One yellow wristband at a time...

July 25, 2005 1:01 PM

"The biggest downside to the war in Iraqis what you could do with the money," he said. "What does the war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change... Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism. It is a priority for the American people." Does this sound like the next governor of Texas to you?
posted by docgonzo (108 comments total)

I'd vote for him if I could. Just because he's worked hard his whole life and overcome incredibe adversity. And he probably makes people Bush feel inadequate, which they are.
posted by fenriq at 1:03 PM on July 25, 2005

...and here I thought this was another link about Kinky Friedman.
posted by Slothrup at 1:13 PM on July 25, 2005

Oh, yeah, fine, cuuuure cancer, but how am I gonna get to the drug store without any gas?
posted by cleverusername at 1:16 PM on July 25, 2005

cleverusername, try riding a bike would almost certainly be Lance's response. Its good for you.
posted by fenriq at 1:17 PM on July 25, 2005

The *biggest* downside? I agree that it's a big one . . .
posted by hackly_fracture at 1:23 PM on July 25, 2005

We spend $5 billion a month on this war in Iraq. If we spent even a tenth of tha timproving our public school sytem, we'd be far better off.
posted by camworld at 1:25 PM on July 25, 2005

What hackly_fracture said...I think the countless deaths constitute the biggest downside, and the wasted potential of the money is perhaps the second biggest downside.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 1:30 PM on July 25, 2005

We spend $5 billion a month on this war in Iraq. If we spent even a tenth of tha timproving our public school sytem, we'd be far better off.
posted by camworld at 1:25 PM PST on July 25

The juxtaposition of this thread (and this comment) with the one below is surprising. That thread says we don't give enough charitable donations to countries with AIDS. This thread says we spend to much money to help the Iraqi people and should keep the money to help ourselves.
posted by dios at 1:37 PM on July 25, 2005

This thread says we spend to much money to help the Iraqi people and should keep the money to help ourselves.

I think it is more accurate to say that this thread assumes that the current course isn't really helping the Iraqi people
posted by aburd at 1:41 PM on July 25, 2005

This thread says we spend to much money to help the Iraqi people and should keep the money to help ourselves.

Dios: you left out the word "kill" between "help" and "the." Preview is your friend.
posted by The Bellman at 1:42 PM on July 25, 2005

You know I'd admire Lance, but I've talked to people who've known him (not on a friendship best-buds level) and they say he's incredibly arrogant and cocky. The typical cocky jock who you'd roll your eyes at if he wasn't really good at what he does. I don't know if he'd be able to shake that persona or shake the perceptions people already have of him to get into office.
posted by geoff. at 1:45 PM on July 25, 2005

..and that would be different from the current occupant of the White House how?
posted by briank at 1:47 PM on July 25, 2005

Whichever way you slice it, the war is a lousy investment. The direct costs are staggering and opportunity cost of the investments we must forego in our own society is huge. And that says nothing of the human costs.

Also, I suspect we could have literally bought Sadam for pennies on the dollar; for a few billion a year in a numbered Swiss account he would probably have been our monkey. Not entirely moral perhaps, but far better value.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 1:51 PM on July 25, 2005

Dumping the wife who stood by him through the cancer might not be a wise career move. Now he is all about her children? But never underestimate the power of name familiarity.
posted by Cranberry at 1:56 PM on July 25, 2005

On a totally amoral perspective let's assume the only worthwhile resource Iraq has is oil:

According to the DOE, "115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves"

Let's say that otherwise Iraq would have sold ALL that oil to China, India or some other non-USA nation or nations. We effectively would not have access to any of the Iraq oil. Let's give a conservative figure of $55/barrel:

$6,325,000,000,000

That's $6.3 trillion in oil we've bought. We've spent (liberal numbers here) $183 billion for the rights to $6.3 trillion in oil. I would not consider that a bad deal. Even with all the "what-ifs" in the numbers, we still have a long ways to go before it becomes really unprofitable.
posted by geoff. at 1:58 PM on July 25, 2005

briank, the difference would be that Lance actually deserves his cockiness seeing as he's easily the best cyclist in the history of the sport. Shrub's just another trust fund asshole with a powerful daddy who pulled too many strings for him.

dios, if you honestly believe that war in Iraq is to help the Iraqi people then I'd like you to send me some of what you're smoking.
posted by fenriq at 1:58 PM on July 25, 2005

If that's what it takes to get an atheist governor in Texas, I'm for it.
posted by graymouser at 1:58 PM on July 25, 2005

briank, the difference would be that Lance Eddie Merckx actually deserves his cockiness seeing as he's easily the best cyclist in the history of the sport. Shrub's just another trust fund asshole with a powerful daddy who pulled too many strings for him.
posted by trey at 2:02 PM on July 25, 2005

Somebody asked me recently why the bound on personal gifts to American political campaigns is $2000 -- i.e. how could it possibly be worth that to the giver. I countered with "So far, the cost of the Iraq war has been ~$1000 per American."

