A story today should prompt some discussion in how our society is changing as more and more Americans work for the government. For years, there has been a concern that we are becoming an institutionalized society with millions of Americans serving or working in prisons while millions more work for police and government agencies. Now, a report shows that one out of every 100 Americans work for the Defense Department. That is an astonishing figure. That figure balloons further when one considers the number of citizens working in the internal security, police, and intelligence systems.
The Economist magazine shows that the Defense Department employed 3.2 million people, including 700,000 civilians.
We beat out the Chinese Army and even more frightening Wal-Mart (which comes in third after the Red Army). McDonald’s follows in fourth. The remainder in order are the China Petroleum Corporation, the State Grid Corporation of China, National Health Service of England, Indian Railways, China Post Group, and Taiwan’s Hon Hai Precision Industry Company.
Despite such huge numbers, Sen. Jon Kyl announced that he will resign from the Super Committee if the members consider significant cuts in the defense budget.
Source: Washington Post
FWIW, the Pew paper comes from an “online survey of scientists”.
http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/55875/ this article goes a bit further and says it’s from an online survey in which “AAAS surveyed its members, including students, emeriti and non-scientists who support the organization’s mission.”
Slarti, I’ll let you lead off with a discussion of the methodological problems of using an online survey to survey the members of your organization that includes students and non-scientists and then projecting those results to all scientists.
“Your name should be “Totally Incorrect is not my name but shh I am trying to trick the spam filter”.
According to this 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, you have it exactly backwards. “More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberal.”
So the real question is “What is it about working scientifically in the real world that makes scientists favor liberal ideas?””
Actually Gene, it’s worse than that, and it’s a shame you did not actually read the entirety of the paper you cited. Because in that paper is a table that directly refutes what I said.
Instead of the vague, irrelevant comparison you cited, you could have gone directly to this table:
“Party Affiliation among Scientists
Rep Dem Ind
% % %
All scientists 6 55 32
…
Chemistry 9 49 37
Physics and Astronomy 6 53 35”
And that is indeed interesting, because my own experience, borne out by what I see on blogs and through Google, is that most people think it’s very much the opposite.
But I am glad to see that’s the case. Sadly there’s a lot of woe in the paper especially around issues of how scientists see other scientists as selling out, or motivated by money, or influenced by funding.
Robert,
It seems my anecdotal experience has empirical support – how about yours?
Gene,
Thanks.
Your name should be “Totally Incorrect is not my name but shh I am trying to trick the spam filter”.
According to this 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, you have it exactly backwards. “More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberal.”
So the real question is “What is it about working scientifically in the real world that makes scientists favor liberal ideas?”
“And while you’re making generalizations about liberals, could you please tell me why, in my experience, there tend to be FAR more liberal scientists than there are conservative ones? What is it about working with the scientific method that seems to make people favor liberal ideas?”
I’ve never seen the data on this, and it’s only anecdotal, but let’s go with it. Why are so many physicists, chemists, engineers, doctors, and pilots Republican? What is it about working scientifically in the real world that makes scientists favor conservative ideas?
Roco,
How about this, for every example you come up with as to how history falsifies one of my ideas, I’ll explain your logical fallacy and give you an example of a failure of unregulated capitalism. I’ll even give you a freebie to start with: mortgage-based derivatives… or commodities markets being used for high-stakes gambling by large corporations (rather than stabilizing the market for the the producers of the commodity as they were designed to do) or the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill or the Upper Big Branch Mine Collapse. Not to mention the daily pollution and degradation of our shared resources due to the fact that we subsidize polluters by not charging them for their disrespect of our shared resources. Well, that brings us to five, so I guess I’ll just throw in our proud ranking as last in health care amongst industrialized nations and be done with it. Now you don’t have to bother to make any straw man historical arguments and I wont have to rip them to shreds…
And while you’re making generalizations about liberals, could you please tell me why, in my experience, there tend to be FAR more liberal scientists than there are conservative ones? What is it about working with the scientific method that seems to make people favor liberal ideas?
Slarti:
which ones have been failures? Just list 6.
anon:
You cannot have a reasoned argument with most progressives.
They are cock sure they are right even though most of history proves them wrong.
They know a good deal that isnt so, taught to them in progressive school.
You wont find any old style liberals here, these people are fire breathing hard left radicals.
But good luck.
By the way they love red herrings and straw men.
I think Slarti gave one above.
NoWay,
The website you linked from, as Gene pointed out, was dubious. I never called into question the credibility of Dr. Anderson’s work – I just called her conclusions “pedestrian” (my opinion – I’m entitled to that, right?). Once more, you seem eager to fight over an assertion I never made. I ask you again, are you intentionally trying to lie about what I said or are you too stupid to understand it?
@Slartibartfast
“an article from a dubious source was linked”
Are you challenging Dr. Anderson’s credentials? Or are you just brown-nosing Buddha? I guess that’s what liberals do when they can’t provide counter argument.
That 1980’s work of Dr. Anderson’s has been cited in numerous places. Recently fireengineering.com cited it in an op-ed piece on their website.
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/2010/10/fire-subscription-service.html
The article which cited Dr. Anderson was written by John K Murphy, a retired Assistant Fire Chief. Mr. Murphy is also a Physicians Assistant and a Licensed Attorney.
