I was given access to all of my bank's delinquent loans today. All of them.
Then, out of curiosity, I looked up the total salary for the New York Giants in the past fiscal year. All of our outstanding loans still only amount to 90% of that one year salary. These are football players. They get paid this to play a game.
I sat there and contemplated this for a few minutes, and then I walked to the bathroom and cried.
Sometimes I hate living in this goddamn country.
Then, out of curiosity, I looked up the total salary for the New York Giants in the past fiscal year. All of our outstanding loans still only amount to 90% of that one year salary. These are football players. They get paid this to play a game.
I sat there and contemplated this for a few minutes, and then I walked to the bathroom and cried.
Sometimes I hate living in this goddamn country.
the new york giants salary is $136,255,746.
source: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/new-york-gi … lary/67056
if your bank's delinquent loans are 90% of the team's salary they should be about $122,630,171.40. the united states defense budget is $661,049,000,000.
source: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4
the loans are 0.018550844% of this. I don't think football is the problem.
source: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/new-york-gi … lary/67056
if your bank's delinquent loans are 90% of the team's salary they should be about $122,630,171.40. the united states defense budget is $661,049,000,000.
source: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4
the loans are 0.018550844% of this. I don't think football is the problem.
I agree. I don't much want to live in the country everyone hates, either.
Ok, that's unfair. I like a lot of things about living here. But our spending of money is not among those things.
Spend it on NASA I say!
another interesting one: this paper from the federation of american scientists says we've spent $751,000,000,000 from september 11th, 2001 through fiscal year 2010 (ended september 30th, 2010) on the iraq war. that's $227,162,734.42 per day.
this other paper published in 2005 by the national bureau of economic research and available in pirated form on some libertarian economist blog says the spending as of december 30, 2005 was $251,000,000,000. that's $159,770,846.59 per day from 9-11.
the american friends service committee publicized the figure $720,000,000/day based on that paper, but I assume they took into account the future spending detailed in the paper.
either way, our rate of spending in 2005 and now is higher per day than the delinquent loans!
I just spent like 45 minutes making this post. I'm not sure why.
edit: because it was fun. oh, and I cheated with this to get the durations between 9-11 and those other dates.
edit2: ok I kind of want a preview feature.
this other paper published in 2005 by the national bureau of economic research and available in pirated form on some libertarian economist blog says the spending as of december 30, 2005 was $251,000,000,000. that's $159,770,846.59 per day from 9-11.
the american friends service committee publicized the figure $720,000,000/day based on that paper, but I assume they took into account the future spending detailed in the paper.
either way, our rate of spending in 2005 and now is higher per day than the delinquent loans!
I just spent like 45 minutes making this post. I'm not sure why.
edit: because it was fun. oh, and I cheated with this to get the durations between 9-11 and those other dates.
edit2: ok I kind of want a preview feature.
however, the average yearly salary for an nfl player would only drop from $2,005,630.77
to $1,933,325.25 if the money to pay those loans were deducted from one year's salaries.
to $1,933,325.25 if the money to pay those loans were deducted from one year's salaries.
Yeah. :(
I appreciate your research! I realize my bank is tiny compared to the 'big fish' out there with single, billion-dollar loans, but looking at those numbers still makes me sick to my stomach thinking about all the people that could be helped if frivolous spending was eliminated.
I don't know what to think about the amount spent on the war. I'm not sure where all of that money really goes (how much to hospital bills, families, etc?), so I'm trying to feel reluctant about loathing those dollar figures. But it's hard.
I appreciate your research! I realize my bank is tiny compared to the 'big fish' out there with single, billion-dollar loans, but looking at those numbers still makes me sick to my stomach thinking about all the people that could be helped if frivolous spending was eliminated.
I don't know what to think about the amount spent on the war. I'm not sure where all of that money really goes (how much to hospital bills, families, etc?), so I'm trying to feel reluctant about loathing those dollar figures. But it's hard.
I'm not suggesting a current strategy for iraq; I'm not convinced that leaving the country is justifiable at this point. but I still think it's pretty shameful that more people in the media and government didn't see through the case for it to begin with.
asemisldkfj
question, this is one I toss at everyone who criticizes the iraq invasion...
