[Wolfman]

So, I'm moving to what I suppose could be an interesting place politically, but vaguely considered Right Wing/Conservative. I'm going to type this up to help others understand where I'm coming from, and also heavily to help me clarify exactly where the fuck I'm coming from. I'm going to start with theory behind Left/Right Politics, policies behind Left/Right Politics, theories behind Liberal/Conservative Politics, and policies behind Liberal/Conservative Politics. To that end, Wikipedia seems to be as terrible of a place as any other to define the theories and policies of Left/Right and Liberal/Conservative.

Left/Right Theory

In politics, the Left, left-wing and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.

In politics, the Right, right-wing and rightist have been defined as acceptance or support of social hierarchy. Inequality is viewed by the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, whether it arises through traditional social differences or from competition in market economies.

I would say there can be loosely four ways (in the West) for there be some form of hierarchy: Skills, Genetics, Money, and Race/Sex/Etc. The first two I see as legitimate, the second two I see as illegitimate. Skills, as in a hard work ethic, and also advanced understanding of relevant material (math to an economist) is something that you learned: you physically went out and got it, somehow. Maybe you earned your work ethic from your parents, who made you do chores every day, or maybe from a Big Brother (the program that is), or the military, or a teacher, or whatever. One way or another, it is something you earned. The Second is genetics. A natural aptitude for math is something you and your parents have zero control over (yet, I don't want to think about gene therapy on that level yet, leave me alone). However, silver in the mine is wasted. Your natural aptitude for something means dog shit if you don't go out and pursue it, making it heavily also an issue of Skills, which is why I consider it legitimate.

Money I don't like because it is not something you earned, and is something in someone's control (that is, your parents can give you a big wad of cash and make it easier for you to go to college). Let me explain it to you this way: Imagine that I am split into two of me, Wolfman1 and Wolfman2. Everything up until this point is the same. Wolfman1 continues to pay for school with his own money, and Wolfman2 is adopted by someone who has the money to send him to school. So, I have to work (or sell plasma, or whatever) to pay for school, removing time spent studying or getting extra knowledge (reading books, volunteering, etc). With the extra funding, Wolfman2 could probably also get into a better undergrad program. So, identical start, and we'd end up with a very different ending based on access to money. This, I would say is illegitimate. The final is race. Look, I know that HHBH and Rei (atleast) are reading this, but I don't give two shits about your race theory. Simple fact is, we wouldn't have blood plasma without a highly educated black dude. Oh, and bullet proof-vests were made by a woman.

So, in short, there are some legitimate, and some illegitimate sources of hierarchy. I am fine with the legitimate sources, and wished we made them more significant, the illegitimate sources I wished we would do away with. In my support of hierarchy, I would say I'm theoretically a moderate right winger.

Left/Right Policies

OK, we all know this. Left, social programs and regulations; Right, military and generally less regulation. I think our social programs are kind of going nuts right now. Nets, Aekos and others can probably clarify/correct this, but it seems like our current unemployment problem is Frictional, meaning there is a mish-mash of skills and experience of the unemployed, with the needs of the employers. Extending unemployment benefits will not help this. What will help this is funding for reeducation programs. Locally, there is a high demand for welders, but none of the unemployed are welders. An alternative/supplement to unemployment benefits is to offer training as welders. Holy shit, we're solving the problem! And generally speaking, I'm not sure how much I support unemployment insurance past about 8 months. Similarly, I'm unsure about welfare. I'd like some kind of "you cannot be on more then this many months in your life" kind of thing, with exceptions for both of those for the physically/mentally handicapped.

And yes, I do like the military. I'd like it if we moved to having a lower number on Active Duty and a higher number on Reserve Duty, with the same total numbers. So, instead of 1 million Active, 1 million Reserve, maybe 250K Active, 1.75 million Reserve. We would still have troops for minor conflicts and to start a major offensive conflict or hold off an invasion while Reserve units are Activated.

