Congress, END THIS WAR(s)!

[swivel]

Which wars should we end? I have a nifty formula to lend us a hand:

F = M/L

Where M=Money Wasted, L=Likelihood of success and F=FuckingBullshitWar. The larger 'F', the sooner we should alter our strategy or desist.

Solving for a few F's, we get the top 4 bullshit wastes of money and time:

1) The War on Climate Change
2) The War on Poverty
3) The War on Drugs
4) The War in Iraq

(1) is a given because L~=0, giving us an F of ~infinity. Unless we are going to do something about the sun running out of fuel, and the universe tending to a Big Crunch or a Heat Death, we are wasting our fucking time. THAT is thinking "Big Picture". The inevitable ice ages and the fact that every continent on the planet today will one day be pushed under or over another is small-fry in comparison. And forget the next big impactors and major solar cycles, those are mere ripples in a maelstrom. But, oh? The Earth is going to warm a few degrees over the next dozen years? THIS IS A GOOD THING YOU FUCKING RETARDS! The last time the Earth warmed a tad it ended the severe starvation of Europe, as harvests boomed. This will mean that the Sahara returns to grasslands. Stop wasting money chasing your Naturalistic Fallacy.

(2) I'm not going to say that the eradication of poverty is impossible, but I will say that we can't get rid of class. It is innate. Biological. Vampire bats only share with those who have shared with them. Chimps barter for status, respect, and sex. You aren't going to will equality on a populace that knows better, on a genetic level, that such is not true. The War on Poverty has not dented the proportion of our population that can't get ahead. Some people are motivated and some are not. We have not proven, to my satisfaction, that the reason the poor stay poor and the rich get richer is not simply due to the heritability of LAZINESS. These generations of winners and losers are linked by more than their monetary inheritance. M is massive and L is infinitesimal. This war has a large FuckingBullshitWar factor.

(3) This war is not winnable, either. Morons will suck on an AC unit for a buzz. Are we going to outlaw paint and whipped cream? The reason it comes in at number 3 is because the billions wasted here don't dent the trillions wasted with (1) and (2). And the mandatory sentencing puts away people who bargain down from other crimes, like assault, domestic violence, and vehicular manslaughter. The FuckingBullshitWar score is still immense, but we are comparing an elephant to a galaxy and the observable universe.

(4) Cheaper than (1) and (2), more expensive than (3). The difference is a measurable 'L'. Winning this war means a LONG win. Things can't go to shit after we leave. So, 'L' is still probably below 25%, but I don't have the decimal stamina to type out the 'L' of the first three wars. And looking at the rights that women and minorities are gaining in Iraq, I see a progress that the first three wars can't emulate. With the costs, though, the FuckingBullshitWar measurement is still an embarrassment, so we can't pretend that rating (4) on this list is some sort of victory. What we can conclude is this:

The Far Left is waging the top two wars while the Far Right is waging the bottom two. And they both think that they are winning/can win these wars. Both groups of fanatics think that the costs are worthwhile, the benefits measurable, the ratio justified! Both groups are out of their fucking minds. What this formula suggests, to me at least, is that the group waging (1) and (2) is crazier than the group waging (3) and (4).

This is how a complete atheist, who is anti-gun and pro-choice, who thinks we should open our borders completely finds himself voting Republican (with the taste of tin-foil in his mouth). I want the Conservatives to throw out the Religious and I want the Liberals to throw out the environmentalists and the socialists. Until then, my political decisions are paint-by-number.

[brokenandtwisted]

To answer your question, #2. By ending the war on poverty there can be employment where we ["we" because Canada has this issue as well] can mix economic policies with environmental policies - going green can stimulate the economy. The "L" of #2 is higher than the "L" of both #3 and #4. The "L" of #1 is dependent on the "L" of #2. So that indirectly cancels out #1 if #2 is done correctly and in relation to #1 itself.

This would change it to L = Likelihood of Success, M = Money Wasted and F = Chance of Failure, resulting in % L/F = M, because money has and will be wasted regardless of "L".

For #3, ending the war on drugs is impossible, especially with Mexico south of the States (not to sound racist or whatever, but they have a huge issue). There is really no point in wasting money on a war that cannot be won. This segues into #4.

For #4, you cannot win a war against an enemy who's radical enough to die for a fundamental cause. This largely echoes Vietnam. #3 and #4, much like #1 and #2, are related - especially in cost. The best thing to do is to simply disarm the Middle East and terrorists, in my opinion. So, #3 and #4 are lost causes.

We should be focusing on #2 to stimulate the economy with #1.

[swivel]

So, you agree on fighting #1, even thought the L ~= 0, just to artificially boost the low end of #2, which will have the real effect of being a drag on everyone?

Spending tax dollars, and going into debt, to generate jobs out of thin air is not good policy. All it does is enrich the populace today, at the expense of future citizens.

There is a good chance that none of these wars can be won, which is why I am calling for an end to all of them. But they are appropriately ranked according to lunacy. If you feel that the list is flipped, it is likely a bias in the reader that should be examined.

[brokenandtwisted]

So, you agree on fighting #1, even thought the L ~= 0, just to artificially boost the low end of #2, which will have the real effect of being a drag on everyone?

Spending tax dollars, and going into debt, to generate jobs out of thin air is not good policy. All it does is enrich the populace today, at the expense of future citizens.

There is a good chance that none of these wars can be won, which is why I am calling for an end to all of them. But they are appropriately ranked according to lunacy. If you feel that the list is flipped, it is likely a bias in the reader that should be examined.

I agree, but to change direction there has to be a least some consequence, financially, no?

And call me crazy, I read them differently.