On whether lives or money are the greatest cost: the only way to answer this (which you may not want to do; that's your prerogative) is to decide on the value of a human life. "Infinity" is one answer, but it's not the one we actually use in practice. It seems like a typical answer used by people who need to allocate money based on such a reckoning is between $1M and $10M. If we assume $10M/soldier, and 2K soldiers killed, that's $20B, not so large compared to the other costs.

If we assume 100K Iraqis killed, then the numbers start to become comparable. I'm not sure whether the rate of Iraqi death is higher now than it was under Saddam but I'm sure someone can enlighten me.
posted by Aknaton at 2:05 PM on July 25, 2005

geoff. writes "Let's say that otherwise Iraq would have sold ALL that oil to China, India or some other non-USA nation or nations. We effectively would not have access to any of the Iraq oil."

These assumptions, unfortunately, have nothing to do with reality. Oil is sold on the open market, not mainlined to individual nations as a government service.

geoff. writes "That's $6.3 trillion in oil we've bought."

Wha? The U.S. government isn't holding on to that oil, and it's not going to be donated free of charge to the American people. It's going to be sold on the open market. Americans will still have to pay market price for it.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:05 PM on July 25, 2005

geoff., what's it going to cost (even assuming peace!) to get that out of the ground? Not to mention the violation of international law if we basically declare it to be ours, with no profits going to Iranq.

(I do appreciate this realpolitik discussion of numbers, keep it up! I'm just saying that your formula looks way too simplistic.)

On preview: domo arigato.
posted by Aknaton at 2:09 PM on July 25, 2005

That thread says we don't give enough charitable donations to countries with AIDS. This thread says we spend to much money to help the Iraqi people and should keep the money to help ourselves.

Equating monetary donations with military force is a stretch, dios. You're missing the big picture, which is: How can we spend money more efficiently to meet goals we feel are valuable? I think (with my hindsight, that's a given) that there could be even more economical military solutions to the problems caused by destructive regimes, let alone non-military uses of money. Claiming that all methods of "helping people" are the same is the type of thread-bashing crap that is even less productive than threads with particular agendas. For instance, I don't think that randomly sending food and speaking for the people of Africa is the same as actually going to Africa and learning what people need and helping set up the necessary infrastructure, organization, and equipment.

It takes very little effort to shit on a thread, even less if you think the premise is paper-thin. We know you're capable of it, just prove to us you're capable of not doing it.
posted by mikeh at 2:24 PM on July 25, 2005

Also, how the hell is funding cancer research the same as keeping the money for ourselves? Do American cancer treatments not work on Iraqis? I realize that there are American doctors and drug companies that would benefit greatly from the creation of an effective cancer treatment, but I'd like to think the cancer patients might get something out of it, too.
posted by mikeh at 2:26 PM on July 25, 2005

War! What is it good for? It's good for business.

Ben & Jerry's Ben Cohen's Flash presentation on uses Oreos to illustrate the size of the US defense budget and how it compares to how much the US spends on social issues and to the defense budgets of potential enemies.

According to Cohen, the US spends $400 billion on defense, and $90.5 billion on K-12 education, world hunger, alternative energy children's healthcare, and Head Start combined. The US defense budget is several times more than the combined defense spending of Russia, China, and the Axis of Evil. He proposes taking $50 billion from the defense budget and applying it to the social programs.

Considering that the Department of Defense can't defend us against terrorism, and can't even control the road from downtown Baghdad to the airport, I'd cut even more.

For the money we've wasted on this war, we could have developed alternative energy options that would reduce or eliminate our dependency on Mideast oil. That would reduce our need to ally ourselves with autocratic Mideast regimes, which would reduce the resentment many Muslims feel towards us, which would reduce the motivation for terrorists to attack us.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:34 PM on July 25, 2005

Does this sound like the next governor of Texas to you?

Nope. I think graymouser is right. He wouldn't have a chance.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:42 PM on July 25, 2005

In the end, we need a scientist to become president instead of a business man that's daddy never let him go to war while he was in the military.
posted by cleverusername at 2:43 PM on July 25, 2005

trey, you're right. Eddie Merckx does have a more impressive legacy. I'd never actually looked at his records and they are, well, astonishing.

However, my point about Lance's arrogance being earned whereas Bush's arrogance is learned.
posted by fenriq at 2:43 PM on July 25, 2005

Ok folks, its decided. War is bad. War is expensive. We should spend money on social programs and medical research. I just wish we would get those darned Islamic facists and other terrorists to agree....
posted by Durwood at 2:44 PM on July 25, 2005

I only read it for the interviews...
posted by Finder at 2:45 PM on July 25, 2005

(Eddie Merckx is code for "I'm a real cycling fan.")
posted by mrgrimm at 2:46 PM on July 25, 2005

Woops, that's like the third time I've hit Post when I meant to hit Preview.