However, I don't think that Left/Right is an appropriate division when examining policy. The above simplification of Left/Right policies into social vs. military spending I think is incorrect because it leaves out infrastructure. I've previously been hawkish about the need for infrastructure development, and guess what, I'm about to be again. Our national infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be replaced. We have large unemployment. One can be used to fix the other. So, rebuilding/building our infrastructure can accomplish Leftist goals. And since the military often needs that same infrastructure to get around (moving troops/gear from coast to coast for exercises, etc), it would also benefit the military. Holy tits, I'm making everyone happy. I don't know if you would consider that Syncretic, or something else, but my major spending policy would be on infrastructure developments, and on Left/Right I could be considered probably Right Wing by my desire to withdraw/limit our social programs.

Additionally, from the article on Centre-Left:
...supports moderate measures to reduce the gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours, laws to ensure workers' right to organize. The centre-left, unlike the far-left, typically claims that equality of outcome is not possible, but that equal opportunity improves social equality in society

And the article on Centre-Right:
The centre-right also referred to as the moderate right, describes adherence to views whose views leaning to the right but close to the centre on the left-right political spectrum. The centre-right involves the acceptance of a degree of hierarchy in society. The centre right claims that inferior quality behaviour, such as laziness and decadence, will lead people to inferior situations in comparison to others. The contemporary centre right, unlike the far-right, usually claims that this is not innate and that people can end their behavioural inferiority through changing their habits and choices of behaviour.

I love em both.

Liberalism/Conservatism in Theory
Both can be divided loosely into Social and Cultural Liberalism/Conservatism. In defining Social Conservativism, wikipedia writes (numbering my own):
... [A] number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for puritanical morality and traditional family values, often based on a specific understanding of Abrahamist values, and opposition to sexual permissiveness(1).

As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia(2), embryonic stem cell research(3), and abortion(4); oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;(5) support abstinence-only education(6), gun ownership(7) and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage(8); support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs(9); oppose prostitution(10), gay adoption(11), premarital sex(12), and non-marital sex(13); and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency(14). Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools(15), but this is not necesarily integral to a socially conservative stance.
Social Liberalism can thus be defined as the opposite of these.
The following, I agree with: 7, 9, 10
The following, I disagree with: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
4: I'd like to emphasize ways to prevent the need for abortion in the first place, and allow for non-government funded abortion
5. I don't know, or care to think about it.

So, Socially Liberal, with some Conservative Elements.

Cultural Conservatism is defined as:
[T]he preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries. Other variants of cultural conservatism are concerned with culture attached to a given language such as Arabic.

Aside from my previously stated support for Gay Rights and indifference to religion broadly, and opposition to religion in government, I am supportive of Cultural Conservatism.

I guess that would make me somewhat of a Liberal Conservative.

I have more (much more) I want to write, but I need sleep soon. I'll probably get more of this done on Monday. If there is anything in particular the like three people reading this want me to go over, say so and I'll do that as soon as I get around to it.

[Rainbow Crow]

You could try being a traditionalist who confuses everyone by combining social bigotry with centrism. It's nice up here in my ivory tower.

[Dr House]

OK, we all know this. Left, social programs and regulations; Right, military and generally less regulation. I think our social programs are kind of going nuts right now. Nets, Aekos and others can probably clarify/correct this, but it seems like our current unemployment problem is Frictional, meaning there is a mish-mash of skills and experience of the unemployed, with the needs of the employers.

This is insanely inaccurate. There are currently 3.5 people for every job available -- meaning that job market optimization (what you're proposing) would still leave over eight million people out on the street. And that's not even including discouraged workers, or underemployed people. The U-6 unemployment rate is currently just under 15%, meaning there are in fact six people who're short-term unemployed, long-term unemployed, and underemployed, for every job available.

Anyway, by American standards you still seem left-wing. Possibly Clintonite or something.

You could try being a traditionalist who confuses everyone by combining social bigotry with centrism. It's nice up here in my ivory tower.

The problem being he does not appear to be a traditionalist.