Are you familiar with UN Resolution 260 on Genocide?
question, this is one I toss at everyone who criticizes the iraq invasion...
Are you familiar with UN Resolution 260 on Genocide?
Well we signed up to the UN and we basically said that as a member we would act when we knew that genocide was occurring. We have / had an obligation to do so. Was it wrong to invade Iraq if the reason for doing so was to punish genocide?
I know you can say "but we didn't here here and here", that would be a straw man argument. So let's avoid that for the time being.
I know you can say "but we didn't here here and here", that would be a straw man argument. So let's avoid that for the time being.
we didn't give a shit at the time and that wasn't even the main rationale for an invasion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17i … _ed3_.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/15/world/us-sa … n-gas.html
even if you wanted to make a case for the invasion based on that, the invasion itself was arguably illegal based on:
article 51 here says
there was really no case that the invasion of iraq was done in self-defense, and either way it's pretty impossible to find a connection between iraq and 9-11. if the US wanted to push for a trial of hussein or members of the ba'ath party for some type of war crimes, this should have been done through the UN. instead, colin powell showed them a drawing of a mobile chemical weapons lab that didn't even exist and made up some bullshit about an active nuclear weapons program.
how badly iraq is fucked up today I think is a testament to our shortsightnedness in taking such a unilateral approach to the war. and frankly the caliber of the evidence used to justify it is weak as shit. I saw through all this crap when I was 15.
any way, the prevention or punishment of genocide was never really a tenet—or a central one anyway—of the case for invasion. if this had been a motivating factor, I think that the actions, war plans, etc. of Bush and everyone else involved, along with the outcome, would have been vastly different.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17i … _ed3_.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/15/world/us-sa … n-gas.html
even if you wanted to make a case for the invasion based on that, the invasion itself was arguably illegal based on:
-article 2, paragraph 4 here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtmlAll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
article 51 here says
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
there was really no case that the invasion of iraq was done in self-defense, and either way it's pretty impossible to find a connection between iraq and 9-11. if the US wanted to push for a trial of hussein or members of the ba'ath party for some type of war crimes, this should have been done through the UN. instead, colin powell showed them a drawing of a mobile chemical weapons lab that didn't even exist and made up some bullshit about an active nuclear weapons program.
how badly iraq is fucked up today I think is a testament to our shortsightnedness in taking such a unilateral approach to the war. and frankly the caliber of the evidence used to justify it is weak as shit. I saw through all this crap when I was 15.
any way, the prevention or punishment of genocide was never really a tenet—or a central one anyway—of the case for invasion. if this had been a motivating factor, I think that the actions, war plans, etc. of Bush and everyone else involved, along with the outcome, would have been vastly different.
Well from what I've read if we had argued 260, we would have won. Assuming the US could argue in some alternate history in another plane of existence... that Iraq was the victim of genocide and was able to argue that Sadam should stand trial for his crimes...
Would you shout that down? And if so, why?
I mean I get that the reasons cited in the Bush days were largely bogus, at the very least highly misleading. But, to say there was NO reason to go to Iraq, is simply wrong. The question is, were there enough legitimate reasons to rationalize the attack? I am pretty sure that if you go by the letter and spirit of the resolution on genocide you'd find that the UN SHOULD have acted against saddam's regime. I mean, I wonder if we had done everything right, would we have ended up anywhere else?
Would you shout that down? And if so, why?
I mean I get that the reasons cited in the Bush days were largely bogus, at the very least highly misleading. But, to say there was NO reason to go to Iraq, is simply wrong. The question is, were there enough legitimate reasons to rationalize the attack? I am pretty sure that if you go by the letter and spirit of the resolution on genocide you'd find that the UN SHOULD have acted against saddam's regime. I mean, I wonder if we had done everything right, would we have ended up anywhere else?
if I thought that the US government actually gave a shit about genocide in iraq, I would certainly reconsider my position. I'd probably also still question if a unilateral invasion was the best means of bringing hussein or whoever else to justice. this seems kind of immaterial though, because it didn't happen.
