Weekday Open Thread
Via Mark Thoma , a good article on bubbles and depressions.
Central Italy rocked by 6.3 earthquake . over 92 dead and priceless medieval buildings fall in ruin.
NY Gov. hits new low in approval rating.
The floor is yours.
Submitted by John on Mon, 2009-04-06 11:29
-->
- John's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Tags:
Comments :
Just say NO
to protectionism.
Good video on Smoot-Hawely, its effects on the Depression and its implications today:
"Madison grad saves $ with surgery in India"
A local man saved $109K by going on a $22k vacation/having life saving surgery.
----
[sarcasm] That video was just educated elite trying to let FDR's Alphabet Soup of big government off the hook.[sarcasm>]
At 7:00 the historian notes that protectionism was huge spur to Japan [from a gallop to a gallop]. And Japan was already in full out Imperialism mode.
Smoot-Hawley went fairly fast. June 17th it was signed, September the Nazis get a massive increase in votes. Great Depression already started before the bill though.
edit:
It's only a short clip, but the "spurred on" quote as a stand alone to introduce gives a misleading impression, imo. Spurred on existing movements already near full gallop or already there....
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
My "question for Lou
My "question for Lou Dobbs" swordscrossed.org/node/1662
regarding opposition to outsourcing applies equally to opposition to free trade (and advocacy of protectionism):
Jeebus
Cuomo's outpolling him 61 to 18? You don't recover from those kinds of numbers.
Oh yeah and Fox Business
needs to proofread a little better:
Unless the denominator underwent a hidden change or we're looking backwards in time, I'm pretty sure that's an increase.
Interesting.
I just went to read the context of this, and the text seems to have been updated ... although it is still somewhat undecipherable in terms of what they actually mean.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Since you mentioned Mark
Since you mentioned Mark Thoma, I can't pass up the opportunity (moral obligation?) to say that Mark Thoma is a disingenuous, unethical (as an educator, that is), censorship-inclined, hyperpartisan pr*ck who puts partisan propaganda way ahead of education and legitimate debate of issues, as evidenced by his practice of deleting comments that legitimately challenge his partisan talking points and those of his regulars (and sometimes filling in the deleted comment areas with gross misrepresentations of what was said and why it was deleted). He and Brad DeLong should be, particularly as educators (even if their blogs are not part of their jobs as professors), ashamed of themselves. At least Dean Baker (on Beat the Press), although every bit as much a hyperpartisan propogandist, doesn't engage in such censorship.
For an amusing look at Thoma's bullsh*t -- one I guess he didn't expect would be made public -- see swordscrossed.org/node/2285#comment-90623
If you do, I suggest reading it all (all of both my comments) rather than pieces so you have the whole picture.
Indeed,
I agree 100%.
But yoiu already know that.
Agreement is generally no
Agreement is generally no fun, but this case is an exception
I love his catch-all defense:
"It's my blog"
Whatever...
Blithering Idiot at 36:15 of this video
Video here
.
I was watching Bob Higgs of the Independent Institute being interviewed for Book TV on CSPAN 2 when a moron who exemplifies the word "lost" comes on at 36:15 and makes an ass out of himself. I couldn't help but chuckle. And even before Higgs responds, I think you could pretty much guess what he is going to say based simply on the views of libertarians at this website on matters of bailouts, corporatism, interventionist government power and yes...fascism. The moron on the phone used that word to describe Higgs. Mind you, this came up at 36:15. Anyone listening up to that point would EASILY been exposed to Higgs's view on the bailouts and Wall St....and yet, this totally oblivious caller comes on and spews out a bunch of garbage that is DOA to anyone paying attention. The man is angry and lost. He doesn't know left from right or up from down. Reminds me of Naomi Klein's embarrassment of a thesis in Shock Doctrine.
Know who you're talking to before vomiting such errant sactimony, Mr. Caller from Washington.
Enjoy.
Blithering Idiot Part 2 at 1:18:45
Since I don't normally watch Book TV or CSPAN, I don't know if the quality of callers is always this poor. However, my smattering of viewings of CSPAN callers on their talk programs gives the same poor impression of the quality of callers so maybe it truly is the norm.
The calls have been quite poor and seem to come from people who think an awful lot about their own opinions but very little about what others whom they are listening to have to say.
At 1:18:45 (BTW, you can put the cursor on the timeline and jump to any point in the video without waiting for it to load), we see another caller who seems to have ignored everything Higgs has said and makes a very dim comment....almost as bad as the first one I mentioned above.
It's the norm.
CSPAN is genernally crap when it's not simply a TV aimed at our government proceedings in purely an observational capacity.
I figured.
What these people lack in listening comprehension and the ability to think objectively through a thought that they don't already understand, they more than make up for in mindless passion and predictable, primal reactions....and rudeness to boot.
