THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Like MGL, I’m an atheist (well, I’m a catholic atheist as opposed to a jewish atheist, FWIW). But, I’m not a libertarian/democrat, any more than I’m a republican. Certainly, I had my dalliance with libertarianism 15-20 yrs ago. But I ultimately decided that none of the fundamental tenets of any of these philosophies are actually grounded in reality. They’re all a matter of subjective opinion. So, while I sort of admire some of Ron Paul’s ideas, the problem is that a presidential election is a short-term 4 year investment, and (assuming that he would actually stick to his guns if elected) a sudden ‘radical’ switch would possibly/probably do more short-term harm than good. So, libertarian rule will properly have to wait, making small inroads, until it is ‘an idea whose time has come’ (old est training principle).

Until then, the situation is as B James lamented in his old “Breaking the Wand” article, when he wrote about Elias, “I leave the field to whoever is playing on it” (or should it be ‘whomever’?). Romney is playing ball, as is Huckabee, as is Paul, Clinton, et al.

It’s possibly the case that I shouldn’t even be opining about this, since I have never actually voted, or even registered to vote. It’s pretty much the original Harry Browne viewpoint for me (in his great early book “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World"). Minimize your involvement with government, etc.. But, Browne much later ran for pres. as a libertarian…

I call myself a Libertarain/Democrat for lack of a better term.  Labeling is generally not very fruitful, though sometimes convenient.  Basically, I am a rational, independent thinker. I like to think, at least.  Whatever the heck that means.  The way I approach baseball issues are the way I approach all issues.  Not to say that I am not colored and influenced by my own biases.  We all are.

Slightly off topic, but remember when George Bush I said that atheists weren’t citizens, in his opinion?  Let me look it up ...

“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

To me, that he got away with saying that ... holy s***, that was frightening.

Phil, where did you find that quotation? My govt. teacher would absolutely love to see that.

I think Bush 41 said that.

Wow, I do not remember that!  That is shocking.  I really don’t think that there is as much separating some of the leadership in this country from that of Iran or Syria (and other countries like that) than people like to think.  I emphasize AS MUCH (not to sound too radical or anarchistic).  However, it is not too hard for me to imagine this country soon becoming somewhat of a theocracy and somewhat totalitarian, regardless of what our Constitution supposedly dictates.

I mean should we really be arguing whether water boarding is or is not torture?  If that is the “gray area” then I think something went wrong somewhere.  And I am tired of hearing the, “It works” argument (maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t).  Well, that ain’t the point. bucko.  When you enjoy a freedom (in this case, freedom from torture), you pay a price.  When you lose a freedom, you also pay a price, but it is not always so evident (especially to a stupid person).  The question is, “Which price do you choose to pay?” The answer in some cases is already written in the form of laws, treaties, and constitutions.  Others are not and have to be decided on an ad hoc basis.

Should we be arguing, as they are in front of the Supreme Court now, whether Gitmo detainees should or should not be afforded Habeus Corpus, right to counsel, and due process?  Those are not supposed to be “technical” rights reserved for certain kinds of persons, like citizens or prisoners of war.  Those are supposed to be rights afforded to ANYONE being detained in or by this country regardless of the reason, because that is the “fair” and “humane” and “right” thing to do.

Reminds me of the infamous Ded Scott Supreme Court decision.  At that time, it was ruled that Blacks did not have constitutional rights because they were officially deemed property (and non-citizens and could not therefore sue in federal court).

As far as I know, the founders of this country did not intend the Constitution to contain suggestions, nor did they intend for there to be “exceptions as deemed appropriate by the powers to be” but that is the way that some people in the government actually view it, whether they realize it or not. 

