Does Egypt matter?
I would say ... not quite yet. Control of the Suez Canal is important, since lots of Middle Eastern oil is transported through it, I think it's something like 2/3s of Western Europe's oil. The USA has closer alternative oil sources (Canada, Brazil, maybe even more domestic exploration), but Western Europe doesn't really. And, with gas already at $3.50 or so, even in Texas, how much more of an increase is stomach-able?
Then, there's the recent unrest in Tunisia. While not on the Strait of Gibralter, any hostile government in Tunisia could make shipping in the Mediterranean problematic, esp. in the straits between Tunisia and Sicilty and Sardenia.
Neither Tunisia or Egypt's governments are going to win any humanitarian awards, but at least they were friendly to oil transport.
Nobody knows where these governments will ultimately land, but I think it bears watching. Also, the overall momentum in Northern Africa seems to be worth watching, especially Morocco. I mean, if Tunisia (hailed by the NYT as the most European govt in North Africa) can get unrest, so can Morocco.
My wife and I have been interested in some of the news footage. We visited Cairo quite some time back, toured the museum that was vandalized, and walked all around El Tahrir Square (really a circle) that is featured in many of the clips of mob demonstrations and conflict.
anyone taking bets?
Yes.
It is the largest Arab country in population. It has exported many people to work in other Arab Nations.
It has no oil, so not alot of wealth.
It is friendly to western intersts, and reasonably westernized in attitude.
Can there me a shift to a more democratic form of government? Sure. And would be welcome.
Is it likely to happen? No. It is more likely that a islamic-centric government will be installed. With an turn in attitude in that direction polically.
And that is why it matters. It will be exported.
Notice that the nations that are the most islamist have not had an rumbling? The freer the nation, the more open the communication. And that is the difference. They will go down first.
Gas at $3.50 is going to be a bargain.... Start thinking $6.00 per.
SFB
Egypt owns the shipping lane in the Suez Canal. 4 million barrels of oil flows and 80-100 ships pass through the canal region every day. Oil from the middle east would take 12 additional days to arrive in Houston. Supertankers do not fit in the Suez and they already travel around the Horn, so much of the oil flowing through the Canal goes to Europe.
On the other hand, the Suez Canal is a very important source of revenue for the Egyptian government in any form so it is doubtful that it would be sabotaged.
All of this is a big "if". The "muslim brotherhood" of course is being hyped up in the media and is not as much of an influence as people think. What may end up happening is a shift in power and maybe even an end to Mubarek's reign and free elections. If this happens, it will be the will of the people. 90 percent of the country is Islamic, most Sunni.
The biggest trading partners for both exports and imports according to the CIA World Factbook is the United States. The United States provides 2.2 billion in foreign aid and military aid every year. It is a country of 80 million people. It has high inflation and interest rates. It is a young country with a median age of 24 years old.
I think that's the other thing people are wondering about. Just how stable or unstable the whole Middle East will continue to be.
Although, I understand how we got into supporting a dictatorship, it's hard to wring your hands about it. No Americans would support a dictatorship over an area of the U.S. and other Americans to benefit the rest of us. Can't see much different in the rightness of it there either.
Quote: rxwineWe could have asked if Tunisia matters? Or if one guy setting himself on fire there would matter?
I think that's the other thing people are wondering about. Just how stable or unstable the whole Middle East will continue to be.
Although, I understand how we got into supporting a dictatorship, it's hard to wring your hands about it. No Americans would support a dictatorship over an area of the U.S. and other Americans to benefit the rest of us. Can't see much different in the rightness of it there either.
The place will continue to be a dysfunctional mess that at times borders on chaos. The reason is that the vast majority of its peoples have never known self-determination, pluralism, or rule of law other than that imposed by dictators, brutal religious law, or corrupt oligarchs. The concept of participating in their own governance is, for the most part, utterly foreign to them. The deeply embedded culture of "baksheesh", privilege, and patronage is a consequence of that. Couple that with a technological lag of at least two centuries, and a medieval and brutal religion that actively rejects progress, and you have a situation that not only will not, but cannot resolve itself.
The worst-case scenario is that Egypt undergoes an Islamic revolution and the people who seize power are like Iran's mad mullahs of 1979 (and, ever since). I would like to think that we would then send in the carrier battle group and the Marines, but we've become too pussified to do anything like that any more.