[Rainbow Crow]

There are currently 3.5 people for every job available

Shouldn't the unemployment rate be like 80% then?

[Dr House]

Shouldn't the unemployment rate be like 80% then?

Sorry, I should have said 3.5 people per job vacancy.

[Daktoria]

I would say there can be loosely four ways (in the West) for there be some form of hierarchy: Skills, Genetics, Money, and Race/Sex/Etc. The first two I see as legitimate, the second two I see as illegitimate. Skills, as in a hard work ethic, and also advanced understanding of relevant material (math to an economist) is something that you learned: you physically went out and got it, somehow. Maybe you earned your work ethic from your parents, who made you do chores every day, or maybe from a Big Brother (the program that is), or the military, or a teacher, or whatever. One way or another, it is something you earned. The Second is genetics. A natural aptitude for math is something you and your parents have zero control over (yet, I don't want to think about gene therapy on that level yet, leave me alone). However, silver in the mine is wasted. Your natural aptitude for something means dog shit if you don't go out and pursue it, making it heavily also an issue of Skills, which is why I consider it legitimate.

Money I don't like because it is not something you earned, and is something in someone's control (that is, your parents can give you a big wad of cash and make it easier for you to go to college). Let me explain it to you this way: Imagine that I am split into two of me, Wolfman1 and Wolfman2. Everything up until this point is the same. Wolfman1 continues to pay for school with his own money, and Wolfman2 is adopted by someone who has the money to send him to school. So, I have to work (or sell plasma, or whatever) to pay for school, removing time spent studying or getting extra knowledge (reading books, volunteering, etc). With the extra funding, Wolfman2 could probably also get into a better undergrad program. So, identical start, and we'd end up with a very different ending based on access to money. This, I would say is illegitimate. The final is race. Look, I know that HHBH and Rei (atleast) are reading this, but I don't give two shits about your race theory. Simple fact is, we wouldn't have blood plasma without a highly educated black dude. Oh, and bullet proof-vests were made by a woman.

I'm completely baffled by this.

One, you support genetics, but not race?

Two, you support meritocracy, but don't like money because it's in someone's control?

OK, we all know this. Left, social programs and regulations; Right, military and generally less regulation. I think our social programs are kind of going nuts right now. Nets, Aekos and others can probably clarify/correct this, but it seems like our current unemployment problem is Frictional, meaning there is a mish-mash of skills and experience of the unemployed, with the needs of the employers. Extending unemployment benefits will not help this. What will help this is funding for reeducation programs. Locally, there is a high demand for welders, but none of the unemployed are welders. An alternative/supplement to unemployment benefits is to offer training as welders. Holy shit, we're solving the problem! And generally speaking, I'm not sure how much I support unemployment insurance past about 8 months. Similarly, I'm unsure about welfare. I'd like some kind of "you cannot be on more then this many months in your life" kind of thing, with exceptions for both of those for the physically/mentally handicapped.

And yes, I do like the military. I'd like it if we moved to having a lower number on Active Duty and a higher number on Reserve Duty, with the same total numbers. So, instead of 1 million Active, 1 million Reserve, maybe 250K Active, 1.75 million Reserve. We would still have troops for minor conflicts and to start a major offensive conflict or hold off an invasion while Reserve units are Activated.

However, I don't think that Left/Right is an appropriate division when examining policy. The above simplification of Left/Right policies into social vs. military spending I think is incorrect because it leaves out infrastructure. I've previously been hawkish about the need for infrastructure development, and guess what, I'm about to be again. Our national infrastructure is crumbling and needs to be replaced. We have large unemployment. One can be used to fix the other. So, rebuilding/building our infrastructure can accomplish Leftist goals. And since the military often needs that same infrastructure to get around (moving troops/gear from coast to coast for exercises, etc), it would also benefit the military. Holy tits, I'm making everyone happy. I don't know if you would consider that Syncretic, or something else, but my major spending policy would be on infrastructure developments, and on Left/Right I could be considered probably Right Wing by my desire to withdraw/limit our social programs.

