Yes, I can't really get around the concentration camps that existed as a necessary part of the USSR and its satellite states to be satisfied with the marxist ethic of individuals within those states.
Maybe try a movie about a kibbutz, then I'd be more interested in hearing about the marxist individual ethics there.
I also think you're being unfair to the West-individual liberty is an incredibly valuable ethic in and of itself.

ahahahaha now I know you've gone off the deep end. This describes every statistical effort, ever. You have to explain why their choices are WRONG in order to disprove them. Every statistician makes choices; it's a necessity in order to create data. Unless you've just gone totally pomo on us and are neutral in the battle between cw and stat-heads. In which case, don't defend conventional wisdom either, because it, too, makes decisions based on evidence, and decides what evidence to compile and its relevance. Inductive reasoning chooses to privilege evidence that appears only after the fact, for example.

I doubt that they think they have "unerring" access to rationality. But please explain how they're cherry picking by compiling data from a vast number of football games?

Freddie-you're cherry-picking the data set. Yes, the Pats had stopped the Colts for a lot of that game; but they hadn't on the last two Colt drives, and the Pats defense was, by all accounts, gassed. Peyton is also a legendarily clutch QB that thrives on these moments. There are arguments going both ways based on this game in particular.

The point the statisticians are trying to make is that all things considered, based upon the vast amount of data we have on all football games, the safer play is to go for it on 4th and short. Yes, there could be confounding variables-if your QB's leg is broken, then maybe you should punt-but in general, stats give us something that is more accurate than your intuition. This is not controversial in most spheres of social science.

I think the football outsider's point is that the percentages indicate that this was the right call-just because it didn't work doesn't mean it was wrong. let's suppose that every day, you leave work along a footpath instead of along the cliff. you know that leaving along the cliff means that there's a huge chance-90%-that you slip and fall to your death. one day, you go along the footpath, and you happen to slip and break your neck. there was only a 1% chance of this happening, but hey, shite happens. does this mean your original decision to walk along the footpath was wrong? nope, you increased your chances of winning (surviving) as compared to going along the cliff.
inductive reasoning is flawed in this instance because it doesn't take into account the percentages of success of the various options. the same can be analogized to football and going for it on 4th down.

I think that it's possible to think that homosexuality is immoral without being a bigot or even opposing gay marriage. In fact, I happen to think it's a sin, but (similar to adultery) not one that the government has any business regulating; thus, GLBTs should have all the civil rights of marriage available to heteros.

Alright, just wanted to get that on record. If you are concerned about the distortionary impact of taxation, then I assume you'd also be in favor of the VAT replacing (to some extent) extremely distortionary taxes like the corporate income tax?

Don't you think, besides being "fair" and "raising lots of money," liberals should also consider the impact that particular taxes will have on economic growth? Or do you think taxation has no effect on economic growth at all?
I agree that VATs are very economically efficient compared to income taxes; perhaps some sort of compromise in which deductions are removed, the overall income tax rate is drastically lowered, and a VAT is added could raise necessary funds.

it really doesn't matter (to me, at least) whether anyone wants it. if it's a good idea, let it be done; the voters can express their disapproval at the polls in 2010 and 2012.
as to the other arguments about taxes and deficits:

Jamelle, a health insurance mandate is essentially a tax. It forces you to transfer more of your income to the insurance companies. Granted, the government middleman is cut out, but I think any governmental coercive taking is a tax of some form. I'm guessing Jindal didn't have the space to go into this distinction in his column.
As to the deficit, let's suppose that Obama is right that there is plenty of waste to cut out of Medicare (I certainly think that he is). If so, given the growing deficit there, should not any cuts go to pay our future obligations instead of adding new ones? Even if the health care reform itself is mostly paid for, it exhausts one more revenue source that the government could use to tamp down the deficit, which would be huge even without any health care reform. The answer most Democrats have to the fiscal question of "why not show us the Medicare savings first, THEN universalize health care" is that it's not politically feasible. But that's not a good policy answer.

I guess I don't understand 2 things:
1. how they undermine current labor protections by coming in without those protections. after all, the protections benefit the workers. if someone wants to opt out of them, isn't that their right (in a free country)?
2. how extending the protections to immigrants will benefit their lives. it seems more likely that it will result in fewer of them fleeing the conditions that you admit are worse than in america, so net less well being.