Quote: boymimboAll of this is a big "if". The "muslim brotherhood" of course is being hyped up in the media and is not as much of an influence as people think. What may end up happening is a shift in power and maybe even an end to Mubarek's reign and free elections. If this happens, it will be the will of the people. 90 percent of the country is Islamic, most Sunni.
Things are always fluid and you never know which news agency to trust (not a comment on network news but on the veracity of information leaving Egypt), but I get the overall sense that the "muslim brotherhood" is about the same size as the Million Man March or the Tea Party Movement, so unless we're ready to hand over the keys to the gov't to something the size of those groups, it all seems a little overblown.
But there are two pretty accurate historical premises ...
1. The Muslim Brotherhood would be the worst of all possible outcomes. It would be Iran II.
2. Uprisings with noble purposes can get hijacked by a group that doesn't share that purpose.
I think the military will have the final say there, unlike in Iran 30 yrs. ago. Mubarak is probably history but the gov't can still survive.
Quote: mkl654321The worst-case scenario is that Egypt undergoes an Islamic revolution and the people who seize power are like Iran's mad mullahs of 1979 (and, ever since). I would like to think that we would then send in the carrier battle group and the Marines, but we've become too pussified to do anything like that any more.
I also think the worst-case scenario is as you describe. But I wouldn't blame America's reticence on "pussified." I don't think the nation, as a military power, is "pussified," but I do think the political will to do anything is not there, which is too bad. I'm sure those of us with various ideologies will assign blame where they will, but in the end, there's no way Obama does anything militarily, no matter the circumstance or provocation. That circumstance is eerily similar to Iran in the late 70s ... remember the "Carter can not do anything" signs and the Ayatollah saying something like, "Carter does not have the military courage to fight." I think similar slogans will be used to ridicule Obama if Egypt falls.
Domestically, if Egypt falls into radical Islamist hands, that's the political end for Obama. Just like in the late 70s, there's already high unemployment (not as high, but high), a sense of American decline/malaise, high energy prices, etc. Add the fall of a key Islamic ally, and it's church. It won't be a 44-state rout like 1980 Reagan, but I can totally see California going red. And, i can totally see a John Anderson-esque Democrat rising ... Hillary, maybe? But that's far in the future, who knows what will happen? Which one of us predicted Egypt?
Quote: rxwineAlthough, I understand how we got into supporting a dictatorship, it's hard to wring your hands about it. No Americans would support a dictatorship over an area of the U.S. and other Americans to benefit the rest of us. Can't see much different in the rightness of it there either.
I don't think anyone is a fan of getting in bed with a dictator, but I think it's a little short-sighted to stuff things in the "America sleeps with dictators" box. I think America would rather work with other gov'ts like ours, but America cannot dictate how other nations govern themselves. It seems a little "damned if you do, damned if you don't" to criticize our gov't for dealing with dictators AND for imperialism/nation-building/whatever.
That said, while I don't really understand the practicalities of geopolitical inner-workings, I do wish we would do a better job of separating ourselves from nations that have dictatorships, especially nasty ones.
My $0.02.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI also think the worst-case scenario is as you describe. But I wouldn't blame America's reticence on "pussified." I don't think the nation, as a military power, is "pussified," but I do think the political will to do anything is not there, which is too bad. I'm sure those of us with various ideologies will assign blame where they will, but in the end, there's no way Obama does anything militarily, no matter the circumstance or provocation. That circumstance is eerily similar to Iran in the late 70s ... remember the "Carter can not do anything" signs and the Ayatollah saying something like, "Carter does not have the military courage to fight." I think similar slogans will be used to ridicule Obama if Egypt falls.
Domestically, if Egypt falls into radical Islamist hands, that's the political end for Obama. Just like in the late 70s, there's already high unemployment (not as high, but high), a sense of American decline/malaise, high energy prices, etc. Add the fall of a key Islamic ally, and it's church. It won't be a 44-state rout like 1980 Reagan, but I can totally see California going red. And, i can totally see a John Anderson-esque Democrat rising ... Hillary, maybe? But that's far in the future, who knows what will happen? Which one of us predicted Egypt?
The Carter malaise was part post-Vietnam, part a function of Carter's general reluctance to be confrontational in foreign policy matters. The Iranian revolutionary "government" realized this. I don't think the exact same dynamic applies today, but it's close--we could not, politically, get involved in a third conflict, and Obama would lack the will to carry it through, given that the 2012 election is hanging over his head.