This is the exact problem with modern politics, not just conservatism. People are addicted to believing that who you are is only as relevant as you're productive.

If you think happiness comes from work, then you're a masochistic slave who's just trying to appear better than the next guy. Why do we need welders and infrastructure? Just because?

I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture.

Both can be divided loosely into Social and Cultural Liberalism/Conservatism. In defining Social Conservativism, wikipedia writes (numbering my own):
... [A] number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for puritanical morality and traditional family values, often based on a specific understanding of Abrahamist values, and opposition to sexual permissiveness(1).

As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia(2), embryonic stem cell research(3), and abortion(4); oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;(5) support abstinence-only education(6), gun ownership(7) and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage(8); support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs(9); oppose prostitution(10), gay adoption(11), premarital sex(12), and non-marital sex(13); and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency(14). Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools(15), but this is not necesarily integral to a socially conservative stance.
Social Liberalism can thus be defined as the opposite of these.
The following, I agree with: 7, 9, 10
The following, I disagree with: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
4: I'd like to emphasize ways to prevent the need for abortion in the first place, and allow for non-government funded abortion
5. I don't know, or care to think about it.

This is extremely bizarre. It's like you're deliberately doing anything and everything possible to make life a hassle by forcing people to struggle rather than caring about intergenerational duty of care...

...so for example, say someone has a kid out of wedlock. That kid is disposed towards becoming a social reject because of lacking dimorphic expertise not to mention the haphazard attitude of said parents from not getting married.

The kid can't even smoke weed or pay to get laid, and becomes stuck in a vicious cycle of failure.

You'll probably say that said parents would likely have an abortion, but the point is any kids which ARE born are prone to be born out of wedlock BECAUSE abortion discourages paying attention to the subjectivity of personhood.

I wouldn't be surprised if you supported giving kids up to state funded orphanages either, and then directly enlisting said kids in the military.

You might as well be cloning soldiers for the army. I don't see anything conservative about that - just brutal militarism. You're not even defending a nation. You're just propagating defense.

[ray188]

Wolfman - I do believe that you hit the nail on the head regarding the main left-right split.

As a going in position, I believe that we can agree that an acknowledged reality on both sides is that disparities exist. Where the split occurs is what to do about it. As you accurately stated, the right accepts such as natural while the left feels compelled to fix it. And, therein lies the problem.

By "fixing" such perceived "problems" control is required. So, the question comes down to how much control will be permitted - or, how much freedom will we surrender to Washington (and other) bureaucrats in order to have them fix problems that they define?

[Wolfman]

You could try being a traditionalist who confuses everyone by combining social bigotry with centrism. It's nice up here in my ivory tower.

You're such a goober.

There are currently 3.5 people for every job available -- meaning that job market optimization (what you're proposing) would still leave over eight million people out on the street. And that's not even including discouraged workers, or underemployed people. The U-6 unemployment rate is currently just under 15%, meaning there are in fact six people who're short-term unemployed, long-term unemployed, and underemployed, for every job available.

U6 includes people who are not employed and have no interest in seeking employment though. The 3.4 million open jobs would put a significant dent in that and put us much closer to a normal rate of unemployment.

Possibly Clintonite or something

Oh fuck off.

[Jackal]

I agree with Blue Puppy. Join us in the ivory tower of Traditionalism. Copies of Revolt Against the Modern World and cups of coffee are free.

As you stated yourself, your current political views are interesting.

Left/Right Theory

Your exemption of money and race, which arguably shares a very fine line with genetics, from hierarchy is questionable. The message I am understanding is that hierarchy must be based on one of the four you listed. What is wrong with a combination of (all of) them? I think you have the basis of meritocracy down, but I feel you need to evolve this basis to learn that its application is not so cut and dry. I also think the maintenance of money is a skill, since so many who make money blow it all away and live paycheck to paycheck when they do not really have to.


Liberal conservatism may fit you.