What I'd meant to finish that line with was that Lance's arrogance was hard earned by his perseverance and effort while Bush's arrogance wasn't earned at all, he's had a silver spoon life and just believes he's a better man than other people regardless of failure after failure after failure.

kirkaracha, I would second Cohen's motion to take $50 billion from defense and put it into social programs.
posted by fenriq at 2:47 PM on July 25, 2005

Durwood is right. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been worthwhile because it has stopped terrorism.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:49 PM on July 25, 2005

I wouldn't mind contributing MORE tax dollars towards defense... But, with one caveat. It absolutely HAS to go towards building Mech Warriors. That would be f*ckin AWESOME!!!!!! The hell with cancer patients and all the "children are our future" crap... I want a Mark VII Hellspawn, with shoulder mounted rockets, and a plasma sword..... America!!!! F*CK YEAH!!!!
posted by Debaser626 at 2:58 PM on July 25, 2005

sorry ... Eddy

Re: B&J and military budgets, I always thought U.S. defense spending was about equal to all other countries in the world combined. Yes, I agree with the ice-cream guy.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:02 PM on July 25, 2005

Apparently I don't know how to use the live preview either. Eddy Merckx
posted by mrgrimm at 3:05 PM on July 25, 2005

Just FYI: Lance rounded down the annual budget for the National Cancer Institute: It's about $4.8 billion.
posted by Scooter at 3:06 PM on July 25, 2005

Algae!
posted by Yellowbeard at 3:10 PM on July 25, 2005

You know I'd admire Lance, but I've talked to people who've known him (not on a friendship best-buds level) and they say he's incredibly arrogant and cocky. The typical cocky jock who you'd roll your eyes at if he wasn't really good at what he does.

Arnold is governor of California. This sets up a precedent, no?
posted by linux at 3:18 PM on July 25, 2005

Unfortunately, I totally believe that we will still be writing cheques for more, after the total has surpassed the 6.3 trillion worth of oil there.

It would be better if the president just came out and said, 'It's going to take 13 trillion dollars to solve the Iraq crisis.'
At least he would have the balls to say it outright.
If it's less, so much the better, but holding the people and the soldiers as hostages in a partisan funding war sucks.
posted by Balisong at 3:21 PM on July 25, 2005

I wouldn't say that they are being held in a partisan funding war. It's a lot more short-sighted than what you are assuming... or at least it has to for me to sleep at night.
posted by cleverusername at 3:25 PM on July 25, 2005

A few hundred billion could go a long way toward developing a culture and an infrastructure geared away from petrolium and developing all those associated technologies.

Of course, that would have been needed to be done a couple of decades ago....
posted by sourwookie at 3:26 PM on July 25, 2005

The best thing about moving to Houston from Austin six months ago: not so many damned Lance Armstrong wanna-bes in their yellow bike shirts all over the place.

Surely I wasn't the only person there who got tired of Lance this, Lance that, and even the HP Livestrong Laptop...
posted by mrbill at 3:34 PM on July 25, 2005

We spend $5 billion a month on this war in Iraq. If we spent even a tenth of tha timproving our public school sytem, we'd be far better off.
posted by camworld at 4:25 PM EST on July 25 [!]


Amen camworld, amen.
posted by mikeweeney at 3:35 PM on July 25, 2005

he's had a silver spoon life and just believes he's a better man than other people regardless of failure after failure after failure.

The silver spoon comment, sure. Of course, that wasn't his fault. He didn't pick his parents. So as an insult, you can through that one away.

Failure after failure? Disagree with his policies fine. But generally if you have a child and that child becomes the president of the united states, you consider him a success. Failure as the president? Well, that probably has to do more with your political beliefs than anything else.
posted by justgary at 3:41 PM on July 25, 2005

I'm not sure whether the rate of Iraqi death is higher now than it was under Saddam but I'm sure someone can enlighten me.

It's much higher now than under Saddam before the war, unless you count the deaths caused by our sanctions, the extent of which is itself a contraversial topic. Saddam was killing few people compared to his bloodshed earlier in his regieme (mostly a decade or more ago), but that's not what America was told by its politicians.

So, yeah, the answer is "it depends on what you want to count, when". Meaning, you could probably pull pretty much any number out of your ass, and you'd be able to defend it one way or another :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 3:47 PM on July 25, 2005

Failure as the president? Well, that probably has to do more with your political beliefs than anything else.

Found Osama Bin Laden and those nasty WMDs, has he?
posted by Rothko at 3:51 PM on July 25, 2005

Failure as the president? Well, that probably has to do more with your political beliefs than anything else.

Really? There's no such thing as doing a bad job as president? Having backward and dangerous policies, squandering the public purse, wrecking the environment and making it hard for your countrymen to earn a living?

I guess anyone really can be president.
posted by dreamsign at 4:00 PM on July 25, 2005

justgary, I'd post it all here but go here and scroll down to the George at Work section. It might open your eyes if you read the whole thing actually.

Here's the first bit of it to get you started....
People like to assume that George got rich from oil speculation. It's a simpler and more inspiring explanation than the truth. He did launch an oil business, Arbusto Energy, in 1978. But it was a financial disaster from the very beginning and never turned a profit. Fortuitously, it got swallowed up in a 1982 merger with another energy company named Spectrum 7. The merger was engineered by a couple of Bush family friends. For some reason they opted to rescue the son of the Vice President of the United States from his own financial catastrophe and make him the CEO of the merged entity.

