of course the analogy falls apart as the language of war is abused to describe a political battle when places in contrast to the reality of true warfare, even if those on the political front seek to hide from the US public the true cost of the real war.

Posted at June 10, 2007 8:29 AM in response to Crying for Scooter