They have truly worn out the carpet at the the entrance of the room without ever having taken a more than a few steps inside to get a deeper look.
Did you catch those clips, BTW?
If Michigan State is losing
If Michigan State is losing at halftime, is Obama going to replace the coach?
Update: ooph! With 7:33 left in first half, things are lookin' u-u-ugly for MS. I think at halftime Obama will offer to give MS 10 points if they let him fire the coach.
The military-industrial complex springs into action!
...cross post from Freedom Democrats
.
Defense Secretary Gates has made his proposal for Pentagon spending -- now it's time for the lobbyists to get involved. One "big" change that Gates proposes is to cease production of the F-22
fighter in 2011. Of course, everyone involved in this project conveniently believes that continued production of F-22s is in the national interest, as if we would have no air force without continued production (the military has almost 200 F-22, and over 2000 F-35). Senator Isakson (R-GA) gets straight the point and argues that we need to make work for his constituents. He moans about cutting jobs in "this economy", ignoring the fact that most of these supposed job cuts won't occur for over a year.
Anyway, I'm sure that
defensewar contractors will be spending a lot of times in the Capitol over the next few months. As usual, they will succeed in filling the military budget with lard, relying on the politicians to provide the ideological cover for their looting. We can count on a full-on propaganda offensive from Republicans and their media allies, convincing the public that the foreigners hate us and we can only be safe by implementing a strategy of "world government through intimidation".Remember, taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
No money for petty vengance
...cross post from Freedom Democrats
.
The Economist reports that as American states desperately seek budget cuts
, some are deciding that it isn't worthwhile to cut off the heads of unarmed men. They report that Maryland has wasted almost $10 million dollars a year maintaining death row, and death-penalty cases typically cost $2 million more than comparable non-capital cases.
They also report that Jim Web has become Americas biggest proponent of prison reform
. This two issues illustrate the Republican party's theory of "government by intimidation": this is the ideology of a sick society whose government has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
P.S.
"taxes are the price we pay for civilization"
This servile progressive (corporate liberal?) doctrine is put to lie by the fact that we pay extra taxes to kill a person who is completely under our control...that and the myriad other uncivilized actions of the state.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Help me understand the
Help me understand the argument (or at least your argument and/or Webb's and/or The Economist's) that we have too many people in prison.
Is it a matter of fairness to the prisoners? In other words, are people in prison who don't "deserve" to be there -- i.e., wrongful convictions; excessive sentences (e.g., the Rockefeller drug laws; "3 strikes"; etc.); crimes that shouldn't be crimes (drug use and sales); etc.?
Is it an argument on practical grounds? Is it that, even assuming the prisoners do "deserve" to be in prison, the financial cost of putting/keeping them there outweighs the societal benefit of keeping them away from the rest of us? If so, what is the supporting analysis or theory weighing the financial cost against the utility of less crime (How much is it worth in taxes to keep a violent criminal behind bars rather than on my block?)? Or is it that putting/keeping someone in prison either does (in practice) or necessarily will (despite any reforms) result in their committing more crime when they get out of prison than they otherwise would have, and there is a better alternative, all things considered?
Help me out, because when I hear people assert that we shouldn't have so many people in prison, my (I think natural) initial reaction, albeit simplistic, is "Well, isn't prison a good place to keep criminals?"
And when I say "help me out", I'm not trying to sound snarky or rhetorical; I'd like someone to flesh out the argument for me. Also if you have links to others making this argument, that would be great (I've already read that Economist piece -- it was one of the first ones I read in this week's issue, and I didn't think it fleshed out the argument adequately).
against prisons
You basically made the argument yourself, but anyway...
1) Victimless crimes: According to that article, Webb places a big focus on drug crimes. I know that the economist opposes the drug war, as do I.
2) Excessive/uncontrolled punishment: If a person gets thrown in jail for a minor offense (drug crime, small theft), they should not be subject to random assault.
3) Efficacy: Ignore for the moment whether the costs exceed the benefits -- there often isn't good evidence of harsh punishments providing any benefits. There is not good evidence that harsh drug laws reduce drug use, nor is there good evidence that executions reduce violent crime.
I'm not opposed to locking up people who committ "big crimes"-- who might be expected to cause severe damage if they were free -- but we lock up a lot of people (temporarily) for little crimes, even when there's little reason to believe that prison is the most effective or efficient way of keeping them from committing further crimes. On top of the costs of running the prison, we need to consider everything that society looses by removing a petty criminal (who may also be a parent and a productive employee) from among us.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
So if those premises are
So if those premises are invalid (or sufficiently invalid) or if policy changes were made to eliminate those conditions, but the number of people (percent of the population, and same demographics) in prison were the same as it is now, you would not be saying there are far too many people in prison? (and I don't mean too many in the sense of it being unfortunate or in the sense that if we could create a better world fewer people would commit crimes, etc., but in the sense that you would prefer many of those people not be in prison at the moment) In other words, it's not that you necessarily prefer a lower prison population per se, just that you object to that many prisoners when the causes are those you cite. Take away those causes, and the current number of prisoners, in itself, would not lead you to say that it is inherently wrong or a mistake to have that many prisoners, given the state of the world as it is. Do I have that correct?
incarceration rate is just a statistic.