Four years later, Spectrum 7 was itself floundering underneath $3 million in debt. Which is when Harken Energy, yet another company run by a family friend, came in and bailed out Bush's enterprise a second time. George was given a fat wad of stock options and a $120,000 annual salary, but no actual work to do.

Nope, no failures there at all. Nope. Of course, they're easier to see when your head isn't buried in the sand.
posted by fenriq at 4:02 PM on July 25, 2005

Now now. The Bush apologists are just doing their jobs. Be nice to them. They're overworked.
posted by crunchland at 4:16 PM on July 25, 2005

But they get benefits...
posted by Balisong at 4:17 PM on July 25, 2005

... I've talked to people who've known him (not on a friendship best-buds level) and they say he's incredibly arrogant and cocky

Y'know, I've heard this, too, and I always think: If I could go up l'Alpe d'Huez, the toughest 14km in cycling, 21 switchbacks of pure mountain hell, in 37 minutes, all while almost all of the half-million spectators -- blitzed out of their mind in the noonday soon, mind -- screamed for my blood... and pass my nearest competitor who started a minute ahead of me well, yeah, I'd be a bit cocky, too.

It's why I've never liked Radiohead: If I want British Rockstars, I want the trash hotel rooms, get banned from airplanes, use stupendous amounts of amphetamines flavour of british rock star. Not the kind who pet bunnies, y'knowwhatI'msayin'?
posted by docgonzo at 4:18 PM on July 25, 2005

...they say he's incredibly arrogant and cocky. [snip] I don't know if he'd be able to shake that persona or shake the perceptions people already have of him to get into office.

Yeah. What does HE have to be cocky about? Tour de France seven times? Big deal. It's not like he has tried to cure canc... er...

Well anyway. Nobody arrogant or cocky has ever been in politics so he sh... er...

Well. Anyway. At least he can ride a bike. Which is, apparently, more than GW can do since that stupid mother fucker get's a concussion every time he even looks at anything with spokes.
posted by tkchrist at 4:34 PM on July 25, 2005

I missed it in the Tipping thread. How much does one tip a Bush apologist for a merely adequate job?
posted by FYKshun at 4:34 PM on July 25, 2005

FYKshun, that may be the best and funniest cross thread comment I have ever read! You would definitely get a 25% tip on that one.
posted by fenriq at 4:38 PM on July 25, 2005

But generally if you have a child and that child becomes the president of the united states, you consider him a success.

Proud parents always consider their kids a success. But we're talking about being a little more objective here. The guy has tanked every business he's ever run, now he's running the country and the same thing is happening.

Maybe he's not a failure so much as simply unlucky that everything around him seems to turn to custard whenever he hops in the driver's seat.

However, this "he's just consistantly unlucky" alternative seems to be shot down by him being born with that silver spoon. That's generally considered extremely lucky :-/
posted by -harlequin- at 4:41 PM on July 25, 2005

The Bellman++
posted by mosch at 4:45 PM on July 25, 2005

-harlequin- That's what I've been saying for quite a while.
Bush is the Anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.
Don't let him get close to one of your pet causes.
posted by Balisong at 4:49 PM on July 25, 2005

Yeah. What does HE have to be cocky about?

Is anybody just waiting for somebody to mistakenly call Lance "ballsy"?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:02 PM on July 25, 2005

oh well, turns out that the iraq war is a considerably small part of the increases in government spending that bush has implemented. To whoever said that if a tenth of the iraq war money is spent on education - well the government actually spends more on education than on the iraq war (and thats comparing it to costofwar.com, which im sure overestimates) - and it hasn't really helped the education system much.
when will people learn that throwing money at things isnt going to help them? bush is proof of that. bush is very liberal with his spending, clinton was very conservative with his spending.
I love Lance Armstrong, and he's good at what he does, though I don't think he would do so well in politics. good thing it's not mentioned in the article or anything.
posted by klik99 at 5:18 PM on July 25, 2005

the government actually spends more on education than on the iraq war - and it hasn't really helped the education system much.

I have to agree - it doesn't matter how many billions you spend teching kids Biblical Creationsim / Intelligent Design, they're probably still going to come out of school with a poor grasp of science. Damn kids.

/lame joke, but wrote it anyway.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:28 PM on July 25, 2005

and it hasn't really helped the education system much

Obviously.
posted by docgonzo at 5:34 PM on July 25, 2005

the government actually spends more on education than on the iraq war - and it hasn't really helped the education system much.

Somebody needs to do some serious fact-checking on this, but it's my understanding that the goverment spends 0 (nada, zilch, nothing) on primary and secondary school education, and all of the above-referenced money is spent on university grants, student loans, etc. FWIW, the American university system is still (for the moment) one of the finest in the world, and it's one of the only areas where the balance of trade is actually in our favor.
posted by psmealey at 5:51 PM on July 25, 2005

der, I mean federal government. Sorry... been drinking... kind of odd for a Monday night.
posted by psmealey at 5:54 PM on July 25, 2005

well I have this website but its from 1999-2000 and I think spending has dropped 3%, though I think I misread it earlier - $373 billion spent on k-12, but most of that is from local or state governments - the federal government only spent $37 billion, which is considerably less.
I do not have a figure to back this up, but I think that overall spending has gone down slightly, although the federal government is paying for a lerger piece than 2000
posted by klik99 at 5:58 PM on July 25, 2005

http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/archive/doe_education_spending.shtml

Incidently I have been drinking too
posted by klik99 at 5:59 PM on July 25, 2005

dios, you have a twisted definition of helping the Iraqi people. I've never thought that if I punched somebody in the mouth I was doing them a favour, especially if they're only guilty of being in the same building as somebody else who dissed my dad.
posted by substrate at 6:02 PM on July 25, 2005

The juxtaposition of this thread (and this comment) with the one below is surprising. That thread says we don't give enough charitable donations to countries with AIDS. This thread says we spend to much money to help the Iraqi people and should keep the money to help ourselves.