[Wolfman]

I agree with Blue Puppy. Join us in the ivory tower of Traditionalism. Copies of Revolt Against the Modern World and cups of coffee are free.

I don't drink coffee. And while I have no problem with the theories of Fascism, the actual history of it makes me laugh.

Your exemption of money and race, which arguably shares a very fine line with genetics, from hierarchy is questionable. The message I am understanding is that hierarchy must be based on one of the four you listed. What is wrong with a combination of (all of) them? I think you have the basis of meritocracy down, but I feel you need to evolve this basis to learn that its application is not so cut and dry. I also think the maintenance of money is a skill, since so many who make money blow it all away and live paycheck to paycheck when they do not really have to.

I am not saying that hierarchy must be based on only one of those four things, but that hierarchy is always based on atleast one of those four things, and I consider hierarchy based on money other then your own and your race/sex to be illegitimate. I hinted at it, but I suppose was not direct enough at my explanation of why I consider money an illegitimate. If you yourself worked hard and earned a large sum of money and maintained that, that's good. It is the product of your skills and genetics (genetics probably better termed "aptitude", but its too late at this point) that earned you that money, and it is their reason you continued to have that money. What I am saying is illegitimate is you gaining access to a college or a work place based on the money of someone else, such as your parents. My grades and school history would prevent me from attending Harvard, and if a child of Warren Buffet had the same school history and grades, he should be prevented from attending Harvard as well, but that would not happen, because Warren would give them a large sum of money to take him anyways. And that child shouldn't be made CEO of Berkshire Hathaway just because of who is daddy is. He should have some actual fucking qualifications for the job.

[Jackal]

My grades and school history would prevent me from attending Harvard, and if a child of Warren Buffet had the same school history and grades, he should be prevented from attending Harvard as well, but that would not happen, because Warren would give them a large sum of money to take him anyways. And that child shouldn't be made CEO of Berkshire Hathaway just because of who is daddy is. He should have some actual fucking qualifications for the job.

However, both Harvard and Berkshire Hathaway are private institutions. So you support such a high regulation of private sector on who they can and cannot select to fill their classrooms and run their companies? Also, CEOs have to answer to boards and I would say that most CEOs have some sort of qualifying factors that would appease these boards because, after all, they are not going to risk the future of the company because Mr. Spoiled-Brat Jr. is Mr. Spoiled-Brat Sr.'s son.

Where does it end? I attended a private, Catholic prep school all my life. Will it now not be allowed to deny Jewish and Protestant students? Same goes for other religious private schools.

[Wolfman]

However, both Harvard and Berkshire Hathaway are private institutions. So you support such a high regulation of private sector on who they can and cannot select to fill their classrooms and run their companies? Also, CEOs have to answer to boards and I would say that most CEOs have some sort of qualifying factors that would appease these boards because, after all, they are not going to risk the future of the company because Mr. Spoiled-Brat Jr. is Mr. Spoiled-Brat Sr.'s son.

I was really only using that as an example of the concept. For private institutions discriminating on money is something I would say should be tackled with a large dose "for shame!", and discriminating on race/sex is something which already has ways to be dealt with.

[Wolfman]

Position Part 2:

I'm kind of going all over the place. Today: Environmentalism, Feminism, and Nationalism.

Environmentalism:

I'm aware that plenty of people, especially on the Conservative/Right Wing, deny the impacts of Global Warming, but I have this strange fascination with this thing called "science", which says that Global Warming is happening. So, I'm going to say it is happening, and then look at their suggestions on how to deal with it. Having said that, there are plenty of issues other then carbon emissions which also need to be dealt with. Broadly speaking, I'm a Bright Green environmentalist, meaning I see there being environmental problems, and that these can (and should) be fixed by the adaption and development of technology.

* Global Warming: Shits happening. We need to reduce our Carbon Emissions. We can do this in countless ways from the local to the transnational level. Mass transit, alternative fuel sources, higher fuel efficiency,

* Other Emissions: There are other pollutants then CO2 which are given off by fossil fuels, and are poisonous to humans. Nitrates of Oxygen come to mind. While I am not aware of any way of dealing with that, I'm quite sure that someone out there has thought of ways to deal with it.

