"Bring 'Em On" : Showdown At The Baghdad Corral

[Cyrus]

George W Bush Jr, who's still sitting at an office at the White House, when not traveling around giving "rousing speeches", has invited Iraqis that are opposed to the American occupation of their country to "Bring 'em on!"

It is possible that the President meant "Bring it on" but the Iraqis seem to have understood him anyway. The toll of American soldiers that have died after the President announced that "the major combats are over" has now risen to 26. I believe that some time around October this year the number of Americans that will have died after May 1st, the day Dubya proclaimed the end of hostilities, will surpass the number of Americans that have died during the war. (Anyone wants to make this interesting?)

And I noticed a new sprightliness in Dubya's walk, usually up to the mike to make a speech. He tends to walk now with his hands somewhat extended and not hanging vertically, as if he's been weightlifting all morning. Guy is bristling with confidence! ..What a sight.

CNN story: Bounty on Saddam, Dead or Alive (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/03/sprj.irq.main/index.html)
CNN story : Macho talk (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/02/sprj.nitop.bush/index.html)

[Jimbo]

I agree with you Cyrus. You just must admire our confident leader. Hail to the chief!!

[andyfox]

I advise a viewing of the movie "Confidence" to see what can happen when conmen are overconfident. (Dustin Hoffman's performance is worth the price of admission.)

Dubya thinks he's John Wayne. When he gave Saddam 48 hours to get outa town, I thought he was going to end his sentence with "pilgrim."

[MMMMMM]

Aside from letting the enemy know that America lacks neither confidence nor staying power, should Dubya's remarks encourage the Baathist militants to attack sooner rather than later our forces will have greater opportunity to capture or eliminate them and to more quickly stabilize the region.

The Baathist militant remnants are the enemy of both U.S. forces and the Iraqi people as well. The faster they can be flushed out and dealt with, the better for all the good guys (both Iraqi and coalition). Thus Bush's dead-on remarks serve at least dual purpose.

[MMMMMM]

This is precisely the approach that has the greatest chance of success when dealing with cutthroats (total surprise attacks excepted). It is also, unfortunately, the only language they respect or truly understand.

[Men the Master]

Good insights, MMMMM. I agree with you that Dubya is the greatest US President ever.

[Cyrus]

George W Bush Junior is, according to poster Men The Master, "the greatest President ever!" Well that may be so, but I can't help remarking that Dubya's comments, that invite those Iraqis opposing the American occupation of Iraq to "Bring it on!" is stupid. No other word for it.

Supposedly, the U.S. is keen on making the transition to a self-governed Iraq and, for that, a modicum of peace in the country must prevail. Comments such as Dubya's macho silliness, howevr, irritate rather than smotth feathers in Iraq. While it is clear that the Americans have prevailed in combat, winning "hearts and minds" remains as always a difficult thing for Americans to do properly...

The after-the-fact (after-the-gaffe?) excuse about Dubya wanting to "flush out Baathist remnants" doesn't wash. It was a clear tactical mistake, as Congressmen who were otherwise supportive of the war pointed out. The opposition witnessed in Iraq and the small riots flaring up left and right are not the result of any "Baathist remnant" but rather the result of the gross American incompeteness to establish a minimum level of civil safety and working order in Iraqi sodiety. (As long as those towel-heads insist on not electing the gov't Washington wants to see, we will be getting more and more Somalia-like situations.)

--Cyrus

PS : I would speculate that this guy has never been in a fight ever, in his life! And if he did happen to get into a fight, someone was quick to rescue his ass I'm sure. Like pop or something. Just a hunch. (A religious wimp with a chip on his shoulder and a history of substance abuse in the Oval Room. Just brilliant.)

[Men the Master]

The macho stuff has to do with "style". George W. Bush has style. Not to be confused with substance, an area in which Bush is even more superior. Bush's tough John Wayne-like talk will bring out the bad guys from hiding so we can shoot them all down like the outlaws that they are. I agree with you, Cyrus, that Dubya is the greatest of all time. By the time his 8 year term is over, he'll have won more wars than all US Presidents put together. Bush knows that a Superpower needs to be assertive.

[Cyrus]

Sorry I didn't get it first time around.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't say Bush intended his remark to flush out the remaining diehard Baathist militants, but to the extent that may occur it would be a good result.

We want to befriend the average Iraqi. We want to capture or kill the diehard Baathist militants, and we want to prevent them from sabotaging the electric power supply.

Dubya is smarter than he may appear--even if unintentionally.

Rummy ought to consider beefing up our manpower: the lean mean high-tech approach is great for winning these little wars (or battles, rather) but we might need manpower a la the Reagan Years to occupy these countries until they get on the right track. Also, if we had an 18 division Army instead of a 10 division Army, we could surround that little gargoyle in North Korea and call his bluff while still leaving plenty of troops in Iraq and wherever else they are needed.

By the way, it doesn't matter nearly so much if regimes are unfriendly to us as long as they don't also pursue WMD or support terrorists. It's the combination that has great toxic potential and is what we must not allow.

