What I was asking you to do was to actually make an give me some reason to believe that the original study you were dismissing is flawed based on reality. All you seem to be able to offer is a catch-all argument that academics are somehow unqualified to comment on real life. That just doesn’t cut it, because, from my own experience, many academic people are just as involved in the real world as anyone else.

If anti-academic arguments have any merit, it is to remind us that having an advanced degree does not make one’s facts or logic unassailable by non-academics. I wholly agree with that sentiment- so go to it.

But you must learn to think new ideas and think them in a way appealing to mainstream Americans.
Eg. talk about China, then talk about colleges not turning out American scientists and engineers.
Talk about national defense, then talk about health care and bioterrorism or health care and veterans.
Stress the bill of rights, you should have mentioned Jose Padilla hundreds of times. But you must love them all, even the second.
And think about Lations. GWB will likely nominate a latino to the Supreme Court (I would in his place). You must not oppose him, no matter his views on abortion. If you alienate latinos it is California and this is the end.

Move more to the right.

Firstly and primarily, analyze your situation.
If you do that you may come to the same conclusion as I. Conditions were as good as they are likely to get. If you couldn’t win this election, you can’t win any election.
Therefore you need to adjust.

You’re criticizing without offering a solution. We Americans can beat ourselves up over our mistakes just fine, thank you. Some advice, though, would help.

Or fundamental problem is a severe disconnect between two cultures: Progressives (Urbanites) and Conservatives (Ruralists). The Conservatives won because they have the most money and are the best at mobilizing–and because they focus on fear, which is our strongest emotion. MILLIONS of us worked hard to remove Bush, but it didn’t happen. We know that ultimately all Americans are responsible for what happened in this election, but saying that nothing is going to change by 2008 doesn’t help, and it’s not really true. The Sixties were a terrible time for us, but we got through it, we made positive changes and reforms, and we became better for it. So if you don’t have anything positive to add or come up with ways that Europe can help progressives regain power in the U.S, then don’t whine. We know VERY WELL that Europe isn’t happy with us, believe me.

Give us some ideas.

DSW

Which European perspective? The British, French, German, Italian…

This illustrates an interesting commonality of many / most current posts from the US on this blog. The world is: black and white, “for us, or against us”, right or wrong, good or evil… An estimate of casuality figures cannot be “correct” because its… an estimate. It isn’t Europe that has the “surety” but the polar opposite opinions of factions within the US translated into reactions to individual “European” events and opinions.

Come back gray, all is forgiven.

According to the study, 85% of the post invasion Iraqi deaths are due to Coalition military action. This sounds pretty bad, until one actually looks at the ACTUAL REPORTED numbers in the study, not the “projections.” If the self-reported, unverified numbers are true, the mortality rate, setting aside the “Coalition caused” deaths, in Iraq has almost HALVED since the invasion. If that alone doesn’t send up red flags about the study, I don’t know what will.

I’d like to point out one other thing regarding this thread: What is the foundation of the absolute surety that the “European perspective” is the right one? Seriously, why are y’all so damn sure that you’re right, and Bush is wrong? Why doesn’t the consideration that Bush & Co. may, just may, be right even register as a blip on your radars?

Something for you to ponder…

“Almost correct, Bernard, but the U.S. government’s mandate is not to ‘taxpayers’ but to citizens.”

Care to guess how close the correlation between the number of voters in a given election and the number of positive (that is, actually liable for income tax) tax returns filed that election year is? :^) Whether by accident or design, Patrick, political control in the U.S. rests for the most part with the tax-payer, and the tax-payer tends to vote his or her interests. In practical terms, I think I’m closer to correct than you are.

This particular point just came up in a class based heavily on Niall Ferguson’s _Cash Nexus_, BTW. I don’t feel I’m at liberty to post the prof’s materials willy-nilly onto the Net, but I can point you to the salient materials via e-mail if you wish.