I don't agree that a collapse of order and the seizing of power by Islamists in Egypt would be the death knell for Obama. He's going to get re-elected, or bounced, solely on whether the economy, as in, JOBS, has improved to the point where the ordinary joe perceives it as having done so (not from some disingenuous government announcement). He also will benefit from being up against one of a gaggle of right-wingnut fundamentalist Bible-thumpers and/or hyperconservative loons. A LOT of people will look in horror at the alternative offered by the Republicans, shrug, and punch OBAMA on their ballot. So if either things actually do improve, or the government propaganda machine manages to convince enough people that they have, I think Obama, like most incumbents, is still a heavy favorite.
Quote: mkl654321I don't agree that a collapse of order and the seizing of power by Islamists in Egypt would be the death knell for Obama. He's going to get re-elected, or bounced, solely on whether the economy, as in, JOBS, has improved to the point where the ordinary joe perceives it as having done so (not from some disingenuous government announcement). He also will benefit from being up against one of a gaggle of right-wingnut fundamentalist Bible-thumpers and/or hyperconservative loons. A LOT of people will look in horror at the alternative offered by the Republicans, shrug, and punch OBAMA on their ballot. So if either things actually do improve, or the government propaganda machine manages to convince enough people that they have, I think Obama, like most incumbents, is still a heavy favorite.
It's just a prediction ... we'll see. History will play out. Just making the point that we've seen this before, and seen what happened.
Quote: mkl654321He also will benefit from being up against one of a gaggle of right-wingnut fundamentalist Bible-thumpers and/or hyperconservative loons. A LOT of people will look in horror at the alternative offered by the Republicans, shrug, and punch OBAMA on their ballot.
This is just a prediction, too, but it appears to be founded on fantasy. What you have described (with hyper-partisan descriptions) pretty much just happened, and the "hyperconservative loons" won big. By contrast, McCain (whom nobody describes as a hyperconservative loon) lost big. So, given actual electoral results, the scenario you describe doesn't seem to be based on anything other than wishful thinking, stereotypes, and a desire to hurl insults in an effort to bring the fantasy about. Just making the point that we've seen this before, and seen what happened.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIt's just a prediction ... we'll see. History will play out. Just making the point that we've seen this before, and seen what happened.
This is just a prediction, too, but it appears to be founded on fantasy. What you have described (with hyper-partisan descriptions) pretty much just happened, and the "hyperconservative loons" won big. By contrast, McCain (whom nobody describes as a hyperconservative loon) lost big. So, given actual electoral results, the scenario you describe doesn't seem to be based on anything other than wishful thinking, stereotypes, and a desire to hurl insults in an effort to bring the fantasy about. Just making the point that we've seen this before, and seen what happened.
The recent election wasn't a Presidential one. And it wasn't anything near the runaway it would have been had it been an unequivocal expression of voter discontent. As far as the recent Presidential election goes, McCain didn't "lose big". He got 53% of the vote; McCain got 46%. This is like losing a football game, say, 18 to 15, which isn't exactly a blowout. But McCain was successfully tarred with the George W. Bush brush--Obama's final three months of campaigning was pretty much limited to a (successful) effort to convince voters that GWB actually inhabited McCain's body, and also, McCain made the horribly failed gamble of Palinizing himself. Then her handlers made the mistake of letting her open her mouth. Given all that, Obama should have won by a margin of about 130,000,000 to 5. But the election was fairly close.
So I couldn't possibly imagine ANY outcome of the current Egyptian crisis being sufficient to topple Obama from his perch. Issues much closer to the American psyche (the economy; health care; bank bailouts; failure of government) have failed to radically shift the outcomes of recent elections one way or the other.
And ANY prediction can be sneeringly labeled a "fantasy" by someone who has an agenda in doing so. The truth is, your prediction of a revolution in Egypt resulting in Obama's demise is a lot more "fantastical" than mine that he would win anyway. You don't need to be insulting to make your point--I have no "fantasy" of one asshole or the other winning the Presidency. Things won't change no matter which gang of thieves and fools is nominally in charge. An awful lot of people voted for Obama, despite his near-total lack of a resume, because he chanted "Change change change change change", even though even he knew it was actually going to be "same 'ol, same 'ol, same ol." I considered the two choices to be equally bad, but I thought that at least McCain had some experience under his belt, and as long as he kept some moose on the White House lawn, Palin could be rendered entertaining but harmless.