So take your “dubious source” and blow it out your ass. 🙂
“The contractual agreement probably also limits the liability of the fire department. If the fire department attempted to put out the fire without having a contract to do so, they would have likely opened themselves up to a potential suit based on a claim that they did not do a good enough job. In addition, the fire department’s equipment and fire fighter insurance would probably not apply to engaging in a non-contacted firefighting operation.”
That’s an interesting claim, but it’s novel, and this case has been widely discussed and defended and no one has brought it up before. (To the best of my knowledge.)
The home owner used to be a customer and had “merely” let his payment lapse. It’s not as if this fire department had never been responsible for his home in the past.
Apart from that, I agree with you fully in this: ” I am not supporting private fire departments. I just found your argument in opposition (incentive to create fires) to be ludicrous.”
I find the comments at this blog atrocious — so much of the time the arguments are ridiculous and just echo and retweet the dumbest partisan hackery.
If any individual here actually had some amount of respect for people they disagreed with, their arguments in opposition would be made much better, because the opponents viewpoints would be accurately reflected and discussed. Instead what we get is just the knocking down of strawmen.
It will be interesting to see if this posts. I’ve lost 3 posts here today, not sure if they were spam filtered, or if Opera has some sort of issue.
No way,
Wow, are you bound and determined to take umbrage for something that I never even implied. The system you describe is based on libertarianism – you only get the services you pay for directly. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of person who becomes a firefighter in any of the three systems (I would argue that THEY are treated the best by the socialist model [which sees them as the heroes that they are rather than a bunch of guys trying to make a buck…]). Are you intentionally misinterpreting everything I say or do you have problems with reading comprehension?
martin,
The thread has kind of wandered into a discussion of a capitalist vs. a socialist vs. a libertarian model for fire departments. I’ve been arguing that the government should fund fire departments to fight fires for the common good. The other models which have been advanced are a FD directly funded by fees from citizens (a story was linked about such a FD standing by and letting a man’s house burn down because he had forgotten to make a payment) or a for-profit FD (which I suggest gives executives a fiduciary obligation to ensure the business be as profitable as possible…). I’ll refrain from characterizing other people’s arguments and stipulate that nothing substantive has been put forward as fact by anyone… (an article from a dubious source was linked which came to some pedestrian conclusions about the potential profitability or lack thereof of FDs in the latter half of the 19th century, but I wouldn’t characterize it as a fact) although it’s been asserted that I’m a poopeyhead and I’ve called some people fools (and probably worse – if not here then elsewhere…). Does that answer your question?
I am late to this thread.
Would someone kindly summarize the main assertions that are in dispute, and the facts offered to bolster each position?
Thanks in advance.
1 in 100 adults are behind bars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html
test
@Slartibartfast
I noticed the back and forth you had above with “anon”. While the internets provide a great place for people to express their opinions, it also provides a place where arguments based on ignorance have a tendency to be injected.
The fire outside of South Fulton is one of these cases.
The fire took place in a rural area outside of South Fulton. While the municipal fire department does provide service outside of the city limits, it only does so by individual contract.
The contractual agreement probably also limits the liability of the fire department. If the fire department attempted to put out the fire without having a contract to do so, they would have likely opened themselves up to a potential suit based on a claim that they did not do a good enough job. In addition, the fire department’s equipment and fire fighter insurance would probably not apply to engaging in a non-contacted firefighting operation.
It’s easy to feel sorry for the guy who didn’t pay the fee, but it’s also important to recognize that there is another side to the coin.
Knowing firefighters as well as I do (my grandfather was a fire Chief), I can tell you that most firefighters live to save the day. It sure isn’t the pay that drives them to risk their lives.
No Way,
I’m aware of what Dr. Anderson was saying, I just thought that it was a pretty obvious conclusion. As for the incentives being wrong, you’re probably right – it’s not like for-profit insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to not squander shareholder profits on providing health care or like they’ve been know to yank people’s coverage for the crime of requiring too much medical attention… oh wait, it is. 🙁
Roco,
While there are conservatives who have good ideas and sound reasoning, you’re not one of them. You should know that I’m a scientist – I work the method: none of my ideas has been falsified (your straw man arguments aside) and many have strong corroborating evidence. On the other hand, all of your free market über alles ideas have been complete failures in practice.
@Slartibartfast
“What I’m not hearing are any reasons why a capitalist or libertarian fire department would be in any way better than a public one.”
That’s because there aren’t any really good reasons to have private fire departments. You don’t seem to get it. I am not supporting private fire departments. I just found your argument in opposition (incentive to create fires) to be ludicrous.
Who has the most to gain from good firefighting? Answer: The insurance companies. If the insurance companies thought that privatization of the fire departments was a good idea, I don’t have any doubt that they would make it so.
Dr. Anderson looked into privatization of fire departments. Her conclusion was that it was not the way to go.
No Way,
The corrupt CEO you refer to would be Eric Prince of Xe nee Blackwater…
Looking at the conclusion of the article you linked…
This doesn’t really seem to offer much in the way of insight into the debate (just my opinion…) although the article does provide some interesting history. What I’m not hearing are any reasons why a capitalist or libertarian fire department would be in any way better than a public one (though I’ve come up with reasons why they might be worse…).