* Conservation: You like hunting, camping, and fishing? Well, you need hunting and fishing licenses, enforcement of them, and conservation of our wild places. The wholesale destruction of forests for private use will destroy your ability to hunt.

* Sustainable Energy Use: Fossil Fuels are limited. We wont always have them. We cannot make our economy completely dependent on a fuel source that is going to run up. Even if we want to ignore the science of global warming, we're going to need some alternative.

* Sustainable Resource: Recycling. We need it. We need to use it more.

I'm sure there's plenty more, but I don't quite feel up to it at the moment.

Feminism:

I think at this point in the US most of the issues have been resolved, are being resolved, or there are legal methods to resolve ongoing issues (such as sexual harassment in the workplace). I have sympathies for Liberal, Standpoint, and Material Feminism. Additionally, I'm supportive of gay marriage, adoption, repeal of anti-sodomy laws and allowing gays in the military.

Nationalism:

I actually am a Nationalist. There's a certain flow of logic to it, which I don't care to get into at the moment, but in short, I believe that every person has a moral obligation to act in the best interest of their country, and would define a just law as one which punishes immoral actions, and an unjust law as one which punishes morally neutral actions, or moral actions. Since the US has no native ethnic identity (I'm aware of 'Ethnic Americans', but I think that is rather a joke) I see no reason to ban immigration in limited amounts as long as the immigrants act in national interest.

I feel like there was more I wanted to say, but holy shit am I worn out and not in the fucking mood.

[Social_Critic]

You coud try writing a lot less to explain what you mean, because by the time I got to the third paragraph I forgot what the thing was about. This made me go back to the top and start reading it again.

But eventually I figured out I had to get organized, and I got me a large pack of 5 by 7 Indez cards where I jotted your thoughts, then filled in my comments in the back. By the time I finished I had 384 cards, so I had them typed by my assistant and three hole punched and I packaged them into a Yellow Book called "Position for Dummies", which you can buy from amazon if you want.

[Dr House]

U6 includes people who are not employed and have no interest in seeking employment though.

No it doesn't.

U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

Everyone counted in every unemployment calculation is interested in seeking employment. The difference is that broader calculations include people who can and want to work, but aren't actively looking for work.

The 3.4 million open jobs would put a significant dent in that and put us much closer to a normal rate of unemployment.

Any number of unemployed people above the number of open jobs available, any at all, equals structural unemployment. If every job posted is filled, there will still be a significant chunk of the labor force out of work, which is exactly what structural fucking unemployment is. Ergo, your statement that most unemployment in the US is frictional is wrong and really retarded.

Since the US has no native ethnic identity (I'm aware of 'Ethnic Americans', but I think that is rather a joke)

Well, ethnicity is pretty much the racialization of a cultural category -- it amounts to the following criteria: A common culture, language and/or religion that can be identified as native to a certain group of people, plus an appearance sufficiently similar to that group of people to be accepted amongst them. A native ethnic group is one that has lived in a certain location long enough to recognize it as their homeland, to the exclusion of all of their other ancestral homes. In the US, there are in fact three ethnic groups that can be known as such, and that can claim to be native: WASPs (along with other whites assimilated to American WASP culture), African Americans, and American Indians. A number of other minor immigrant groups have assimilated to one of these -- most notably the American Japanese community, some South Asian groups, and Miami Cubans, have assimilated to American white culture. Likewise, many Caribbean immigrants have largely assimilated to American black culture. Mexicans are not native and have not assimilated to any American native ethnicity.

[Wolfman]

Everyone counted in every unemployment calculation is interested in seeking employment. The difference is that broader calculations include people who can and want to work, but aren't actively looking for work.

Then I'm counted in U6 as unemployed even though I only bare about seeking employment.