I don't disagree that the UN probably should have done more than it did to promote freedom, human rights, etc. in iraq. if the US had gone to the UN and called for this, I would have been absolutely for this. but I don't think that a diplomatic course fit the Bush administration's agenda (maybe it would have though, given how much of a mess iraq has become).
bottom line, the invasion was a reckless move justified by specious evidence, and I think that had we focused on using the UN as a forum for addressing islamic extremist terrorism and its threat to us, we would have ended up far better off. we had a lot of good will toward us after 9-11, and we didn't put it to good use.
I don't disagree that the UN probably should have done more than it did to promote freedom, human rights, etc. in iraq. if the US had gone to the UN and called for this, I would have been absolutely for this. but I don't think that a diplomatic course fit the Bush administration's agenda (maybe it would have though, given how much of a mess iraq has become).
bottom line, the invasion was a reckless move justified by specious evidence, and I think that had we focused on using the UN as a forum for addressing islamic extremist terrorism and its threat to us, we would have ended up far better off. we had a lot of good will toward us after 9-11, and we didn't put it to good use.
relevant question: why was the UN reluctant to do more than it already had re: iraq? I agree that there are cases when the UN absolutely should have done more (e.g., Rwanda). and there are times when I would even support unilateral military action, but in the case of iraq I think it was pretty clear that the human rights justifications for this approach were a front for other motives, and the outcome reflects that.
The UN is HIGHLY corrupt. The son of the former UN head got caught being paid off by the Iraqi regime in Oil for Food scams. Plus some member nations just veto everything for the hell of it... "namely china / russia". France was making a fortune on illegal arms deals with Iraq...
The list goes on. Simple fact is, the UN is effectively useless due in part to corruption. In part because member nations act selfishly.
Officials at the UN are opportunists of the highest order. Or at least are often enough to erode any sense of authority they might otherwise have been able to claim. The end result is the UN can't convince it's member nations to pledge troops or cash to the any of the things it is trying to do. Hell they went out of their way ( as did the US and Europeans ) to avoid referring to Sudan / Rawanda as being genocide. Even though it obviously was.
It's just a matter of, no one cares about Africa. I mean the UN claims to be arguing that the African Union should be policing Africa, which is all well and good... but at the end of the day the AU can't be everywhere and just plain hasn't been successful there at all.
I guess, what I am trying to say is, yes the Bush administration made mistakes sure. But they have little relevance to the underlying issues revolving around places such as Iraq. And it's too easy to fixate on one little lie, or one mistake. "We never should have been in Iraq, there were no WMDs. QED!". That's just not the reality of the situation. The reason that the UN had rules on genocide, and the US signed up to agree to them, was because the US once ignored a genocide. And they truly and deeply regretted it. No one wants to see that history repeat itself, and yet... it has several times already much to our discredit and that of all member UN nations.
I guess what I am driving at is, the situations that exist in the middle east, the horn of africa, and the Sudan are incredibly nuanced, very difficult to address, and probably going to end in bitter tears all around. Sometimes there is no "right" answer. Just a "whatever hurts least". And at that point, are you willing to put on blinders and ignore the ruthless slaughter of an entire culture?
It raises fundamental questions of ethics and efficacy that are at the root of most human drama.
=/
I'd suggest that the best we can do, is make a decision we believe is the most "right" that we can. Morality, justice, a nod of the head to responsibility for consequence... and then we try not to look back at that decision when things go south.
You are right, we didn't make the right decision when we invaded Iraq. The reasons were wrong. The arguments were wrong. And there were consequences specific to that. But would we have avoided being mired deep in Iraq's problems? I don't think so. And because of that I think we need to look beyond the past when choosing how we are going to handle Iraq going forward. And I think we mostly agree on the last point at least. I just feel like too many people ignore the real issues with Iraq and get caught up in some bullshit he said she said and then form an opinion based on their emotions without taking the time to really think about the issues in play. And that results in emotions running high, tempers flaring, and people polarizing to some ridiculous "FOR!" and "AGAINST!" group that ends up being co-opted by a bunch of lunatics.