As others more radical than I have been saying lately, what the government has done recently is exactly what the founders envisioned as worthy of impeachment or overthrow.  The most important concept of a democratic government, which I beg that you teach your children, is that government is by, for, and of the people.  I can’t imagine that ANYONE with a straight face can say that about our current federal government.  I really can’t.

hmmmmm, politics is a slippery slope.  My opinion probably wouldn’t be too popular in this thread, so I will bite my tongue and only say that I am glad your opinions of our current president was left out of the fine book that you guys wrote.

vr, Xei

If you are a non-believer and don’t want other people’s views imposed on you, it seems as though you should vote Republican because Democrats seem to believe government can be everything to all people.

If you don’t want politicians to tell you how to act - vote for the small government Republicans (Ron Paul, but he can’t win ~ so Thompson/Romney/Giuliani/McCain).

If you want an elite, ruling class to tell you what to do and how to do it - vote for the Democrats (Edwards/Clinton/Kucinich for sure).

Democrats’ religion IS government! To a democrat, government is omnipotent. Like it or not, Republicans are the lesser of two evils - they at least show some restraint on the imposition of beliefs on the American people.

The Free Exercise clause gives you an absolute right to believe whatever you want to believe - even if you’re running for President.

The Establishment clause is a bit murkier, but it gives a constitutional right not to be religiously “coerced” via some pressure/sanction.

Essentially, the Constitution includes a freedom OF religion, not a freedom FROM religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

One-time head of the Office of Legal Counsel (i.e., legal advisor to the President, through the Justice Department):

In explaining the Yoo Doctrine, Yoo made the following statements during a December 1, 2005, debate in Chicago, Illinois, with Notre Dame Law School Professor Doug Cassel:

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

These guys are priceless.  Because something is not specifically forbidden, it’s considered “allowed”.

And Idiot/8 is right about the lesser of two evils.  That’s what we (actually you) are left to deal with: which group disgusts you less.

***

The immigration policy in this country, and what the media reports is truly appalling.  People don’t really understand the root cause of illegal immigration: there is no good path to getting a green card.

Look at me.  I’m Canadian.  I was deemed by the State Department to have a highly desirable skillset so that I can be fast-tracked.  And it took me 3.5 years to go from Visa to Green Card.  Imagine the poor schlubs who aren’t so lucky.  It takes them 5-7 years, if they are even finally approved.  All the while, if our company fires us, we are at risk for deportation, since the visa applies to working for that company (though with the visa portability, it’s a bit better, depending where you are in the process).

Compare that to Canada.  A friend of mine from India was in the same boat as I was in the US: fast-tracked for Green Card application, but nervous at the prospect of being downsized by our company.  So, he also applies for a Canadian Green Card.  He gets it in 8 months!

Now, tell me.  How much more “secure” is the US/Canadian border, if someone can get a GC from Canada mighty quick, and then cross the border?  If the US border guard sees someone with a Canadian green card, he’s not going to turn him back, now is he?

The entire problem with immigration is that it take the US so incredibly long to approve someone in.  You provide a viable path to permanent residency, and your current problems are substantially reduced.

Also, anyone going through the GC process knows how much of a second-class citizen you are treated.  I’m lucky in that I don’t look like a “foreigner”, so I’m spared alot of the torment others receive.

I’d like Americans (who won the gene lottery by having their parents born here) to go through what the rest of us go through.

Finally, kids, who have no say in how their parents come to this country, should be afforded an easy path to citizenship.  It’s cruel to send a kid back to a place they don’t know.  I remember I used to be very sad as a kid when we’d move 20 miles away.  Imagine needing to move 2000 miles away.

Two initial remarks: when I saw the thread title with “Theo” in it, I thought this was going to be a post about Epstein!  And, no question, when MGL starts a post stating he’ll be “short”, I have to get myself in a comfortable seating position.

Regarding the lies of the Bush presidency… I’m in no way apologizing for him, as I truly despise him as a person (or at least what he does and stands for)… but he’s sort of a victim of the era in which he’s become president.

Remember, when Clinton was president, we did internet searches on hotbot and altavista.  “social” sites were text-only newsgroups.  etc.  The speed at which information flows these days is so much faster than during any other president’s era.