Somalia: not a big deal overall. 9/11 was a big deal, and the plans of terrorists worldwide are a big deal. We can't win the hearts and minds of terrorists, so f^#k 'em. We can try to win the hearts and minds of the average citizens in these countries, but the militant diehards and terrorists are different altogether. We need a two-pronged approach of extending compassion and sometimes aid to Abdul Average, while flattening the terrorists and the anti-US militants as fast and hard as we can. Also needed is a widespread reform movement striking at the heart of their fanatical illogical ideologies, and at their backwards systems of government which stifle all manner of human progress.

[andyfox]

"Dubya is smarter than he may appear--even if unintentionally."

Talk about damning with feint praise (or however that expression goes). /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

There you are, M, your claim to eternity :

"Dubya is smarter than he may appear -- even if unintentionally."

[MMMMMM]

Thank you Cyrus;-)

I do hope you realize when I write things like this I do so intentionally not unintentionally;-)

Bush is sort of like a poker player who has decent analytical abilities and pretty good instincts. He might make a good, or even brilliant, play at times without being fully aware of all the reasons it is such a good play. Of course he can make a mistake too. But what I was getting at, slightly tongue in cheek, is that he's no dummy, and sometimes makes plays that are even better than he intended. He also is quite capable of playing surprisingly better than one might expect him to. I'm sure you've met similar players in your poker games;-)

[Cyrus]

"Bush is like a poker player who has decent analytical abilities and pretty good instincts. He might make a good, or even brilliant, play at times without being fully aware of all the reasons it is such a good play. He's no dummy, and sometimes makes plays that are even better than he intended."

The above is full of contradictions. A player with the abilities you ascribe to Dubya will almost always analyze the game properly. He is also aware of both his mistakes and his brilliant plays. M, you can't have it both ways! Either Dubya's a fish who lucks out on occasion or he's brilliant and has fooled everyone including you.

U.S. Presidents as poker players
Rating the Prez in foreign policy as if he was rounding.

JFK was a solid poker player, the tight-aggressive kind.

Lyndon Johnson was loose-aggressive.

Nixon he was a calling station. [Dick was a real life brilliant poker player, as numerous witnesses tesify, especially from his days in uniform.]

Gerald Ford was a classic rock. You can't get more classic rock than that, not even on AM radio.

Jimmy Carter was a classic weak-tight.

Reagan was a hustler. [Take note of Oliver Sachs important insight on Reagan and the aphasia ward patients reaction to one of Ronnie's speeches. Timeless.]

George Bush Sr was a solid player.

Bill Clinton was a sleazy, cheating, lying s.o.b. In other words, dangerous.

George W Bush Jr is a fish.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, your take is considerably off here. I didn't say Bush is a superb analyst, or that he has terrific instincts. I just said he was reasonably good in both departments. Reasonably good players often do not undertstand all the reasons why the play they made was great. In fact, as David Sklansky has repeatedly pointed out, and offered in example, some of today's top poker players do not even sometimes understand all the reasons why a certain play is correct, and they manage to win overall despite their lack of understanding in some areas. You're saying Bush is either brilliant or a fish. But what about a solid, say, B or B+ in the play and aptitude departments? I think he is, and plays, pretty good overall and that he occasionally may make a brilliant play without realizing all the ramifications (due to good instincts). That said, I also do give him credit for truly being considerably smarter than most people think.

[Cyrus]

M, in all honesty, if you were making sense I would agree or disagree with you, but you don't. Either Bushy is brilliant or a fish. You can't just claim that he's "reasonably" good and at the same time claim that he is capable of "brilliant plays".

Yes, it is true that "brilliant players", as you put it, will play brilliantly without realizing all the math or the logic behind it. Intuitive brilliance is nothing new. But note that this concerns brilliant players and not players with "B or B+ in play and aptitude". Those are average players. You have to be consistent : either he's a brilliant but inarticulate guy who will stumble onto brilliant plays without really knowing what he's doing -- or he's a fish who sometimes hits upon a lucky move.

And, since I take it that you don't particularly like the fish explanation, it's your turn to convince me that Dubya is world-class smart. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

--Cyrus

PS : I'm willing to entertain the notion of idiot savant if you're game. We can talk abt Dustin Hoffman playing Junior in the movie.

[MMMMMM]

"B" players are occasionally capable of making 'great' instead of merely 'good' plays, even if they don't understand all the reasoning behind them. Haven't you ever encountered this at the poker table? And the better their instincts, the more likely a fairly decent player is to make a great play. This can be especially distressing if, say, a "B" or "C" player who plays rather predictably somehow manages to pick the perfect time to bluff you out of a Hold'em pot or to make a knockout raise in Stud that costs you the pot. And if a predictable sort of "B" or "C" player comes up with such a play, he probably did so largely on instinct. Yet it might be a great play.

I'm not claiming Bush is brilliant, but I did read that he scored over 600 each on his Math and Verbal SATs. That's really pretty good (especially since it was before SAT score inflation set in), and if he was something of a party animal at the time (was he? I don't know), then it's even more indicative of natural ability.