Any number of unemployed people above the number of open jobs available, any at all, equals structural unemployment. If every job posted is filled, there will still be a significant chunk of the labor force out of work, which is exactly what structural fucking unemployment is. Ergo, your statement that most unemployment in the US is frictional is wrong and really retarded.

Not strictly speaking. Alot of people who lost their jobs lost their jobs because it was moved overseas. If you have loads of experience working in a call center, and can no longer find a a job, a big part of that is probably because you don't have any relevant skills. So even if there was more then enough available jobs, you wont find one. Employers know that the unemployed don't have the needed skills, so they aren't posting all the positions they might need. The real number of positions that might be needed is probably about the difference in positions from 2007 and today.

[Social_Critic]

Maybe I'll open a call center where Hindi speaking Americans can answer calls for help from India. That's my revenge for the dozens of times I was "helped" by the call center types in Bangalore and Amritsar who couldn't tell me if the local Starbuck's parking lot had any empty spaces.

[Wolfman]

What fucking relevance does this have to anything? Why the fuck are you in this thread?

[harpinche]

What makes a person make up their mind before they hear views on some political subjects? I've heard a lot of stories about people who say they're left and right, liberal and conservative. I'm looking for a real and wise answer that really demonstrates a rational reason between politicians and people and why they make the decisions they make if it's for the good or the not-so-great of people.
I understand a person cannot seem weak or flimsy in a political position and their decisions must be firm. I don't believe that love is a game, but I'm starting to believe politics or more of a game to keep a standing than anything else. Is there anything anybody can speak on the subject for me?

[Wolfman]

I'm going to explain why I'm a feminist, and I'm going to do so in evolutionary terms. As far as I'm aware, we do not know about the population of human tribes in the paleolithic times, but we can assume that they would be roughly similar to modern hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Hadza and the Mbuti peoples, both of which live in extended family groups of 20-30 or 15-60 (respectively), with an upper limit broadly being probably around the human Dunbar Number of 150. I've done some looking, but I cannot find any information on age demographics for hunter-gatherer societies, so I'm going to assume the number of non-combatants due to age is roughly 34%, which is roughly what the break down is for modern society. This wont be exactly right, of course. The number of younglies is going to be higher in a hunter-gatherer society, and old would start in the mid to late 30s, but 34% is probably as close of a guess as I can get without conducting a lot of anthropological research I don't care to do. I'm also going to assume that 50% of the band if male, and 50% if female (though I know that this is probably inaccurate). Because I'm lazy, I'm going to work with a band that has those age and sex demographics and a population of 100. So, when we eliminate people do to age, we have 64 people, half of them being men. So, we have 32 people protecting and hunting for another 68 people.

Let's say that every member of this tribe needs to eat an average 2,000 calories (a rough estimate for adults and children). In the unlikely situation of every male of the tribe being able to hunt at the same time (no one out of commission due to injury or illness) we have 32 people needing to bring in 200,000 calories daily, or an average of one hunter bringing in 6,250 calories, made all the more difficult by the inevitable risk of injury or illness. Then add in defending the band from hungry predators. Unlikely, yes, but still possible. Now the guys who just got done chasing dinner over 20 miles in triple digit weather have to fight off a hungry lion. Or maybe, if they're lucky, they get to fight off the warriors from another band. So, reasonably, we should expect that males and females to do these things together. Instead of 32 out hunting and fending off predators and enemies, you have 64. You have more people to swap out to deal with injury and illness, and you don't have the same guys doing the hunting day in and day out and deal with the defense of the tribe and so on.

And here is a source that talks about exactly what I just said:
"About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."

So, from our conclusion that males and females would participate similarly in the hunt and in defense we should evolve with similar abilities related to hunting and fighting. Now, reasonably, the women would hunt less then the men, but that has to do with being pregnant and raising small children (breastfeeding, and all), this would explain any minor difference in males and females in relevant abilities, as does the wider set hips of women (which reduces running ability and increases risk of injury but make giving birth easier). So, there's reason to believe similarities between men and women in intelligence. And yes, men and women do have pretty much the same IQ, with Dave admitting that the difference is atmost 3 points. Fun fact: since IQ has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 points, a difference of 3 points is insignificant. There's a formula I could use to prove statistically that the difference is insignificant, but I am lazy as shit. Now, there are some differences in men and women in the mind, and while they alter the way we hunt, they do not hinder us in our hunting.