Dios, will you ever learn to actually deal with the topic at hand, instead of complaining about threads and their authors?
posted by Rothko at 6:14 PM on July 25, 2005

Lance always an asshole, even before he ever won any of his cycling palmares. And he always will be. He's much smarter about the public persona he projects these days, but once in a while the real Lance shows through. Like yesterday's less-than-gracious speech from the podium. Like when he called Pantani "elephantino". At the end of the day, he's got the temperament of a kid with a chip on his shoulder...and in this respect him and Dubya are like two peas in a pod.

On a professional level, I have tremendous respect for him. His greatest strength is that he's aware of his foibles, and he uses them to motivate himself. He works harder and smarter than most people, certainly moreso than any other cyclist in the UCI ProTour. In this respect he couldn't be more different than Dubya, who has the laziest mind on the planet. Lance is an asshole, but a focused one who gets shit done.

None of this, however, indicates to me whether or not he will be a good politician. Popularity does not equal competence.
posted by randomstriker at 6:15 PM on July 25, 2005

If I want British Rockstars, I want the trash hotel rooms, get banned from airplanes, use stupendous amounts of amphetamines flavour of british rock star.

And if I want British Rockstars, I want ones who put on kickass, loud-as-hell rock shows. Radiohead fits the bill very well, even at their current extreme-size shows. You can keep Oasis all to yourself.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:23 PM on July 25, 2005

Now now. The Bush apologists are just doing their jobs. Be nice to them. They're overworked.

If that was directed at me, then you're mistaken. Give a differing opinion and you're a bush apologist. You must love the guy. Nice to live in your little black and white world crunchland. You kind of sound like a 'with us or against us' kinda guy.

Again, it's not his fault that he was born with a 'silver spoon in his mouth'.

Becoming president, no matter who you are, is an accomplishment, no matter how much anyone hates the man, no matter how stupid you may think he is.

As for his job as president, his legacy won't be known for years, and he's not even finished with his second term. Could it be possible it may be different than metafilter's opinion on july 24, 05? Sure. Different than fenriq's opinion? Yep.
posted by justgary at 7:11 PM on July 25, 2005

Oh yawwn. Yet another Bush is bad thread, that somehow started out as a Lance Armstrong post. Amazing.
posted by a3matrix at 7:15 PM on July 25, 2005

justgary isn't an apologist. Part of being an apologist is realizing there's something to apologize for.
posted by clevershark at 7:16 PM on July 25, 2005

In the future, George W. Bush will always be seen with halos.
And of course, anyone questioning the halo will be detained.
posted by Balisong at 7:24 PM on July 25, 2005

$6,325,000,000,000

How much money could be generated by curing cancer?
posted by lightweight at 7:42 PM on July 25, 2005

You must love the guy.

Come on, Justgary. Is that really the best you can do?
posted by crunchland at 7:55 PM on July 25, 2005

justgary, I responded to your criticism of my comment and then you just ignore it.

George Bush is a demonstrably bad businessman, in that little bit I quoted above there are three companies alone that he cratered. And yet, his "legacy won't be known for years"? And you're not an apologist?

Ridiculous.

I showed you multiple instances of his being a poor businessman, I answered your charge. Its not about disagreeing with his policies as a president, its about disagreeing with his Wild West "bring 'em on" Cowboy mentality that's gotten our country mired in a shit war that's making our enemies stronger while spreading our resources out. Are you happy with the war? Are you proud of the US now?

His legacy, if there is any justice, will be a very long prison term along with his cronies.
posted by fenriq at 8:00 PM on July 25, 2005

I have had a bit of wine and am too tired, but I appreciate this thread because it has made me laugh. I am not sure if the point of the thread was to discuss spending or to discuss Lance as a public figure.

Lance is cool - if he is arrogant, he has earned the right to be that way. If he is arrogant, he won't be invited to one of my dinner parties. It's that simple. How he does in a political process will decide if he has the chops to be a public official - a couple of debates and a full-frontal news op and we'll see how he fairs.

Meanwhile, on the costs of the war. YES! if someone who has a pulpit can start talking about the budget of the defense department, I will donate to his campaign. I mentioned the wine part above because here is where I say I am too lazy to go find the _exact_ numbers of the defense spending by project but here is my point:

The new F22 Raptor is over 120 million each, yes each. We are paying over 350 million EACH for the B2 bomber. And these are being built today. It should be noted I have no problem with the remote aircraft or other reasonable projects (it's open for discussion on the definition of reasonable.) But when a 'wing' of a specific aircraft costs more than the spending that is done to actually effect the outcome of our society, - for a decade - something is really, really wrong. But no one talks about it.