I think it's more his mannerisms or something about his appearance that people latch onto and get the impression he isn't smart. Someone said it's those beady little eyes;-) His father certainly was very bright, being chief of the CIA. Wouldn't Dubya likely have inherited at least some of his father's smarts?

So there you have some evidence that Bush is smart (even if not a genius). Now: can you give me any evidence that he's stupid?

[Cyrus]

"I think it's more his mannerisms or something about his appearance that people latch onto and get the impression he isn't smart."

What to you are "mannerisms", to other people are indicators of a man's demeanor in life and overall aptitude.

"His father certainly was very bright, being chief of the CIA. Wouldn't Dubya likely have inherited at least some of his father's smarts?"

You're not seriously suggesting that intellignece is hereditary, are you?

As to Bush Sr, yes, the man was eminently qualified to be President : he had served as U.S. Ambassador (to important posts too), as head of the CIA, and as U.S. Vice President. He was also a war hero. You can't get more qualified than that. And that is not hereditary either!

"So there you have some evidence that Bush is smart (even if not a genius)."

I'm sorry, I have read all your posts carefully. I haven't seen any such evidence besides your blank dismissals of the accusations that Bush is NOT smart. Point out please again that elusive "evidence". (That bit about B players making A plays was a bit of a struggle : If a B player makes an A play, it's not because he's A-smart. And even C players make A plays, by chance.)

"Now: can you give me any evidence that [Dubya] is stupid?"

Lord, where do I begin?

I will begin with a summer reading assignment: try The Bush Dyslexicon. No, it's not yet another collection of Bush malapropisms and funny utterings. It's a serious, pre-9/11 critique of the United States President's abilities as they are tested daily on the job. (Go on, it won't hurt ya!)

[MMMMMM]

Of course intelligence is both hereditary and environmentally developed. I'm rather amazed that anyone would think it is totally unrelated to hereditary factors. Do you perhaps believe, too, that musical ability is totally unrelated to hereditary factors?

How carefully could you have read my post if you claim to have missed any evidence of Dubya's intelligence? If, as I read, he scored over 1200 on his SATs before SAT score inflation set in, that's pretty indicative of being bright, isn't it? What does Mensa require if one wishes to use their SAT scores in lieu of an IQ test? 1300 is it? Mensa will accept an SAT score of 1300 or an IQ score of 150, and Bush got an SAT score of over 1200. Not a dummy at least.

Dyslexia is not something confined to stupid persons, by the way. Some geniuses are dyslexic. It's a particular condition. Does Bush have actual or borderline dyslexia, or are you saying that he just says dumb things? Or do you know?

[Cyrus]

"Of course intelligence is both hereditary and environmentally developed."

If, by "hereditary", you're talking abt some biological make-up that facilitates intelligence, you're right. If you're talking abt the oft-encountered mumbo jumbo that an intelligent father begets intelligent children, you're off the mark. If it were so, we would have famous families of geniuses in History. We don't. We have geniuses born amidst ignorance and want. (And this applies to artists and other abilities as well: Alexander Dumas father and son were the exception, not the rule.)

"How carefully could you have read my post if you claim to have missed any evidence of Dubya's intelligence? If, as I read, he scored over 1200 on his SATs before SAT score inflation set in, that's pretty indicative of being bright, isn't it?"

No. It isn't.

SAT is not indicative of "being bright". (Being extremely able in chess, as Kasparov is, is not proof of "being bright" either. Surprised?)

"Bush got an SAT score of over 1200. Not a dummy at least."

Bush is a moron. I would classify him a little higher than a moron if he had been able to cheat on his SAT exam. Did he?

"Dyslexia is not something confined to stupid persons, by the way."

Yes, it's not just the Bushes that have it. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

(Seriously, dyslexia, by itself, implies little if anything about a person's intelligence.)

"Does Bush have actual or borderline dyslexia, or are you saying that he just says dumb things?"

Already the sinful seeds of doubt have been planted in your mind!

Just read the goddamn book. (No, it's not about some trivial form of dyslexia. We are dealing with something more severe. And if you consider the position held by the subject, something quite worrying too.)

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

No, I don't think it's off the mark. Of course some children are either smarter or stupider than their parents, and even extreme anomalies may appear, but intelligence is not entirely independent of genetic factors. Two intelligent parents are more likely to beget an intelligent child than are two stupid parents, but probably anything can happen.

I don't believe there is zero correlation between a parent's innate abilities and his/her child's innate abilities (on average): do you? Of course an intelligent father doesn't necessarily beget intelligent children, but he's at least somewhat more likely to than a stupid father.

What makes you so sure we don't have families of geniuses in history? I'm not necessarily talking super-geniuses.

The Strausses were three composers.