Now, intelligence is important in hunting and fighting for countless reasons. Knowing how to track, which animal to go after, how to hide, how to cover your scent, how to camouflage yourself, where the weak spots on the animal are, when to hit, what to hit with, and so on. In group hunting and fighting, it requires coordination, communication, strategy, planning, and so on. As much as some of us may doubt it, hunting and fighting does require a lot of intelligence. A common theory about how and why we developed our mental capacities, language, tool making abilities, and even religion has to do with this hunting.

On a more physical level is the already talked about persistence hunting. This is the origin of the Endurance Runner Hypothesis of human evolution. This explains the following world records:
Marathon (26 miles): Male, 2 hours 3 minutes; female 2 hours 15 minutes. A difference of less then 30 seconds per mile.
Half Marathon (13 miles): Male, 58 minutes; Female, 1 hour 8 minutes.. Again, a difference of less then 30 per mile.
10K (6.2 miles): Male 26 minutes; Female 30 minutes. Difference of less then 30 seconds per mile.
5K (3.1 miles): Male, 12 minutes 37 seconds; Female its 14 minutes 11 seconds, a difference of less then 30 seconds per mile
1 Mile: Male, 3 minutes 43 seconds; Female, 4 minutes 12 seconds. Say it with me folks, a difference of less then 30 seconds.

So, short version: Differences exist in run times in male and female, with the differences being consistently about 30 seconds per mile. Now, an alternative to the Endurance Runner Hypothesis exists, called the Aquatic Ape Theory. It's the minority theory, and I'm not sure if I believe it myself, but if it's true we should see similar insignificant differences in world record swim times in males and females. Now, I'm feeling lazy, so at this point instead of going out and hunting down world record times for different swimming competitions and instead use the gold medal results from the 2008 Summer Olympics.

50 m freestyle: 21.30/24.06 (2.5 seconds)
100 m freestyle: 47.21/53.12 (6 seconds)
200 m freestyle: 1:42.96/1:54.82 (12 seconds)
400 m freestyle: 3:41.86/4:03.22 (22 seconds)
1500 m freestyle: This I wont use, as in females it is an 800 m freestyle
100 m backstroke: 52.54/58.96 (6 seconds)
200 m backstroke: 1:53.94/2:05.24 (11 seconds)
100 m breaststroke: 58.91/1:05.17 (6 seconds)
200 m breaststroke: 2:07.64/2:20.22 (13 seconds)
100 m butterfly: 50.58/56.73 (6 seconds)
200 m butterfly: 1:52.03/2:04.18 (12 seconds)
200 m individual medley: 1:54.23/2:08.45 (14 seconds)
400 m individual medley: 4:03.84/4:29.45 (26 seconds)
4×100 m freestyle relay: 3:08.24/3:33.76 (25 seconds)
4×200 m freestyle relay: 6:58.56/7:44.31 (46 seconds)
4×100 m medley relay: 3:29.34/3:52.69 (23 seconds)
10 km marathon: 1:51:51.6/1:59:27.7 (about 8 minutes)

So, the difference is consistently about 6 seconds per 100 meters, with the differences increasing as length increases.

Anyways, there you go. In evolutionary terms we are probably meant to be as equal as possible in physical and mental abilities, which is verified by remaining hunter-gatherer societies, IQ results, and performance in various length runs (with the differences becoming more insigificant over distance, explained by the Endurance Running Hypothesis) and minor differences in swim times.

So, as far as I'm concerned gender inequality is not only stupid and counter to the evidence that I just spent an assload of time presenting, but it is counter to our evolution. Thank you, have a nice day.