The incarceration rate is just a statistic, so there's really no sense in saying that it is good or bad, in itself. However, I believe that whenever a person is thrown in jail, something went wrong--whether it was unnecessary imprisonment, or the guy was just raised wrong.
With that perspective, a high incarceration rate indicates that something is wrong in our society--either we are locking up people who shouldn't be there, or we are making too many criminals who need to be locked up. In particular, when we have a exceptionally high incarceration rate (relative to other orderly countries and relative to our own past), that suggests that we might be able to do something to bring our incarceration rate down without threatening public order.
In our current situation, I know that our exceptionally high incarceration rate is largely due to drug prohibition and the "get tough on crime" movement (which was an emotionalist movement, as far as I can tell). In that context, the incarceration rate becomes a sort of shorthand to summarize this group of issues, and a propaganda tool to bring attention to the magnitude of the problem.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
So, just to rephrase my
So, just to rephrase my question slightly, if your premises were invalid or policy changes were made to eliminate them (solve those problems), but we still had the same number of prisoners, although you would want us to work on societal/cultural/etc. changes to reduce the number of criminals, you would NOT advocate releasing some number of prisoners and/or imprisoning fewer or reducing sentences as if lowering the prison population were an objective in and of itself, correct?
exactly BRat
Yes, I would not advocate letting people out of jail unless I had a specific reason to think that they had been put there without good reason.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Related
If the government/the people don't want to pay for prisoners. They should heavily think on which acts they want to make criminal.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Obama claims "state secrets" for copyright treaty
This is a few weeks old, but new to me. It's very troubling.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-declares.html
Meanwhile, the text of this treaty is in the hands of many foreign governments, and supposedly also in the hands of entertainment and pharma industry lobbyists.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I thought Obama promised us transparency?
Am I wrong on that point?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4exactly my point
Obama initially gained a lot of support from people who wanted to see increased transparency.
During the campaign, he disappointed them by blocking investigation of the illegal wiretapping program.
He continues to assert state secrets with respect to the wiretapping program....but this one is just absurd.
In other words, I'm hoping that we'll hold him accountable. I wish you could see this article that was published in the Nation magazine (beyond hope
) -- it basically tells progressives that they can't become an apologist for power just because the people who hold power today were once allies in the fight against yesterday's power elite.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Just as a general comment, I
Just as a general comment, I think the folks who couldn't see through the obvious careful selection of words and phrases of Obama the Candidate, all crafted to get folks with substantially divergent views to think his views and approaches and promises fit perfectly with theirs, should just look in the mirror and talk to the naive, poor-listening, sloppy-thinking sucker rather than (just) feeling angry about some perceived deception or abandonment by Obama. I have in mind in particular Obama's policy on withdrawal from Iraq (oops, I meant "redeployment", not "withdrawal". Forgot to apply my Guide to Euphemistic Political Bullsh*t swordscrossed.org/node/1721
). Amazing the loops some folks jumped through to convince themselves that he was stating a clear position, as evidenced at the links below (the second diary being the most entertaining, if I may say so myself).
swordscrossed.org/node/2324
Oh, and Obama and his inner circle have no problem with the art of bullsh*t. Just one example: swordscrossed.org/diary/20081022/obamas-deception-campaign-funding-and-need-real-reform
In fairness, credit is due him and his people for making his budget much less of a bullsh*t document than those of Bush and his folks, but that was a very, very low bar, and his budget and his related rhetoric still contain no small amount of deception.
Do I get a cookie?
For easily predicting that Obama would have a special new definition for what a "combat" troop was and mostly leave troops in Iraq.
He was a professional lawyer.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'll give you a cookie if you
I'll give you a cookie if you predicted that specific linguistic tactic, but I want one, too, for asking in the diary at that first link I provided (which was in the style of an open letter to Obama):
Of course, re: "combat troops" vs. other troops, misleading euphemestic labels for troops of ours on foreign soil has some history. "Advisors" in El Salvador and initially in Vietnam, etc.
the president is our best politician
He's a very good politician. That's why he's president.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Yawn
Is this your idea of what SC should be?
Topic: Obama withheld trade agreement negotiation documents from an FOIA request.
BR's reaction: posts broad screed about the hypocrisy of Obama, complete with links to his own forvm diaries which appear to be more screeds about the hypocrisy of Obama, in which the main conversation fomented seems to center on whether he should be ignored or banned
.