A bright person very well might not score 1200+ on SATs, but a stupid person almost surely wouldn't achieve that score. I don't believe you could find anyone who would genuinely score as a moron on an IQ test yet score 1200+ on their SATs. And I defy you to find a single Grandmaster in chess who is stupid, with even, say, with an IQ below average. You just aren't going to find it. There are no idiot savant Grandmasters in chess, as far as I know. They aren't all brilliantly rounded, but none of them would score as a moron on an IQ test either. And I'll bet NOBODY near Kasparov's level in chess would score anything less than 145 on an IQ test...and probably a lot higher...but that's just my guess. Bobby Fischer's IQ was reportedly in the 180-190 range.

[Cyrus]

"Of course some children are either smarter or stupider than their parents, and even extreme anomalies may appear, but intelligence is not entirely independent of genetic factors."

Please try to understand. Yet again we seem to hit a wall in our communication. Yes, genetic factors do play a role, a most crucial role in fact. No, genetic factors are not the result of hereditity, not necessarily. Can you understand the distinction between "possible" and "necessarty" as conditions go? A genetic factor can come "alive" without any apparent cause whatsoever. And certainly not because the parents had anythign like it on 'em.

"Two intelligent parents are more likely to beget an intelligent child than are two stupid parents, but probably anything can happen."

You got it. Now stay on it! Anything can happen. Check out, as a very, very small example, the genealogy of the excellingt students at U.S. colleges who are second-generation immigrants.

"Of course an intelligent father doesn't necessarily beget intelligent children, but he's at least somewhat more likely to than a stupid father."

"Somewhat" is an overstatement. But let's agree on the "miniscule".

"What makes you so sure we don't have families of geniuses in history?"

Umm, the fact that we don't, perhaps? The dozen names or so you would throw at me are dwarfed by the number of geniuses' offspring, an I don't mean super-genius, that have led ho-hum, "normal" lives.

"I don't believe you could find anyone who would genuinely score as a moron on an IQ test yet score 1200+ on their SATs."

You said yourself Bush scored high at his SAT! Q.E.D.

"And I defy you to find a single Grandmaster in chess who is stupid, with even, say, with an IQ below average. You just aren't going to find it."

I never said that strong chess players are stupid. I said that they can be stupid, with the same probability as you or me. "Being a strong chess player means ..that you're a strong chess player. Nothing more." I didn't say that. A (very strong) chess GM did.

"There are no idiot savant Grandmasters in chess, as far as I know."

There are. In fact, if you include sociability, most GMs would score very low. They are mostly socially dysfunctional. People seem to have this delusion that strong players, such as GMs, are some mathematical geniuses, that store dozens of chess "formulas" in their heads, etcetera. It just isn't that way. (Even being able to play blind simuls is no indicative of "intelligence".)

"Bobby Fischer's IQ was reportedly in the 180-190 range."

We are way off course here, the course being about Bush the Moron, but what the hell : Fischer showed the opposite of his chess alacrity and insight in almost all his other business in life; women, friends, politics, etc. Does this exhibit a "high IQ"? Not in my book. Fischer, who happens to be my chess hero of all ime, is now a recluse, mouthing off paranoid delusions about Zionist conspiracies against him. (No, that's not why I worshiped him /forums/images/icons/wink.gif )

[ACPlayer]

... I have a recollection of Dubya being proud of his C average at Yale. I am sure he would have scored better at a conservative school, like Bob Jones or something. I think he also mentioned that he felt that that was good qualifications to be President.

Any claims the Dubya's intelligence or street smares is dubious at best.

Blind faith in a leader is dumb.

[MMMMMM]

I think you're slightly changing the arguments and points each time here.

We are not talking about social skills or emotional adjustment; we're talking about scores on standardized tests. If you want to argue about redefining IQ or intelligence thats's another topic.

You dispute it when I say there are no idiot savant Grandmasters--Ok, name one. Just one. And how about idiot savant physicists, for that matter;-)?

Also, you are now admitting there is a correlation, on average, between parental intelligence and the intelligence of their offspring--perhaps as you say, a minuscule correlation--but a correlation nonetheless. So Dubya having a very bright father certainly does increase the chances that Dubya is bright as well.

I defy you to dredge up even one example of someone who legitimately scored 1200+ on their SATs while also scoring below 80 on their IQ test. It just doesn't happen. Truly stupid people can't score that high on SATs. Therefore Bush's 1200+ SAT score shows that he isn't stupid. Q.E.D.

And yes, I'm saying intelligence is defined as a combination of such things as reasoning ability, learning ability, pattern recognition, speed of thought, etc. If you want to argue about intelligence being how well-adjusted, non-neurotic, or happy someone is, that's really a separate argument. And especially here I think we're not arguing about how well-adjusted Bush is, but rather about his ability to think, reason, etc. And people who can't reason can't get 1200+s on their SATs.

[Cyrus]

"I think you're slightly changing the arguments and points each time here. We are not talking about social skills or emotional adjustment."

I'm not changing anything. My position has consistently been very clearn and very focused! Why, I defy you to find the words "social skils" and "emotional adjustment" in any of my posts in this thread.