If Bush does something obscure and legally sketchy, that maybe a few hundred people have the legal understanding to follow and see why it’s an issue, maybe one of them writes about it on the web.  Then someone sees that page, and submits the story to digg.com.  Then two days later, the story has 1500+ “diggs” and is seen by a million people.  The habeas corpus stuff is a prime example - if this was going on 10 years ago, none of us would know that we could be seized and interrogated and held indefinitely without being formally charged with a crime.  But in the booming internet age, I know this and can speak out against it.

If Clinton did something like that, there’d be a few hundred lawyers on a usenet group who were outraged - not millions of people across the wide demographich of digg.com.

Anyways mgl, totally agree with you.  That said, I think Clinton should be counting his lucky stars that Google, digg.com, etc, weren’t around when he was president.  I remember watching a democratic debate in which Hilary refused to agree to unseal presidential documents before the next election.  I’ve got to believe there’s some sketchy shit there that she and Bill are hiding.  It’s sort of like adjusting ERA for era.  Clinton didn’t give up too many earned runs, and it looks like Bush has given up a ton.  But when you adjust for era (the likelihood of them getting called out for sketchy stuff), I think they’re closer than we think in terms of how much they lie(d).

Hmm.  How about some analysis?  Here is the most recent just-released OECD study of the abilities of 15 year olds in math, reading and science in many developed countries (http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html) I wonder if there is a negative correlation between the influence of religion in governmental policy in the country and the student performance in that country.

Dan/4: Here’s a link to the quotation.  Found it by searching the web, and can’t vouch for that particular site, but they quote it exactly as I remember it at the time.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#bush

Tango, from my experiences (friends from Asia), citizenship in Canada can be bought out.  That is what all the people who migrated to Canada from Hong Kong did when the Peoples Republic of China took over their island.  All you had to do was put X amount of cash in a Canadian bank and you were fast-tracked to citizenship.  I am glad my country doesn’t cater to the rich as far as immigration goes like that.  I’d rather they make it a rocky path for people to immigrate here.  That way you really know they want it, and you weed out some of the people.  Weeding out may sound a bit cruel and impersonable, but there are literally millions of people who would like more than anything to come and live in the United States.  I’ve seen it and been a part of it.  You may have had some frustrations in coming to the US from Canada, but wasn’t it worth it?

vr, Xei

Here’s a link to Phil’s test results:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071205.wtest05/BNStory/Science/home

***

Xei: all you end up doing, by making the road so rocky, is being in the situation that you are now.  What you end up with is about 50% as many immigrants, but 80% of those immigrants are underground.  So, for every 100 people who want to come to America:

10: legal entry, suffer through process

40: legal or illegal entry, overstay, stick around underground, buying SSN, and sometimes visas or green cards, sometimes persecuted

50: left out of the country, would love to come in, but are too law-abiding to circumvent rules, and won’t qualify through law-abiding means

Given the choice between Canada’s and USA’s immigration policy, I prefer Canada’s.  The USA immigration policy is exactly like corporate America: throw in as much middle management as you can, increase the bureaucracy without necessarily being value-added, but it looks like it’s adding value, since you spend so much money on the problem.

And, no, it wasn’t necessarily worth it.  The quality of life is superior in Canada, hands-down. (Any dual-residents can feel free to comment on that.)

What the US has over Canada is you can earn more money for your time here.  This country is great if you want to earn as much as you can.  Very capitalistic.  Very much a divide between the upper/lower income classes.

And, the winters are not as harsh. 

***

Did you know that the creator of Linux (Linus Torvalds) was having trouble getting a visa for the US?  He even was a witness at a congressional committee.

The US is not any safer because of its current immigration policy just because you throw bureaucracy at the problem.