My opinion: we should not have gone into Iraq. But we are: our baseball went through the window, we pay for the window. Lovely.
But, this new Defense Department that Rummy was talking about, where is it? It is costing more because of the Iraq war, but we are still paying for projects that make no sense.

(Before someone quotes the aging aircraft fleet to me, please note there are two new aircraft lines in production at this time, I am quoting only one. Yet we are still unbeatable n air combat for a variety of reasons. We will need to worry when China matches our field of operations ability.

F/A-22 Raptor cost

Joint Fighter cost

Excuse me, I was wrong. The operational unit cost of the B-2 bomber is 2.1 billion (for our cousins that million million.) *search on Unit cost at toward the bottom...)

I'm just sayin' we can't keep doin' this...
posted by fluffycreature at 8:05 PM on July 25, 2005

Becoming president, no matter who you are, is an accomplishment...

One could say the same thing for any of W's seeming accomplishments: becoming governor of Texas, becoming the CEO of several big companies, owning a baseball team. But don't you suppose, justgary, that factors other than W's intrinsic greatness have contributed to these accomplishments? I'm not saying that many a politician hasn't benefited from their high-placed family, but rarely has someone who has been gifted so much in this manner fucked up so many times, or failed so completely and so consistently at his nepotistic appointments.
posted by squirrel at 8:07 PM on July 25, 2005

grrr *read my above as I have a bad link... *

Joint Fighter cost
posted by fluffycreature at 8:10 PM on July 25, 2005

it's my understanding that the goverment spends 0 (nada, zilch, nothing) on primary and secondary school education

Me thinks you read too many NEA talking points.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:10 PM on July 25, 2005

Oh sure, spend it on schools. Where's the graft? The graft?
posted by dreamsign at 8:11 PM on July 25, 2005

A bleeding heart liberal is someone who cares about Americans the way the right claims to care about Iraqis.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:43 PM on July 25, 2005

A bleeding heart liberal is someone who cares about Americans the way the right claims to care about Iraqis.

:DING:

Ladies, & Gentlemen We Have A Winner...
posted by Dreamghost at 9:46 PM on July 25, 2005

It would be nice if someone other than Iraqis cared about Iraqis the way the right claims to care about Americans.
posted by dreamsign at 10:07 PM on July 25, 2005

Man, the trolls are a little thick around here...

lightweight $6,325,000,000,000 - How much money could be generated by curing cancer?

You mean, how much cures for cancer could be generated by money? Cures for cancer could generate trillions, but you're going to have to wait a long long long time.

For 6 and-some-change TRILLION bucks, lump sum right now though, I'll guarantee you ... say, five, no.. SIX... no, wait, SEVEN cancers cured by 2015.

We'll have therapies that are more successful than current therapies for far more than 7 cancers by 2015. If we intelligently injected that kind of money into education/research/partnerships/conservation-exploration, we might still only get 7 "cures" by 2015 but instead of 14 cures by 2025, we might very well have 49.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 10:45 PM on July 25, 2005

The fact that some Americans might seriously discuss cyclists as alternatives to lead them politically seems odd to me.

It's like me saying Wayne Gretzky is a valid candidate for Premier of Alberta. Sure he's a great Canadian. His accomplishments in the world of sports are many. He's charismatic, and he's proven himself an astute businessman. But his focus has been *hockey* not government.

Lance Armstrong is an amazing *athlete* and an admirable survivor - he is no governor, and Americans would be silly to accept him as a leader at any level unless his credentials proved him worthy of such a post.
posted by sharpener at 12:21 AM on July 26, 2005

Exhibit A: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Your honor, I rest my case.
posted by pmbuko at 2:02 AM on July 26, 2005

How much money could be generated by curing cancer?

if we take Aknaton's figure of a life being worth $1m-$10m, and an estimated 570,280 cancer deaths per year, we get $5,702,800,000,000. call it $5.7 trillion at the high end.

Per year.

I think this compares very favorably with $6.3 trillion worth of oil we a) still have to pay for, monetarily and militarily b) get over a 20-30 year period c) use up with very little permanent benefit.

I think Lance makes a highly valid point when he says people are more scared of cancer than they are of terrorism. When terrorist acts are killing even a fraction of the 1500 people per day cancer is (just in the US), a believeable counterargument might be possible. How many of you know someone killed by terrorism? How many people do each of us know who have died of cancer?

PurplePorpoise has excellent points about the lag time between spending and delivery of results. You mostly can't help people dying now. The sad fact is politicians need quick results, and long term investment is consequently neglected.
posted by ulami at 2:32 AM on July 26, 2005

The fact that some Americans might seriously discuss cyclists as alternatives to lead them politically seems odd to me.