Recapitulation of my position, in full :

*** Biological make-up is the prime factor for a person's mental development. It's the necessary basis, the sine qua non, upon which the environmental factors
(parental help, education, etc) will have a chance to build upon. (This means that no matter how one tries to learn and no matter how helpful the environment is, if the brain synapses cannot fire up properlym due to some snafu in the design, there ain't nothin' doin'.)

*** An intelligent father (or mother) is a person that chanced upon a biological make up that allowed his (or her) development into a clever human being. That particular make up has miniscule chances of being transmitted to the offspring. And I could be overstating the case when I refer to the chances as such. (This is no "average", as you say, it's just happenstance. If a bright father begets a bright kid, it's mostly happenstance. Or the effect of extremely supportive environmental factors, eg the father giving to the kid all he has. But it's not the father's genes, man.)

*** Bush Sr was no Einstein to begin with. He was no great statesman for starters. So, even on the miniscule chance you hang your hopes on, Dubya had no extra mileage from the get go.

*** The book "The Bush Dyslexicon" elaborates on the issues of both Bushes intelligence, father and son. It's an eye opener, for anyone not reading with GOP glasses.

"You dispute it when I say there are no idiot savant Grandmasters--Ok, name one. Just one. And how about idiot savant physicists, for that matter."

I brought the point abt Chess Grandmatser because you seem to have this delusion that Chess GMs are some geniuses. Read my lips : They - are - not! (And physicists are into an altogether different and much more complex discipline than Chess. What are you doing comparing physicists with Chess guys, for pete's sake?)

As to idiot savant Chess Champions, I give you... Deep Blue /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

For a human, I'd begin with (no, not with Jon Speelman /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif ) the Indian Sultan Khan, an illiterate servant at the household of Col. Umar Hayat Khan Tiwano, an army officer in charge of the horses for King George V. Sultan was the Winner of the All-Indian championship, of the Championship of the British Empire three times, and played on top board for England in 3 Chess Olympiads. He was totally uneducated. He defeated Capablanca, Nimzovich, Rubinstein and other top players. He exhibited no other indications of brightness, social skills or learning capabilities whatsoever -- beyond his extreme, intuitive and completely original competence at chess. He was also a very shy, sympathetic and unassuming person.

Of course, there are people who claim that a lot of Chess geniuses are ractually idiot savants, like Robert James Fischer (http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby02.html) , for example.

"--Truly stupid people can't score that high on SATs.
-- Bush got 1200+ at SAT.
-- Therefore Bush's score shows that he isn't stupid."

If your 1st statement is correct, then the conclusion is a paradox, since Dubya is an ass. And I mean no offense to the beloved donkeyes.

But seriously, if you wanna believe that Standardized Aptitude Tests, are indicative of a person's intelligence ...because they are standardized tests, go ahead and believe that.

--Cyrus

[nicky g]

I for one don't think Bush is a total moron, in the sense of IQ levels, despite my contempt for him. I'd probably have slacked off in college and spent my time drunk and high (well, drunker and higher) if I'd have known I could rely on my father's connections and money to give me a fine life for the rest of my days regardless of my achievements. He is a terrible speaker, but I think the main problem is not stupidity per se but that he is (or at least comes across as) incredibly, wilfully ignorant, and shamefully only there because of his connections. He has had to take a belated interest in what goes on outside the US, but I really find it incredible that a middle-aged man who had never left the Americas and clearly had little idea of the existence of the outside world until he had to as President could be thought of as qualified to be in charge of foreign policy and defence of the most powerful country in the world. His string of failures prior to becoming Presifent and the blatantly obvious fact that the Republican party was only behind him because of his father's circle's power in the party make it unbelieveable to me that people could vote for him - if not so much in the election itself, when many people are likely to vote on partisan lines, then at least in the primaries, when they could have a chosen far more able and dignified candidates (I don't mean McCain specifically - I mean pretty much anyone). It just amazes me thatpeople can take the fellow seriously when the rest of the world sees him as such a buffoon (the same goes for Italy and Berlusconi, who if anything is worse, and more dangerous though on a smaller scale). I realise there's a lot of snobbish anti-Americanism around, which I find repugnant and which upsets both my American wife and myself when we come across it in friends etc (I laughed at when Tom Haly posted surveys of people who thought they were both superior and humbler than Americans - that is exactly the attitude of a lot of people over here) - but really: EVERYONE thinks Bush is an utter joke, including a vast number of Americans. I just don't get how his supporters fail to see it. I mean he's the pampered son of the last but one President, and for the vast majority of people across the world that's the only reason he's in the White House. Do people really think the Bush family is that special? Do they not think it's pretty bad for democracy? (By the way I think absolutely the same about the idea of Hilary or Chelsea ever becoming President - God forbid). The culture of vast power concentrated with a few families/cliques seems to run against all of the best American values - it's practically medieval European - and yet seems so entrenched in the political system; I'm shocked at how relaxed people are about it.

[MMMMMM]

I think you are too much minimizing the chances that some intelligence will be passed on hereditarily.

I don't think SAT's measure intelligence as accurately as IQ tests, because SAT's also require specific knowledge of the subject material. However there is still a correlation in that they test reasoning ability along with familiarity of broad subject material.