BR's reaction to new evidence brought to bear on the subject that Obama had released documents under FOIA: crickets.
Way to raise the level of SC discourse, BR!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Oh, geez. ok, I'll try to
Oh, geez. ok, I'll try to introduce some reasonableness here and perhaps you'll adopt it.
Yes, sometimes people force into discussions of specific topics very general, usually partisan attacks (generally from the usual suspects who make a habit of it) that are obviously just gratuitous attacks thrown in under the faintest of pretexts of relevancy, and sometimes this behavior can disrupt discussion of the specific issue that was being discussed. But if you want to argue that my comment re: Obama, although relevant to the general topic of Obama's openness, sincerity (etc.) with regard to his positions, promises and actions, and whether or not folks should feel like he has changed or has turned out to have deceived them or broken promises or whatever (which seemed to be a more general issue that had been raised prior to my comment or was at least arguably legitimately relevant), was so irrelevant as to be worthy of the criticism in your comment, I suppose you could make that argument, but it would be a very weak one in my opinion, let alone a reasonable basis for an implication that my concerns and arguments regarding other quality problems at SC are invalid.
And you gratuitously refer to the matter of the hyperpartisans at Forvm getting irritated at my efforts to get them to engage in logical, good-faith discussion/debate, which is at best irrelevant, and at worst (from the perspective of whatever point you were trying to make), consistent with and support for my arguments regarding the problem of quality at SC. As I said previously, if all folks want is a hyperpartisan food fight, there already was and is a blog site for that: Forvm swordscrossed.org/diary/20090405/lets-pile-goright-diary#comment-108271
).
And as far as the specific, narrower matter raised initially regarding "new evidence brought to bear on the subject that Obama had released documents under FOIA" and your silly comment of "crickets", I have no comment on it (I know nothing about it yet), which is why I began my comment by stating explicitly, "Just as a general comment..."
So, bottom line: Your comment is at best WAY over the top (i.e., even if one would grant you some small point that perhaps a more general point wasn't worthwhile or wasn't worth whatever distraction it may have caused), and at worst (which appears to be the case), both invalid AND full of a bunch of unjustified snark.
Is this absurdity from you due to some hyperpartisanship because I criticized Obama, or was there some other cause? Yeesh, give me a break.
But wait!
This is the adjectivery you have been using to describe SC, taken from just a single thread:
If the discourse here is in such a state of decline as this, and you are so concerned about our improvement, it seems that you could at least set a good example, right? You claim to want this to be an "oasis of intelligent, good-faith discussion/debate". You bemoan sites that are "bad faith", "hyperpartisan food fight[s]".
But your actions say otherwise. There is nothing "good faith" nor "intelligent" about your comment... you didn't even give the barest of glances into the actual issue! Instead, since on the surface the issue seemed to play into your own partisan biases against Obama, you just indulged those biases.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Holy crap. Sorry, but,
Holy crap. Sorry, but, believe it or not, I do have a limit, at least for a given time period, to how much time and effort I'll put into deconstructing and pointing out and explaining the fundamental flaws in nonsensical arguments such as the one you just posted. You are obviously confusing concepts, principles and purposes, making a silly argument, misreading my motivation and general thinking and commenting nature. But it's getting just too tedious to deal with such nonsense. I don't mind coaching some folks along sometimes, but I don't wish to spend most of my time here to teaching a special ed class in logical argumentation.
Oh, and by the way, I just checked over at that link to the Forvm thread, and anyone with even half a brain can see that my exchanges starting at the point of your link (and throughout the thread generally) consist of my trying to reason with people who either have no capacity for it or no desire to apply it and reply with logical, relevant comments. But I guess the actual nature of the exchanges and the relative validity of the arguments of each side is not of interest to you, as opposed to the fact of the negative reaction from those folks per se and whatever implication you can make by pointing to it, even a point that doesn't even make sense given my aforementioned comment regarding Forvm (unless you wish to argue that if a dozen or more people react negatively to someone, his point must be invalid, his objective unworthy, or something like that). Silly, childish, dumb stuff, man.
Brendan! Knocienz! Can I pay you guys to participate regularly here? The ratio of stupid and/or disingenuous comments to intelligent, good-faith comments is pathetically low without you guys. (NOT to imply that they are the only good commenters here on SC, just that the dumb stuff is getting to be too great a portion of the whole).
reason
You use that word a lot, but I don't think it means what your must think it means. (Apologies to the Princess Bride)
Funny, I couldn't agree more.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If I may
be so bold.
You have made the same point over and over again. It is getting repetitive to the point of ridiculousness. We get it.
Somehow in your regal reasonableness you have not addressed skymutts contention that you are not setting an example. Case in point.
You keep making the same point over and over, essentially that *almost* everyone is stupid, and it is starting to sound a lot like whining.