How would Europe cope with 10 million refugees crossing a few hundred miles of water seeking safety?
Quote: mkl654321The recent election wasn't a Presidential one. And it wasn't anything near the runaway it would have been had it been an unequivocal expression of voter discontent. As far as the recent Presidential election goes, McCain didn't "lose big". He got 53% of the vote; McCain got 46%. This is like losing a football game, say, 18 to 15, which isn't exactly a blowout. But McCain was successfully tarred with the George W. Bush brush--Obama's final three months of campaigning was pretty much limited to a (successful) effort to convince voters that GWB actually inhabited McCain's body, and also, McCain made the horribly failed gamble of Palinizing himself. Then her handlers made the mistake of letting her open her mouth. Given all that, Obama should have won by a margin of about 130,000,000 to 5. But the election was fairly close.
So I couldn't possibly imagine ANY outcome of the current Egyptian crisis being sufficient to topple Obama from his perch. Issues much closer to the American psyche (the economy; health care; bank bailouts; failure of government) have failed to radically shift the outcomes of recent elections one way or the other.
All elections are different. File that under "duh." But behavior is at least somewhat predictable, especially as it involves large samples. 2010 was predictable insofar as it involved circumstances similar to 1994 (and maybe 1974, but that's a bit of a stretch). Add the fall of Egypt (and subsequent fallout) to the current mix, and 2012 will be predictable insofar as it involves circumstances similar to 1980.
As for analysis of 2008, that is a tired topic. If you're looking for reasons to not think 2008, 2010, and 2012 will all be different, there's plenty. But it would be nonsense to overlook the reasons that are the same.
So if you feel like you want to drive yourself nuts trying to figure out why it should all be different, go ahead, I guess. It's just a prediction, there will be a measureable result, and one of our predictions will be closer than the others to that result.
Quote: mkl654321And ANY prediction can be sneeringly labeled a "fantasy" by someone who has an agenda in doing so. The truth is, your prediction of a revolution in Egypt resulting in Obama's demise is a lot more "fantastical" than mine that he would win anyway. You don't need to be insulting to make your point--I have no "fantasy" of one asshole or the other winning the Presidency.
Quote: mkl654321He also will benefit from being up against one of a gaggle of right-wingnut fundamentalist Bible-thumpers and/or hyperconservative loons. A LOT of people will look in horror at the alternative offered by the Republicans, shrug, and punch OBAMA on their ballot.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerDomestically, if Egypt falls into radical Islamist hands, that's the political end for Obama. Just like in the late 70s, there's already high unemployment (not as high, but high), a sense of American decline/malaise, high energy prices, etc. Add the fall of a key Islamic ally, and it's church. It won't be a 44-state rout like 1980 Reagan, but I can totally see California going red. And, i can totally see a John Anderson-esque Democrat rising ... Hillary, maybe? But that's far in the future, who knows what will happen? Which one of us predicted Egypt?
I'm no Stanford PhD ... wait, I am! ... but even if I weren't, I would say that my prediction (which may be right or wrong) has a basis much firmer than merely calling conadidats nut jobs, bible-thumpers, and hyperconservative. In fact, the ... what was the term ... "hyperconservative loons" just won big-time, a shellacking, to quote the losing side.
So ... if using history as a guide and observing actual results is somehow more "fantastical" than hurling insults and stereotpying, and if using facts and history as a guide means I have some agenda, then oh well. I guess I could try it your way ... let's see ....
<sarcasm> LMAObama is the stupied smart guy surrounding himself with pointy-headed bleeding hearts who probably got beat up in the playground, smoked pot in high school, worshipped Satan, and want terrorists to win, so the Republican 2012 candidate is going to beneift from normal Americans looking at this not-even-a-citizen socialist who's ruined our nation on the ballot, shrugging their shoulders, and punch WHOEVER on the ballot. </sarcasm>
Yeah, no way any agenda could be read (rightly or wrongly) into that method ...
I don't like that way, so I'm not going to do that any more. I once asked you, do you think it's possible for reasonable, intelligent people to disagree without agenda? I haven't read the answer, but I'm guessing it was probably "no."