OK, maybe you found ONE example of an idiot savant chess player--or maybe you didn't. You still haven't shown that Khan was actually very stupid in other regards--just uninterested and uneducated. Every high level chess player I have ever talked with was obviously an intelligent person with an alert mind--you can often sense these things often early in a conversation, can't you? (well at least I hope you can;-)).

It's even less likely to find someone who can't score over say 80 on an IQ test but who can score over 1200 on their SATs. I'd say that's virtually impossible. If you really think SATs have zero to do with intelligence you're wrong. A loose correlation is a very different thing than zero correlation.

Your link to the Bush Dyslexicon did not appear as a link, just as bold-faced print, so I haven't yet visited the site. However, to dispute another of your views in these areas, I don't believe that all dyslexics are stupid. Do you think there is more correlation between dyslexia and intelligence or between SAT scores and intelligence?

[MMMMMM]

nicky,

While Bush did not come to the White House with stellar recommendations, I think he has risen admirably to the challenge.

You have to be somewhat leery of world opinion. Most of the world is really pretty ignorant, backwards, and wrong. Even France had nearly 40% of the electorate split between the communist-affiliated Greens and the far-rightist, anti-semitic Le Pen. Virtually the entire Middle East, and Africa, is very backwards indeed: ruled by theocracies, monarchs and thugs. China is hard-line Communist. Most of Europe is far too socialist for its own good. Therefore it may make some sense to take world opinion with a grain of salt.

The social and political views of what were once considered the 'progressives'--that is, socialistic views for the most part--will eventually be found by even Europe to produce less GNP, and therefore less standard of living even for the masses. Redistribution destroys wealth and discourages production, while capitalism produces wealth and encourages production.

While Bush may seem somewhat uncultured to some(;-)), who would you rather have leading your country: a highly cultured gentleman who would lead you in non-productive directions, or perhaps a less sophisticated fellow who largely chooses better courses? A highly educated fool who would let unstable enemies of the free world acquire weapons of mass destruction, or a leader with the spine to take a stand before all the rogue countries in the world acquire these devices of horror?

Sometimes, plain is far better than fancy, and simple is far wiser than educated. Bush understands better than many so-called 'intellectuals' the emerging threats of the 21st century.

[Cyrus]

"Most of Europe is far too socialist for its own good."

Oh boy. And I was wondering whose turn is next.

[Cyrus]

"I for one don't think Bush is a total moron."

OK, I won't play hardcore. I agree. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Jimbo]

I find it interesting that the rest of the world outside of the United States actually seem to believe they are important. While making this assumption they then presume to suggest our chioce of leaders is poor. Since over two hundred million of us have no aspirations to become President it is not so remarkable that two people (hopefully three soon) from the same family will be elected as our nations leader. As far as Europeans "thinking" that Bush is "an utter joke" underestimating world leaders seems to be their forte. You would think they would learn from experience however tardy those lessons may be.

Insofar as choosing another Clinton for President, Chelsea would be my first choice, or maybe Roger. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

"Your link to the Bush Dyslexicon did not appear as a link, just as bold-faced print."

Are you calling me a bold faced liar (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393322963/qid=1057864791/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0088231-9927877?v=glance&s=books)?

"OK, maybe you found ONE example of an idiot savant chess player--or maybe you didn't."

You asked "for one, just one" and I found you one. Not to mention Deep Blue! Your wish was granted. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

But you seem to have a hard time understanding what this is all about. For the last time, these are the points. And I'm not obliged to make you understand, only to provide an expolanation.

-- Smart people can be good chess players more easily than non-smart people.

--Being a good (even very good) chess player does not necessrily mean that you're a smart person.

--Quite a lot of good/very good chess players have average intelligence. A few of them are downright dysfunctional in everything in life except playing chess.

--Being a dyslexic is not an indication of intelligence or lack thereof. (Where on earth did you get that?? You repeat this for the third time as if I claimed that or that it's somehow under consideration!)

--SAT scores, like any other measures of "intelligence" (define "intelligence"!) have some measure of correlation with inteligence. I never claimed that they have "zero"; just that the correlation is very weak. So weak as to be irrelevant. (Would "untrustworthy" be more to your liking?)

Take care.

[Cyrus]

"I find it interesting that the rest of the world outside of the United States actually seem to believe they are important."

Touched a nerve, did I? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif Hey, he's a moron, no big deal.

"While making this assumption they then presume to suggest our choice of leaders is poor."

Note that your most recent choice was not "your" choice at all. In Europe, this is called "stealing the election". You're catching up fast.

"It is not so remarkable that two people (hopefully three soon) from the same family will be elected as our nation's leader."

A dynasty of Bushes, hmm. King Bush III, is it?

This will legitimize my claim that he's not just a moron, he's a royal moron (http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2002/200211/20021127.html).