Exhibit B: Ronald Reagan
posted by ulami at 2:35 AM on July 26, 2005

The fact that some Americans might seriously discuss cyclists as alternatives to lead them politically seems odd to me

Actually, "Cyclocracy" or "Pedalarchy" is a well-respected form of government according to the ancients. For example, Herodotus of Halicarnassus wrote glowing reports about the Thracians, and I quote from Book V of his Histories:

"The Thracians are the most powerful people in the world, except, of course, the Indians; and if they had one head, or were agreed among themselves, it is my belief that their match could not be found anywhere, and that they would very far surpass all other nations. The reason for their splendid society is that they abjure tyrants, and instead elect a bicycle to govern them. This riderless contraption wheels hither and thither, making wise policy announcements and occasionally asking people to pump up its tires, which service they perform with pleasure."

Marcus Tullius Cicero, in imitation of this sensible society, asked the Senators to ride to work on unicycles, and wearing red noses - from which habit sprang one of the most well-loved shows at the famous Circus Maximus.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:40 AM on July 26, 2005

I ♥ quidnunc.
posted by sciurus at 5:26 AM on July 26, 2005

PurplePorpoise:

Man, the trolls are a little thick around here...

it's funny becoz it's not us! (well, it *is* us, but we are not as deep in the shite and the general no-confidence of the world community as the United Stooges of Halliburton) ;P

For 6 and-some-change TRILLION bucks, lump sum right now though, I'll guarantee you ... say, five, no.. SIX... no, wait, SEVEN cancers cured by 2015

ok, you give me the "6 and-some-change TRILLION bucks" and i will have boron neutron malignant melanoma capture treatments curing a shiteload more cancers than five, no.. SIX... no, wait, SEVEN.

i assume that you are some sort of expert on the various kinds of experimental cancer treatments, right?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:40 AM on July 26, 2005

i forgot...i would - of course - pocket 6 TRILLION bucks from that deal.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:43 AM on July 26, 2005

(that's BNCT if you want to google it, you chronic ignoranus)

/pissed of by ignoranuses
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:46 AM on July 26, 2005

You know I'd admire Lance, but I've talked to people who've known him (not on a friendship best-buds level) and they say he's incredibly arrogant and cocky.

I met him at a fundraiser two years ago, and this was not the case.

Even if he is usually a dick, I rather despise when people play whisper down the lane with another's reputation.
posted by mosch at 7:13 AM on July 26, 2005

Hm, this certainly went well.
posted by odinsdream at 7:22 AM on July 26, 2005

Pie, anyone?
posted by squirrel at 7:51 AM on July 26, 2005

sharpener wrote: unless his credentials proved him worthy of such a post

What credentials would those be? It's not like politicians have to submit resumes or undergo background checks before entering politics. Unfortunately, it is NOT a safe assumption that the people we elect to political office have "credentials" of any kind; in most cases, they're just well-known businessmen or celebrities. You don't need a college degree or any other qualification to run for office; nor do you have to have any demonstrable skills or life experience. You just have to have a knack for creating the impression in others that you're reliable, competent and honest (and so we end up with executive types running things).
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:48 AM on July 26, 2005

I concede that managing to continually FAIL upwards is quite an accomplishment.
I do not concede that Dubya gets ANY credit for that.

Lance sounds pretty cool to me. Some folks have a legitimate reason to be a bit arrogant. Fighting for cancer cures is a great thing and I hope Lance is just as successful at this endeavor.
posted by nofundy at 8:57 AM on July 26, 2005

quidnunc kid: excellent!

all-seeing eye dog: your point about not needing credentials is well taken. The late Chuck Cadman was an exemplary MP in Canada yet he worked at the phone company for years until his son was slain several years ago. He turned tragedy into something to fight for (victim's rights) and seemed to genuinely want to make things better for his fellow citizens.

He wasn't elected on credentials, but rather his passion and the fact that he convinced others that his ideas were good ones. So you are right - credentials was a poor choice of words.

So let's replace credentials with ideas: unless his ideas proved him worthy of such a post. Obviously I can see how someone who has good ideas (to at least 50% of the electorate) and is capable of being persuasive can manage to get elected, regardless of credentials *cough*.

pmbuko and ulami: I'm aware of America's penchant for electing actors, thanks. That was my point: why look to athletes and actors for leadership based on their performance on screen, stage, court or velodrome? Lance has been fairly focused on bikes and cancer for a good portion of his life - why assume he'd be any good at anything else simply because he has an opinion on cancer and terrorism (you know what they say about opinions...)? Or at least, why not wait and see what he does or says?

Again, not trying to take anything away from these people, but I surely wouldn't vote for them just because they look good on a bike and have an opinion.
posted by sharpener at 11:32 AM on July 26, 2005

Look I can be Dios too!!


That's a pretty disgusting amount of money being spent on picking fights. Any nation that wastes that much money on a high-grade military crack deserves to be bombed and shot at by terrorists, rogue nations, gay carebears and the like... simply to justify the outrageous cost.

So I say bollocks to the USA, until your government decides to spend its money wisely you guys totally got it coming to you, be it airplanes in buildings, bombs on buses, bagels in your VCR... you totally had it coming to you.

I like this simplistic truth set... black & white... that's it.