Oh, as for buying out, the US also has this policy, and it’s official.  For an extra 1000$, or something like that, you get faster-tracked.  I don’t know what it currently is, but that’s the way it was a few years ago.

Also, for student visas, the sponsor (parent, grandparent, whoever) has to show they have enough money to support their student.

Money talks in everything.

Tango, no denying our immigration policy is messed up, especially when it comes to the floods of immigrants from Mexico and Central America.  Come to Beijing or Manila with me and witness for yourself the long lines of people desperate to visit/immigrate to the United States.  People lining up the night before in an attempt to get their Visa accepted.  Once they get here, it’s not difficult for them to hire a lawyer to help them get a green card, so the US Embassies overseas have to be pretty tough on these people and are often downright nasty to some of them.  The demand for immigration to the United States is great, and the level of fraud greater… that is why there is such a rocky road.  But in general you are right in that our immigration process is a mess.

vr, Xei

What’s really bad is that once you are already in the country, like I was, it doesn’t make it any easier.

It’s one thing to say that for non-US residents, they have certain strict guidelines to prevent entry.

But, if you have someone like me, who has gained lawful entry, paid taxes and social security (i.e., a US resident for tax purposes), the US should make it a much easier process to get me through.  What purpose does forcing some artificial rocky road serve?  To make me hate it here?  To prove that I’m worthy?  The fact of the matter is that it serves no purpose.

The problem with the old INS is that they had two jobs: (1) keep people away, (2) bring people in.  They’ve at least on the surface handled that by splitting INS into CIS (service-oriented) and ICE (enforcement-oriented).

But, back to the current crop of millions of illegals in the US (most by gaining lawful entry and overstaying their visas): why not make it easier for them?  They are already here, and USA forces them underground.  This is a country of only 300 million people.  It’s not like there’s an overpopulation problem.  And the unemployment rate in the US is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world.  So, it’s not a question of “them” taking “your” jobs.

This problem is really one of race.

The only reason that they are deemed illegal is that USA tied their hands behind their backs, and told them to follow a path to permanent residency.  Try selling a CD for 30$, and you get an underground market.  Sell a song for 99 cents, and people are much more accepting.

We have a sense of what is right, and we can live with things that are gray-area.  But, US immigration policy is horrible.  Those kinds of things spur revolutions, be it an underground quiet one, or otherwise.  Most people in the world are decent, and decent people don’t like being put in the same hole as non-decent ones.  Push them too far, and they push back.

And, that’s where we are here.  Putting up more roadblocks to people already here isn’t going to help.

If you want to know what’s going on, you can read this site:
http://shusterman.com/siu.html#1

During the past several months, the USCIS has become overwhelmed with millions of additional applications for immigration benefits. The bottom line is whether you are applying for naturalization, adjustment of status, a replacement green card or for any other immigration benefit, expect increased delays. These backlogs are not to be confused with the visa retrogression which delays the granting of green cards from five to 22 years. Let me explain further…
“Were we caught off guard by the volume? Let’s just say it was anticipated it would increase. It was not anticipated it would increase by that much,” said Emilio Gonzalez, director of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Also, after expiry of the 245i law in Apr 2001, (allowing foreigners already in the USA and married to US citizens to apply for green card without leaving USA), this is what’s been happening:

Take, for instance, the common occurrence of a U.S. citizen who marries a foreign national. The happy couple will often assume that marriage to a U.S. citizen automatically qualifies the foreign spouse for permanent residence. But if the foreign national has entered the U.S. illegally, this is simply not the case. With certain limited exceptions, if a foreign national entered the country without inspection he or she is not eligible to adjust status here in the U.S., and will have to apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. Consulate abroad. Most couples have little idea of the risks involved in this scenario.

If the foreign national spouse has been unlawfully present in the country for more than 365 days after the age of 18, his or her departure from the U.S. will trigger a ten-year bar on returning to this country. A waiver of this bar is only available for those who can demonstrate that a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent will experience “extreme hardship” if the foreign national cannot return.