[Jimbo]

Moron:

1 : a mentally retarded person who has a potential mental age of between 8 and 12 years and is capable of doing routine work under supervision

Idiot:

1 : a person affected with idiocy; especially : a feebleminded person having a mental age not exceeding three years and requiring complete custodial care

Cyrus:

424?-401 B.C. THE YOUNGER Persian prince & satrap; led army into Babylonia against his brother, Artaxerxes II; defeated and killed at Cunaxa

If my choices for President are between an idiot, a moron and a Cyrus, bring on the moron. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif At least the moron is not going to get killed while attacking his brother!

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

I think the essence of our disagreements on this issue are twofold:

1) We view Bush differently;-)

2) You think the correlations we have been discussing tend to be far weaker than I do

If you agree that the above more or less summarizes our differences, I see no reason not to put this sub-thread to rest for the time being.

[Cyrus]

[Cyrus]

Let it be known, to one and all [trumpet salute], that my lowly handle has nothing to do with the name of that historical figure. Jimbo is to Jim as Cyrus is to [that's not for you to know].

"If my choices for President are between an idiot, a moron and a Cyrus, bring on the moron. At least the moron is not going to get killed while attacking his brother!"

It so happens that Cyrus, head honcho of Perses, was a great leader. Dubya the Moron has nothing on him, in either war or peace time. If you are so keen to compare Dubya the Moron with some historical figure from antiquity, try Pesestratus. I can't think of a more fitting comparison at the moment.

[nicky g]

Er, well this is a bit of a different argument, but anyway... as I understand it, while the US is the richest country in the world, it does not have the highest overall standards of living in the world - I beleive that goes to Norway, according to the UN (I know we've argued over this before, and yes the criteria are subjective - but suffice to say that the criteria used to judge such things by the UN are the ones I also regard as important). I for one would rather live in a country with universal high standards of living, low overall poverty, universal health care etc that live in the richest and most powerful country, if those were the choices. I don't understand the benefits of being rich and powerful just for the sake of it; if it's not going to be redistributed down to me, what use is it? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif Other people being fantastically rich is of little help to me.

[nicky g]

Of course we're not important but I believe we're still allowed to have opinions.

"Since over two hundred million of us have no aspirations to become President it is not so remarkable that two people (hopefully three soon) from the same family will be elected as our nations leader. "

That still leaves tens of millions of people, so I'd say it is quite strange. Even if it only left 10,000 hopefuls it would still be an obvious anomaly - why should your father being elected President increase your chances in a democratic society? How does it qualify you? As i said, that sounds like the worst of European aristocracies. Regardless, anyone else find this quite depressing? Not just from the thought of Jeb taking the reins - I mean the idea that people are happy to leave the Presidency to a small set of family-based cliques.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I got off on a bit of a tangent there.

Norway might indeed have higher overall standards of living. However forced redistributional schemes have a twofold effect that decreases overall wealth: 1) the bureaucratic process involved, the overhead, is itself costly and inefficient, and 2) the disincentive to production increases as the fruits of labor become progressively more taxed.

So while some of it may not exactly be "redistributed" to you, at least if you work very hard and earn money or invent something very useful you stand to retain a good portion of your production if you don't live in a socialistic country.

It also bothers me that many people think they have a right, or are somehow entitled, to the time--the life--of another human being--and that that should be law. If someone wants to give you of their time (life), fine, or if they want to trade their time (services) to you for value received (usually money), that's fine too. But just as you don't have the right to go to your mechanic neighbor's house and demand he fix your car for free (or else;-)), I don't think it's right for the government to forcibly take money from you in order to give it to your neighbor.

[nicky g]

It's true that redistributing is more inefficient, cuts down on a country's overall wealth, etc. But above a certain standard, I think the welfare of everyone becomes more important than the country's wealth as a whole. There's also a lot of literature (eg "Mind the Gap", by Prof Richard Wilkinson, not sure if it's available in US) on the detrimental effects on inequality on society and people's health, crime rates etc which I find quite convincing. It's a choice, really - whether you prefer opportunity and the chance to accumulate as much wealth as possible, for both yourself and your country, or whether you prefer a more balanced society with noone falling below a certain threshold. On balance, I prefer the latter, but it's a puely personal choice, I believe.

By the way, on a completely unrelated topic, I am getting really fed up with going out on the bubble in Sit and Gos. They keep finding monsters when I try to steal/semisteal, and when I finally get one of my own it's cracked. Just raised with AKs, got raised all-in by BB with 88, called, hit two kings on the flop and two of my suit by the turn, to see and 8 on the river. ARRG! Just an annoying beat story that I wanted off my chest. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[MMMMMM]

Sit and Gos? Never heard of it...?

[nicky g]

It's what Ultimatebet calls one table satellite-style tournaments. Get on the net, man /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Cyrus]

"I don't think it's right for the government to forcibly take money from you in order to give it to your neighbor."

Well, it was you that decided that !

You are the plurality of society, the votes that have decided taxes are necessary and are to be handled by your representatives.

Once upon a time, owners of small independent businesses in the New World revolted against the tyranny (read: over-taxation) of the British metropolis and the rest is History. Right after throwing off the yolk of tyranny, they gaced the task of building up their own free society, along with its buildings, roads, sewers, etcetera. And they decided that the State, i.e. their elected representatives should handle those things, albeit under close scrutiny.