Just an observation.
I'm only half stupid
I usually don't bother
I usually don't bother replying to you, ML, but just FYI, I did address skymutt's comment substantively (not that it merited such treatement). Your thinking and contending that I did not does not surprise me in the slightest.
But you are right about one thing, which I realize anyway, which is that if I were to continue much longer harping on my point about quality at SC to the extent that I have focused on it over the past couple of days, and if it didn't seem to be accomplishing anything (and it doesn't seem to be accomplishing much, at least not much that can be observed or inferred thus far), it would sound like whining and would represent a cost with no benefit (tedious for all, including me of course, without accomplishing anything). Which is why, given what I see as a difference of opinion or complacency or whatever on the part of the SC regulars who commented on GR's thread, I said that I don't intend to persist much with the matter.
Since you claim to be
trying to 'elevate' the discourse, it seems odd that you would start out your reply, with such a dismissive declaration.
"I usually don't bother replying to you, ML...." (because you are a worthless irrational dung in my regal estimation), was that the implication? :-)
Just as an FYI I have no problem with your freedom to have a low opinion of me or your freedom to express it on this blog. Whether or not you think that adds more integrity to the site or not is your call, since you are the one that keeps bringing it up.
I'm only half stupid
+4
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'll say it again: Get a
I'll say it again: Get a room, you two, and start that reality TV show. You were made for each other...and for reality TV
And you could be the one that brings out the final rose?
nt.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Oh great skymutt, give us your wisdom!
Surely there is some master plan at work here? Surely there is a reason that claiming states secrets is precisely what Obama said and meant when he promised us transparency. Does Obama work in mysterious ways, oh enlightened one? Show us the light so that we no longer have to wander around in the dark.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Classifying trade agreements is considered routine apparently
The practice of classifying trade agreement negotiation documents dates back to a court case, a FOIA request regarding the Chile Free Trade Agreement in 2001:
According to this
(see page 160), however, that court issued a stay of the release of all documents, pending an appeal, and that "thereafter, U.S. officials asserted that U.S. trade negotiation documents are now being routinely classified for national security reasons as a means of preventing their disclosure. Consequently, as a result of the court's decision, even fewer documents than before are subject to disclosure."
So I can sympathize with the claims of lack of transparency, and I think that the folks who want the disclosure of these documents probably have a legitimate beef, but I don't think this is a planned, orchestrated effort by Obama to keep people in the dark; it's just a relic of the Bush era that has not been resolved yet.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Planned? Orchestrated?
Who said that?
His lack of transparency is disturbing given his campaign rhetoric regardless of whether this is either planned or orchestrated. Do you not agree?
Do you know something here that you have not shared? Do you have some evidence that Obama is actively pursuing changes to resolve this issue? I mean he IS the President and the President has the authority to declassify things. All he has to say is, "declassify them." Well, and sign his name when the paperwork shows up, of course.
I find it rich that you, and therefore by proxy Obama, are hiding behind Bush's skirts on this. Wasn't that transparency thing directly targeted at undoing the things Bush did in the area of working in secrecy? Did I somehow misunderstand Obama's point there? Otherwise this seems like a no-brainer. I mean we're talking about trade agreements.
UPDATE:
So it seems we now have at least two areas where Obama is claiming National Security to try and hide information, right?
(1) Continuing to cover-up on the domestic wire-tapping case.*
(2) Hiding the details of trade-agreements.
------------------------------------------
* This raises an interesting question, has Obama ever said that he was shutting down the domestic wire-tapping? If not, why not? Any pointers? Are you outraged?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, i do not agree that this is disturbing.
I do not agree. This may be faulty policy, but it is not disturbing. That Obama's administration hasn't reversed every Bush era affront to transparency in government is not disturbing to me at this early stage of the game, on the grounds that he's had other stuff on his plate and a lot of these policies have not been reviewed yet. In this case, I tend to doubt that the issue has even risen to Obama's attention, since, like you say, we are talking about FOIA requests regarding trade agreements.
I think it's Obama's approach to be cautious and systematic. He has not been in the habit of just throwing out Bush era policies and procedures just because they had Bush's fingerprints on them. Therefore, some Bush era policies that probably need to be reversed weren't reversed on day one. This is not in particular troubling to me. It's about what I expected, actually.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Am I allowed to be disturbed by it?
OK, that's fine. Are the rest of us allowed to be disturbed by the fact that he clearly made promises to the country and he is obviously not fulfilling them? At the best they are simply falling through the cracks (and thus he is incompetent) or at the worst he never meant to undo anything and was lying to the American people when he promised transparency.