I'll keep on using it. Thanks for putting me on it Dios!!
posted by JGreyNemo at 4:37 PM on July 26, 2005

2 billion's been spent in Baghdad alone, and for nothing. "We thank God that the air we breathe is not in the hands of the government. Otherwise they would have cut it off for a few hours each day,"
posted by amberglow at 7:14 PM on July 26, 2005

UbuRoivasi - I assume that you are some sort of expert on the various kinds of experimental cancer treatments, right?

Not an expert (I'm deciding to go and be an expert in a different field) but I'm familiar with both the process of cancer treatment as well as the process of having therapeutics aproved and made available to the public.

I personally know of several labs working on therapies for different cancers (and other diseases) but they can't explore their findings because it's either a) less sexy or b) lower percentage or c) are less politically connected.

There are many large private conglomerates who own vast libraries of small molecules. It's not worth it for them to screen those libraries extensively for treating every single type of cancer. They own the rights, they let their guys try out what they think will work. Money = public organizations could buy rights to those libraries and screen them against their pet cancer of choice. Having enough money to buy private libraries for public use could be a boon for cancer therapies. A *TON* of non-cancer discoveries could would be made.

Hyperbole aside (but I suspect that if the same amount was spent on basic science, wrt elementary & secondary education sans political BS, undergraduate scholarships & grants, graduate scholarships & grants, post-graduate scholarships & grants, infrastructure initiatives allocation,, investigator awards, &c) the world will have more people who go into the sciences instead of being parasitic middlethings between labour and those who profit from labour.

1) There is a lack of research personel - there are a lot of things that should be researched, but the pay (eg., researchers are essentially 'begging' money from the government for both the expenses of doing research as well as for a salary to live on) isn't there.
2) Doing research costs a lot of money - there are commercial entities who develop tools; because of patents and patent protections, those tools are expensive beyond the scope of what's reasonable (which includes reasonable profits). Again, there's politics (and political contributions at work) involved.
3) Commercial research costs a lot of money especially when it enters the clinical trial stage. Part of the problem is the salary that's commanded (demanded) by CEOs, COOs, CTOs, CMOs, CIDFKWTCESFs. Corporate culture.

Pumping money into science, intelligently - as opposed to politcally - will yield far far better returns than military excursion. Unlike military spending where "the target has been achieved," science is more "we have more people achieving this target and we've found other targets, some of which we have managed to have achieved."

So fuck you too.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 9:23 PM on July 26, 2005

PurplePorpoise,

sorry, mate...did not mean to offend. was kinda drunk when i posted those, and, well, my dear sweet mother spent many many years working on boron neutron capture therapy, so i kinda reacted badly when somebody perceived to be an ignorant troll suggested that treatments like that could only save five to seven lives in 15 years on a budget of seven trillion dollars.

BNCT appears to be one of the most simple & brilliant potential cures, and, well, who the fuck doesn't love their mother?

so, fuck me if you like, but don't fuck my mother's research, and please don't fuck the iraqi mothers just becoz you are cynical about the potential for cancer treatments...

(pax)
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:37 AM on July 27, 2005

Peace UbuRoivas - I was also saying that there could be more treatments/cures, not just 7 lives saved.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:11 AM on July 27, 2005

But don't you suppose, justgary, that factors other than W's intrinsic greatness have contributed to these accomplishments?

Sure, I have no doubt. I'm simply suggesting that being born with a silver spoon in your mouth doesn't give you the presidency.

And yes, you can be a good or bad president, but anyone who doesn't think politics has anything to do with that opinion is mistaken, especially when it comes to the fringe of both sides. If we find wmds tomorrow, or in 20 years Iraq is a free, democratic country, will those on the left suddenly approve of the war and bush's running of it? Nope. That's politics, just as some on the right would support the war until the bitter end, regardless of the details.

Come on, Justgary. Is that really the best you can do?
posted by crunchland

Crunchland, put out crap, get crap back. What the hell am I suppose to do with your "the bush apologists are over worked" comment? It was a trolling comment that I shouldn't have even responded to. Normally, you don't put out such drivel. I'm guessing you were tired.

justgary isn't an apologist. Part of being an apologist is realizing there's something to apologize for.
posted by clevershark

See, now with clevershark, it's par for the course.

justgary, I responded to your criticism of my comment and then you just ignore it.

No you didn't fenriq. You took the topic and ran with it. My points were in regards to your post. Very simple points. One, critisizing someone for being born with a silver spoon in their mouth is senseless. Two, he's a failure who became president. I know you hate that fact, but you typing away frantically every night putting him down for being a failure is comical.

I won't debate each point you linked to, because frankly, I've decided not to debate with most fringe members here on mefi. You know, almost cult like members. They might drive me crazy (at least that's what my therapist says ;).

And you just happen to be very near the top of that lists. No hard feelings?
posted by justgary at 7:53 PM on July 27, 2005

How can I break this to you, gary? The world does not revolve around you. My original comment was meant as a general statement, and not directed at you, whom before the other day, I'd never paid any attention to at all. Sorry.
posted by crunchland at 8:08 PM on July 27, 2005

Justgary: I hope you get hit by a bus and live.
posted by mosch at 3:13 PM on July 28, 2005