Well, this is how things are still done in good ol' USA. (Minus that part abt scrutiny, naturally...)

Direct your complaints to the Founding Fathers' Sons.

[Jimbo]

"By the way, on a completely unrelated topic, I am getting really fed up with going out on the bubble in Sit and Gos. They keep finding monsters when I try to steal/semisteal, and when I finally get one of my own it's cracked. Just raised with AKs, got raised all-in by BB with 88, called, hit two kings on the flop and two of my suit by the turn, to see and 8 on the river. ARRG! Just an annoying beat story that I wanted off my chest."

I feel your pain Nicky, I played in a $30/$3 tourney on Party poker last night with 640 entrants. I outlasted 500 of them and got nada for my time. Being on the bubble (51st) would have been even worse.

[adios]

I'll jump in here as I've read some posts after this. A stated US economic goal that I was taught in economics anyway is for the US is to provide an "appropriate" redistribution of income. Also a stated US economic goal is to provide a "safety net" for those the require it. Balancing these two economic goals with other stated economic goals involves trade offs because many of these goals conflict with each other. I think it's important to understand that laissez-faire capitalism is really not the model for the US economic system IMO. Almost all economies are "mixed economies" where the mixture of free markets, economic planning and traditional economic activities vary from system to system. As you know I've brought up the issues of homelessness and now the issue of Medicare/Medicaid (which leads into a discussion probably of overall health costs and benefits) recently because I'm wondering myself if the "safety net" is adequate for the USA. You may surprised to know that I totally accept your position regarding the role of government in the economy and the argument that it may be superior to what exists in the USA today and it's worthy of discussion. I've made remarks about socialism many times hoping that someone would point out it's benefits. I prefer the US economic system but it's certainly not perfect by any means.

[nicky g]

That's harsh. Luckily these take up a lot less time, but it's happened 5 times in a row, and it's annoying to keep getting beaten by those losers /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif. They clearly think I'm some sort of maniac who can't play a lick, so I love it when I get a good hand and can go all-in and expect callers with worse/dominated hands, but they keep beating me (admittedly this one was a 50:50, but it was looking good till the river). The number of times I've raised the shortstacked big blind all-in with a medium ace to find that he has a big pocket pair is unbelievable. Ah well, I have a lot of bubble finished but have had a lot of first places too, as I'm sure have you.

[nicky g]

"You may surprised to know that I totally accept your position regarding the role of government in the economy and the argument that it may be superior to what exists in the USA today and it's worthy of discussion. "

I'm not at all surprised Tom, your posts consisently demonstrate independent thinking on a range of issues rather than blind partisan adherence to fixed positions on a left/right basis; I hope you don't think I've pigeon-holed you as an unthinking right-winger just because we disagree on some issues along left/right lines. I hope I haven't done that about anyone on the forum (maybe Dr Wogga and Parmenides, but I assume they want to be pigeon-holed :P).

I agree that of course the US is a mixed economy, as are all all economies in the developed world. Similarly, the Scandinavian countries are by no means purely socialist economies. But the extent of the mixture is obviously quite important and from my point of view, the US does not have enough of a safety net/redistributive emphasis. I remember being told what the federal government considered the acceptable minimum income for a family of 4 (ie any income above that level was considerd acceptable and not regarded as poverty) in dollar terms and being absolutely horrified; I can't remember the figure now, but it was equivalent to or less than (less than, I think) what I earn on my own, which I can live on comfortably but which isn't that much, and which I certainly couldn't support even one other person on never mind 3. This is my first proper job and I work in a pretty junior position for an NGO so you can imagine it's by no means a fortune. Possibly - I hope so- I was misinformed. I think it's fair to say, too, that the US safety net is not only lower but also a fair bit easier to fall though than in the social democratic European countries.

Of course because I beleive in higher, stronger safety nets, that's not to say I think welfare payments simply need to be increased to improve living standards - it's obviously not good to have lots of people dependent on welfare. I think there are a lot of other areas where society could give up a little profit and even efficiency in order to make the world a more egalitarian place - eg US work hours are huge compared to European ones and holidays are pretty short; while that may indeed make companies more productive and efficient, and salaries higher (there are arguments that it doesn't, but regardless), I think it's worth giving some of that up by simply employing more people and giving them more time off, thereby reducing unemployment and giving people some of their time back. (Obviously not so much that the company goes to the wall). Of course, shareholders aren't going to willingly give up efficency and profit in the name of a greater good, which is why you have strict working hour laws etc in Scandinavia etc. But I can see why that may not be a popular argument.

Of course, I am certainly not in favour of Scandinavian-style massive taxes on booze. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[nicky g]

There is also an argument to be made that I'm just lazy.

[MMMMMM]

Me too, which is why I would rather take my chances and retain the opportunity to get rich for the rest of my life--rather than be assured of working (and having to work) a "mere" 40 hours per week for the rest of my life.