Sorry, but this doesn't wash, actually. I don't expect that Obama is going to be going over all of the policies with a highlighter on his own. That would be ridiculous. He has entire agencies whose job it is to review and maintain these things. All he had to do was tell them (all the agencies) to review all of their respective policies and undo anything Bush did to operate behind closed doors. It's not like these agencies don't know what Bush changed for god's sake. All they have to do is go review the DailyKos archives!
He hasn't issued that dircetive, obviously, or alternatively in this case he has decided to keep these things classified. The question is why? And the "he was too busy answer" is just BS for all of the above reasons. Obama doesn't have to read a single word to issue his directive and have all of these policies reviewed in parallel. And what was he doing during the transition period? It's not like he hasn't had plenty of time. Even then he had staff that could have been compiling the lists of things that needed to be reveresed.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
Fascinating how y'all are so concerned about this, but I'm the one who had to do all the Googling to find 1) the backgournd on when and why the policy was originated, and 2) that Obama had reversed the policy and released documents.
Because, perhaps, it was the first trade agreement where a FOIA issue had come up since he took office? At any rate, it appears the policy has been reversed, so you concerned citizens can relax now ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
yeah!
skymutt (and Obama) to the rescue!
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Reversed?
Where does it say the policy was reversed? I think I must have missed that part. Here is what I found when I went looking:
Sorry, skymutt but this doesn't look like a reversal. It seems that they have now released 159 + 6 = 165 out of 1,300 pages or about 12.7%. That's not exactly what I would call transparent, would you?
It seems that Obama did, in fact, issue the directive I mentioned earlier. Good. Glad he started the process. But if he allows his agencies to ignore his directives as they have here (since they hadn't even started a transparency review yet), what does that say about his ability to run the government? Would you say that this incident makes him appear more incompetent than he otherwise would, or less so?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Obama
What a bastard for only taking one step at a time! Plus, why the heck are we still importing foreign oil? How come there are still crimes being committed on American streets? Where's that peace on earth I was promised?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ah now...
What steps have you seen the president take, which do you see him taking, and where do you see them going, honestly.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
First step
I am referring specifically to the quote in GoRight's post: "At the same time, however, this release can only be seen as a first step forward..."
I don't expect full transparency from my government, and Obama never promised full transparency. He promised increased transparency, which he has clearly already delivered on. I do expect he will continue to move in that direction, and I don't see anything in the ongoing exchange between GR and skymutt that makes me think otherwise.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Gee, what's that sound?
It seems to be coming from that goalpost over there ... hey is that thing moving?!?!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Lowered Expectations
TBO, I only actually recall him saying there would be "[greater]" transparency, I doubt a politician from the Chicago Political Machine would paint himself into a corner by promising something that could be objectively verified.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Yep
They are moving from the location where your strawman placed it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
This sounds like he meant "full" transparency to me.
Not only are these guys supposed to be having a presumption of openness, they are supposed to be pro-active about being open. I should be getting emails with the details of that trade agreement any time now, right? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Openness and transparency
The presumption of openness, and FOIA itself, do not apply to classified documents, for cryin' out loud! Bush created a whole new category, sensitive but not classified, just to deny FOIA requests of non-classified documents. That is what Obama is talking about here. Do you honestly think that a federal agency should just hand out classified documents to anyone who wants them, without review? Give me a break! The fact that the US Trade Office is now taking a look at the classified documents and beginning to release them, since they don't hold any state secrets or anything, is a step forward, whether you want to admit it or not.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Of course not.
The question IS, should these 1,300 pages of documents be classified or not? Given it is trade agreements material I can't imagine why the answer would be yes, but even if there is a reasonable explanation for why some trade agreement material should be classified do you actually expect that to account for 87+% of the total? I sure as heck don't.
Like I told strawmutt, the issue isn't whether classified documents should be handed out ... the issue is whether Obama is still classifying things that don't need to be classified as a means of hiding them and thus working in secret.
Let's try to be genuine here if we might. People accused Bush of playing the national security card (i.e. classifying things) so that he could work in secret. Why is Obama any less guilty of doing that than Bush was in this example?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am being genuine
Well, for one thing, Obama didn't, as far as I can tell, classify these documents. They were classifed as a matter of standard procedure left over from the Bush admin. Once that came to light, the department responsible for the documents appears to be reviewing them, and releasing the parts that they have quickly determined to be unreasonable to classify.
I am sure there is plenty more that can and should be released. Hopefully there is plenty more that will be released. But the very fact that the process of declassification has begun is already a step in the right direction. I'm not saying that everything is hunky-dory now. I certainly hope to see this process continue, but I don't expect it to happen overnight. And I am pretty sure that if Obama had made some massive decree that a whole bunch of classified documents should just suddenly become unclassified with no review whatsoever, then there would be plenty of people on your side of the aisle that would be up in arms, and crying about how irresponsible that would be.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sure he did.