Mr. and Mrs. G, believed that the immigrant visa process would be fairly quick and straightforward. Although Mr. G was a citizen of the U.S. by birth, Mrs. G entered the U.S. without inspection as a five-year-old together with her parents. Even though she was a child at the time, her unlawful entry prohibits her from obtaining permanent residence without leaving the U.S.

Why would anyone be worried about an ordained minister becoming President?  It’s not as though that would make his religion the state religion or anything.  Also, I don’t find philosophies based around the existence of a god any more threatening than philosophies based around anything else.

Looking at the general trend in societal advancement vs religiosity, it seems likely to me that if humankind survives for another thousand years, atheism will be the overwhelming majority position. People who believe in god will be smirked at as nutzos. But, the coming presidential election is only for the next 4 years, and there are so many pressing short-term issues, and the belief in god is so prevalent and politically convenient, that I (if I were actually a voter) would not waste much energy worrying about a candidate’s religiosity. I wanna know what they plan to DO.

Crap, I had a really good response to #22 and then I hit my close browser button!

First, I do not think we are headed for secularism in this country.  Quite the opposite.

“Fear” of a religious person in the White House or in governmental decision-making in general, is not the best word.  I simply mean “would not prefer.”

I think I already articulated the reason.  It has nothing to do with religion per se.  It is for the same reason I would prefer anyone not be in the White House with whom I did not agree on certain fundamental or important issues.

I think that religious persons tends to lean toward making decisions based on religious doctrine, which is basically intractable (I have a hard time with any intractable doctrines).  I think that certain things are open to debate as far as what is good for the country or society.  Certain people would accuse me of having no moral compass, or no sense of right or wrong because of that view.  I call it (actually I think it was Kohlberg) being a relativist and I am proud of that lable.

Religious people think that the word of God or the Bible, as they or someone else interpet it, is the last word (and is always what is good for mankind, do there is no need for discussion). I happen to disagree.  That’s all.

(My deceased post was much better!)

----"I do not think we are headed for secularism in this country. Quite the opposite.”
_______________________

Well, in my post I said 1000 years from nor, not in the next 20. I think secularism will eventually win out in this world for the simple reason that it’s the truth, and the truth will eventually be realized. (Don’t anyone call me a know-it-all; I’m simply giving my opinion.)

The rest of your post 23 I pretty much agree with. The real question is, how much do we (or you, or anyone else) ‘weight’ the religious issue in the present election, among all the other important things?

Anway, I think it is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to hold the office of the POTUS unless you profess a faith in God and religion.  Certainly, it is impossible as a Republican candidate.

People want a President who is similar to them, and most Americans, I think, believe that God exists, and want a President who thinks the same way.

Are we becoming a theocracy?

No, I don’t think most people want the “Monday to Saturday” laws determined by the clergy, and I don’t think (except for a few nuts) the clergy want that either. And frankly, a reading of the Christian Bible doesn’t provide much support for a theocracy.

Is there any theocracy in the world whose people do not live in poverty and continuous strife?  I don’t know.  That is a real question.

Norway.

R.I.P. Chip Reese…

For what it’s worth, the percentage of Americans who are atheist/agnostic/non-religious went from 8.4% in 1990 to 15.0% in 2001. (See link on my name.)

I once knew a woman that Kohlberg had propositioned.  He was married at the time.  Relative, indeed.

Anyway, I agree with much of what you say, MGL.  But I want to point out that this…

Religious people think that the word of God or the Bible, as they or someone else interpet it, is the last word (and is always what is good for mankind, do there is no need for discussion). I happen to disagree.  That’s all.

...is a bit of an overstatement.  I know many religious people who don’t rely on the literal word of the Bible for their decisions.  They recognize that much of the Bible is metaphor, to be reinterpreted for our times.  And that’s one of the things I hate about the current strand of evangelism that’s taken hold of our political dialogue.