Discussions about these issues shouldn't be based around some super idealized unreality that people have in their heads. It should focus on looking at the REAL issues in play, and trying to figure out how to handle them, if we can handle them. That discussion isn't happening. We all just look at this shit and throw our hands up in disgust / despair and walk off feeling all the worse for having thought about it. It's not a solution. It's just more of the same.
The list goes on. Simple fact is, the UN is effectively useless due in part to corruption. In part because member nations act selfishly.
Officials at the UN are opportunists of the highest order. Or at least are often enough to erode any sense of authority they might otherwise have been able to claim. The end result is the UN can't convince it's member nations to pledge troops or cash to the any of the things it is trying to do. Hell they went out of their way ( as did the US and Europeans ) to avoid referring to Sudan / Rawanda as being genocide. Even though it obviously was.
It's just a matter of, no one cares about Africa. I mean the UN claims to be arguing that the African Union should be policing Africa, which is all well and good... but at the end of the day the AU can't be everywhere and just plain hasn't been successful there at all.
I guess, what I am trying to say is, yes the Bush administration made mistakes sure. But they have little relevance to the underlying issues revolving around places such as Iraq. And it's too easy to fixate on one little lie, or one mistake. "We never should have been in Iraq, there were no WMDs. QED!". That's just not the reality of the situation. The reason that the UN had rules on genocide, and the US signed up to agree to them, was because the US once ignored a genocide. And they truly and deeply regretted it. No one wants to see that history repeat itself, and yet... it has several times already much to our discredit and that of all member UN nations.
I guess what I am driving at is, the situations that exist in the middle east, the horn of africa, and the Sudan are incredibly nuanced, very difficult to address, and probably going to end in bitter tears all around. Sometimes there is no "right" answer. Just a "whatever hurts least". And at that point, are you willing to put on blinders and ignore the ruthless slaughter of an entire culture?
It raises fundamental questions of ethics and efficacy that are at the root of most human drama.
=/
I'd suggest that the best we can do, is make a decision we believe is the most "right" that we can. Morality, justice, a nod of the head to responsibility for consequence... and then we try not to look back at that decision when things go south.
You are right, we didn't make the right decision when we invaded Iraq. The reasons were wrong. The arguments were wrong. And there were consequences specific to that. But would we have avoided being mired deep in Iraq's problems? I don't think so. And because of that I think we need to look beyond the past when choosing how we are going to handle Iraq going forward. And I think we mostly agree on the last point at least. I just feel like too many people ignore the real issues with Iraq and get caught up in some bullshit he said she said and then form an opinion based on their emotions without taking the time to really think about the issues in play. And that results in emotions running high, tempers flaring, and people polarizing to some ridiculous "FOR!" and "AGAINST!" group that ends up being co-opted by a bunch of lunatics.
Discussions about these issues shouldn't be based around some super idealized unreality that people have in their heads. It should focus on looking at the REAL issues in play, and trying to figure out how to handle them, if we can handle them. That discussion isn't happening. We all just look at this shit and throw our hands up in disgust / despair and walk off feeling all the worse for having thought about it. It's not a solution. It's just more of the same.
I don't disagree with most of what you said. do you think the UN is beyond saving?
I don't believe that the iraq war falls under "whatever hurts least." and of course I'm not comfortable with leaving brutal dictators in power anywhere in the world. but that's not why we invaded iraq and it was never the goal of the people who made the decision to do it.
do you think that it's possible for iraq to become a better place in part as a result of the invasion?
I don't believe that the iraq war falls under "whatever hurts least." and of course I'm not comfortable with leaving brutal dictators in power anywhere in the world. but that's not why we invaded iraq and it was never the goal of the people who made the decision to do it.
do you think that it's possible for iraq to become a better place in part as a result of the invasion?
asemisldkfj, I don't presume to know. The kurds seem to be better off, at least for now. I know there are people who want Iraq to succeed. But, there is obviously so much running against their success as a nation.
Is there a better alternative? I don't see one. An attempt had to be made.
Is there a better alternative? I don't see one. An attempt had to be made.