And this is precisely my point. He promised to reverse this type of thing and he hasn't, obviously. I guess I don't actually know the timeline for when these 1,300 pages were actually classified. I suppose that could have happened under Bush in which case I will stand corrected on who actually did the classifying. But regardless, Obama's da man now and it is his administration that is balking at releasing them.
I believe that the department actually agreed to review their procedures, not the rest of these documents, right? At least publicly so.
He he. You are of course correct. Gee, it actually sucks to have your guy in charge doesn't it? Welcome to my past eight years. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Maybe Obama wants to be careful...
...not to declassify and release detailed plans on how to build a nuclear bomb, like your man Bush did:
So, let's review... Obama is 1) releasing more stuff than Bush, yet 2) has managed so far not to release highly sensitive documents that allow our sworn enemies to produce WMDs. Obama is making us safer and increasing transparency at the same time :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Meh.
There is no secret about the "basics" of how to build an atom bomb. These have been available for years on the internet:
So what exactly qualifies something as being a "basic guide to building and atom bomb?" Anything that actually includes specifications for the physics package wouldn't be a "basic guide", right? If you had the actual specifications for the physics package that's pretty advanced stuff.
Besides, Bush is gone so let's stop talking about him. That's old news. Let's deal with the here and now! :)
Your attempt to deflect my scrutiny has failed.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not so fast
Being the gentleman and civil debater that I am, I would have honored your request to stop talking about Mr. Bush, but then you had to go and lie about a couple things, and we can't have that, can we?
You say:
Authority on classified nuclear documents says:
You say:
New York Times says:
Clearly, there are secrets about the basics of how to build an atomic bomb as long as we use the definition of "basic" intended by the author of the article and and do not allow you to redefine it. Moreover, the documents in question contained such secrets, putting the lie to your claim that there are no such secrets.
Bush might just as well have hand-delivered a nuke to Osama Bin Laden himself. And for what reason? Pure politics, trying to shore up the crumbling rationale for the Iraq war after the fact. For shame... but thank goodness Obama is in power now, making us safer :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That's appeasement, That's what Chamberlain did.
Why must you guys insist on making life easier for the terrorist?
Allowing them to see even more detailed plans and doing nothing but sit in front of your monitor, I say good day sir.
Did OJ stop looking for the real killer, eve though the murders were long in the past, NO.
Did Bush stop looking for ObL, just because several years past after the last large attack on US soil, NO.
Did Barney Frank not act like a lawyer, just because some Harvard student asked him some questions, NO.
Did Al Bundy not bring up the well known fact that he scored 4 touchdowns in one game, Polk High, just because some time past, NO.
Do Italians go on living like no earthquake happened because some time past, NO.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Exactly :-)
These concerned citizens on SC seemed to sleep just fine while the Bush Administration was releasing nothing on our trade agreement negotiations for the last 6 years. Given that documents are starting to be released, I think a little bit of patience is in order.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Nice try strawmutt.
A clear attempt at distraction on your part. I have made it perfectly clear that my complaint is that Obama made a promise of transparency and isn't delivering on it. I haven't complained that about the release or non-release of the papers wither way.
Bush never promised transparency. Obama did. That's the difference between then and now.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I like SL's answer on this...
I think Obama promised increased transparency, not full transparency. And I think that's wise.
Or, we could take transparency to extremes-- how about trade negotiations open to the public, so that every molotov-cocktail-hurling WTO hooligan can have a front-row seat?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Exactly why should trade negotiation be private?
I don't know why that should be required. Please enlighten me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Profoundly disturbing.
I am beginning to think our Presidents post partisan, and post racial pedigree doesn't end there, I suspect he may very well be strongly post nationlist as well. Bringing Koh into the State Dept. with his world view as its preminent legal mind is not comforting in light of this news either.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Disturbing? Now?
According to my source which was posted upthread, it's been "routine" that trade negotiation documents have been classified since at least 2003. So this is not news at all, and the reasonable assumption would be that this issue has not even crossed Obama's radar. He's got other stuff on his plate, in case you haven't noticed.
Was this practice disturbing to you as it went on the past 6+ years?
I hate to break it to everyone, but the government is an aircraft carrier, not a speedboat. Changing direction takes time.
So why again is this particularly disturbing?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well ...
Because this was one of the major planks in his compaign platform. Others here have claimed that Obama ran against Bush. Well to the extent that there is merit to that view, it is centered squarely on the issue of the government operating in secret.
Obama promised that he would be different. Obama promised that there would be change. Obama promised to have one of the most open administrations ever. Now you are saying it is OK that he hasn't bothered to address this point because Bush did it too? Sorry, but that's laughably lame.
Totally irrelevant and borerline disigenuous. It is not like Obama has to personally go make the Xerox copies and mail them out. All he has to do is say, "declassify them" and sign the paperwork to do so when it shows up on his desk. He has people! They do all the legwork for him.