Quote: mkl654321Things won't change no matter which gang of thieves and fools is nominally in charge. An awful lot of people voted for Obama, despite his near-total lack of a resume, because he chanted "Change change change change change", even though even he knew it was actually going to be "same 'ol, same 'ol, same ol." I considered the two choices to be equally bad, but I thought that at least McCain had some experience under his belt, and as long as he kept some moose on the White House lawn, Palin could be rendered entertaining but harmless.
I actually kind of give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the Hopey McHope-hope Changey McChange-change campaign. All of us have been idealistic at some point, and all of us (well, maybe not you) still want to believe in something. I think Obama actually thought he could do something, and he had a lot of yes-media telling him he could. I think his underpinning reasons for believing it are narcissistic, but I think he really thought he could be Hopey McHope-hope.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerAll elections are different. File that under "duh." But behavior is at least somewhat predictable, especially as it involves large samples. 2010 was predictable insofar as it involved circumstances similar to 1994 (and maybe 1974, but that's a bit of a stretch). Add the fall of Egypt (and subsequent fallout) to the current mix, and 2012 will be predictable insofar as it involves circumstances similar to 1980.
As for analysis of 2008, that is a tired topic. If you're looking for reasons to not think 2008, 2010, and 2012 will all be different, there's plenty. But it would be nonsense to overlook the reasons that are the same.
So if you feel like you want to drive yourself nuts trying to figure out why it should all be different, go ahead, I guess. It's just a prediction, there will be a measureable result, and one of our predictions will be closer than the others to that result.
True, we both made opposing predictions, but I didn't label yours a "fantasy". And my choice of language to describe Obama's potential 2012 opponents was based solely on my assessemnt of THOSE SPECIFIC potential opponents. I do indeed seeing the fringe being the place where that next opponent ultimately comes from. Do I think ALL Republicans are "hyperconservative loons"? Of course not. But I AM baffled why they don't find a centrist to carry the conservative banner, and instead have focused on the extreme right as the ideological birthing place of their next savior.
Quite frankly, I don't see Obama losing to any such candidate even if Egypt allies itself with Iran, it turns out that Obama was actually born in Yemen, Obama declares war on Canada and accidentally nukes Seattle, Minneapolis, and Detroit, the price of gasoline rises to $29 a gallon, and Obama declares a $100,000 payment to be made to every illegal alien.
Quote: mkl654321True, we both made opposing predictions, but I didn't label yours a "fantasy". And my choice of language to describe Obama's potential 2012 opponents was based solely on my assessemnt of THOSE SPECIFIC potential opponents. I do indeed seeing the fringe being the place where that next opponent ultimately comes from. Do I think ALL Republicans are "hyperconservative loons"? Of course not. But I AM baffled why they don't find a centrist to carry the conservative banner, and instead have focused on the extreme right as the ideological birthing place of their next savior.
Quite frankly, I don't see Obama losing to any such candidate even if Egypt allies itself with Iran, it turns out that Obama was actually born in Yemen, Obama declares war on Canada and accidentally nukes Seattle, Minneapolis, and Detroit, the price of gasoline rises to $29 a gallon, and Obama declares a $100,000 payment to be made to every illegal alien.
Well, I wouldn't frame it with such a dichotomy. If a candidate isn't a "centrist" (whatever you mean by that), that doesn't mean he could only otherwise be "focused on the extreme right as the ideological birthing place of their next savior". Maybe you didn't mean that, but you didn't leave much room for anything in between.
But the answer is, centrists don't win, see also McCain 2008. Conservatives do, especially in economic environments such as these. See also 1980, 1994, 2010. YES, all elections are different. But results are real, not some guessing game.
My guess is, you're not baffled at results, because they are what they are. I think what baffles you is that the results are telling you something completely different than what you hold to be true. I would suggest, then, if you're interested in learning what is true and discarding what is false, that you discard your current paradigm for something not quite so grounded in ... ummm ... fantasy.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerQuote: mkl654321My guess is, you're not baffled at results, because they are what they are. I think what baffles you is that the results are telling you something completely different than what you hold to be true. I would suggest, then, if you're interested in learning what is true and discarding what is false, that you discard your current paradigm for something not quite so grounded in ... ummm ... fantasy.
Actually (please reread for content) what I said that "baffled" me was why Republicans seem to be veering toward extremism, as expressed in their choice of potantial candidates for the 2012 Presidential election. How could "results" be "baffling" me when those results are over a year in the future? If you think I have either Cassandra's powers, or have a time machine, I'm flattered--but I don't.
The word "instead" doesn't imply an either/or choice. Read for comprehension: "I decided to have vanilla ice cream instead of strawberry." There is plenty of room between "centrist" and "extremist". I never said nor implied that those were the only two alternatives for the Republicans.
I do surmise that an extremist candidate would have no real chance against Obama. And since I do get the sense that the Republicans will field such a candidate, that is the basis of my original assertion (surely you remember it) that instability in Egypt, regardless of the outcome, is not a serious threat to Obama's reelection. That's a reasonable conclusion, no matter how snotty you may be in the course of expressing your disagreement with it.
And by the way, I automatically reduce by one half-letter grade any paper that uses the word "dichotomy".The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Quote: mkl654321But I AM baffled why they don't find a centrist to carry the conservative banner, and instead have focused on the extreme right as the ideological birthing place of their next savior.
Why should you be baffled? The GOP ran a centrist in 2008. Look how it turned out. Centrist candidates rarely win. Both Bushes won, but W won by the slimmest of margins and 41 won on the stregnth of Reagan and the fortune to have a far lefty opponent. McCain had a far left opponent but not the stregnth of Reagan.
"Centrists" do not get energy in your campaign nor generatge emotion. "Centrists" are like a 1980s car designed by GM--put in front of numerous focus groups and all charachter removed until it offends nobody. Then it is loved by nobody, and bought by people with little other choice. For as much as I dislike and disagree with Obama (and you read that right, I do not care for his personality, either-very arrogant) I give himn credit that he excited his base with left-wing ideas. McCain only excited his base when he was smart enough to pic Palin as his VP. And the base got excited enough that the media was forced to implement an all-stops-pulled-out hit job to discredit her.
Pick a centrist? Why bother-if the GOP pickis a centrist they might as well give away the election.
Quote: mkl654321Actually (please reread for content) what I said that "baffled" me was why Republicans seem to be veering toward extremism, as expressed in their choice of potantial candidates for the 2012 Presidential election. How could "results" be "baffling" me when those results are over a year in the future? If you think I have either Cassandra's powers, or have a time machine, I'm flattered--but I don't.
The word "instead" doesn't imply an either/or choice. Read for comprehension: "I decided to have vanilla ice cream instead of strawberry." There is plenty of room between "centrist" and "extremist". I never said nor implied that those were the only two alternatives for the Republicans.
I do surmise that an extremist candidate would have no real chance against Obama. And since I do get the sense that the Republicans will field such a candidate, that is the basis of my original assertion (surely you remember it) that instability in Egypt, regardless of the outcome, is not a serious threat to Obama's reelection. That's a reasonable conclusion, no matter how snotty you may be in the course of expressing your disagreement with it.
And by the way, I automatically reduce by one half-letter grade any paper that uses the word "dichotomy".
I think I read it with the plain meaning. I've mentioned before that you don't write in a way that's clear or organized at all, you tend to bury your points or re-focus in the middle of a thread, and oftentimes it's hard to decipher what point you're trying to make. Hopefully, you'll get better at that.
But be that as it may, regarding the highlighted portion ...
I don't see a move towards extremism at all. (The field of candidates can only be guessed at right now. Fringe candidates don't count any more than Dennis Kucinich counted as a true Democrat contender int he run-up to 2008.)
But we may have different ideas of what "extreme" is. It might be helpful if you gave some unambiguous specifics and stick to them. When you say "veering towards extremism," what exactly do you mean? And, tell me the potential candidate (non-Kucinich-esque) who is voicing that "extreme" view?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI think I read it with the plain meaning. I've mentioned before that you don't write in a way that's clear or organized at all, you tend to bury your points or re-focus in the middle of a thread, and oftentimes it's hard to decipher what point you're trying to make. Hopefully, you'll get better at that.
Your various and sundry responses have indicated that you don't read in a way that's clear or organized at all; you tend to miss points that aren't carefully sequenced as they might be in a high school essay, and it's oftentimes hopeless to try to explain to you what point I've made (or even, what point you've made). I have no hope of your getting better at that.
Your disagreements with me are based on your ideology first and second, with actual differences in point of view a distant third. So why bother explaining my reasoning to you any more? You've already affected to fail to understand it half a dozen times. I'm quixotic at times, but not THAT quixotic.