And as for "having other stuff on his plate," he had time to go on with Jay Leno and insult the disabled Special Olympians. Does that mean that you think THAT was more important than dismantling the wall of secrecy erected by Bush? I see a lot of jet setting around the country and being drunk with the celebrity of it all, actually. The whole Leno thing is a prime example. I would rather he spent that time doing the people's business.
What was your position on Bush going back to Crawford and clearing brush? I seem to remember a number of factions on the left making an issue of that. Is this somehow different?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, sort of
Well, sort of... what I am saying is that at this point, I am OK with the fact that Obama hasn't already corrected this, on the grounds that he likely was not aware of this. I am confident that Obama will put out many fires as he becomes aware of them.
And looky here! Fresh off the presses-- documents are already being released, and policies are being changed:
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry, you seem to have highlighted the wrong part ...
There, that's more to the point actually being discussed here. Throwing people a bone is not the same thing as being transparent. Transparent means making the details available, not issuing a summary that doesn't say anything. Or do you disagree on that?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
FOIA requests often yield pretty mundane documents.
I haven't seen the document, have you? Perhaps there's just not much to report at this point? If you can find a link to the document, we can discuss the USTR's documentation policies, but until and unless you bring something to the table here in terms of evidence, there's really little point in having a discussion about a document that neither one of us have seen.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
See above.
Obama's administration has only released 12.7% of the documents
in question. That's hardly a reversal. They had already released 159 pages and so now they have released 165 pages. Whoa, I'm stunned by the way the information is just bursting out of there.
But I did cite evidence. It comes from your own source. Here, let me repeat it:
The evidence is the part in bold. I don't have to have read the document, nor do you, to understand what the author of your piece is saying on that point, or do you somehow disagree?
Oh, and I have provided more evidence in the above link as well.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I dunno...
...maybe the other 87.3% of pages are rightfully classified. Or maybe they are being reviewed for release. The article doesn't actually say what the status of those pages is currently.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It does so say what the status is ...
they have not been released. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4why is there no dateline
Is it just me, or does the above story not have a date associated with it?
It seems that several online news sources have decided that there is no need to put a dateline on their articles. It really bothers me, because you know, sometimes it matters when something was written.
I expect a tech magazine to be aware of the fact that data gets old.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
On a side note,
there is no good reason for trade agreements to be classified.
What are they hiding?
It's bad enough the governments of two countries think they need to meet and decide how their citizens will be allowed to trade goods without keeping secrets in these accords.
P.S. And I think it's terrible no matter who the president is.
I get a little more tiffed when Republicans do it however because they will tend to do it under the label of "free trade" and that's what people remember.
there is no good reason for
I haven't thought it through in great detail, but I'd be inclined to agree.
It's probably not the Obama Administration's intent to be hiding anything; it's just a matter that they were classifying these trade agreements out of inertia, because that's how it had been done in the past.
But surely you can draw a distinction between a President who institutes the policy and perpetuates it for over 6 years, and a President who inherits the policy and doesn't happen to reverse it on day one because he's not aware of the particular narrow issue, right?
And now according to new reports that I just linked to, the Obama administration now seems to have just released trade negotiation documents-- a reversal of the 6 year old Bush policy and a move toward greater transparency. Good job Obama :-) This is whit I expect-- improvement and responsiveness, not day-one perfection.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Why should there be a distinction?
Either he is classifying things or he isn't. Either they should be classified or they shouldn't. The "narrow issue comment" is moot. He's got people to address these things, he doesn't go redact the policies himself you know.
Correction, he released a summary that doesn't provide any details. When he releases all of the documents get back to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Clearly not true.
Not true. The court was clear on this matter-- classified documents that are part of the record of trade negotiations are exempt from FOIA requests. Read the link to page 160 in the Google book that I provided earlier.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
How does this change the validity of my statement?
I just don't see how that affects the validity of the following statement:
Please elaborate since my point doesn't have anything to do with FOIA requests.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What is your point then?
I do not understand what your point is. Please clarify.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The point is ...
he promised us transparency and he is not delivering. He is classifying documents to hide their contents. That's not transparent. The fact that classified documents are exempt from FOIA requests is irrelevant. If they were not classified then your point would be moot. He should just declassify them to make good on his promise.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Couple things, Skymutt
Well, I don't think the Obama Admin. is trying to hide anything either. When I said "they", I just meant the government in general and Bush's team in particular for making it that way.
Seeing "classified trade agreements" simply provoked my "GET OVER YOURSELVES AND LEAVE US ALONE"-reflex.
Fair enough n/t
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well true, except this was discussing counterfeiting, right?
So it would be plausible they were then simply taking prudent precautions true?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I did not see your post of contrary data to refute that.
But to answer your snarky question, it would have been particularly disturbing because;
a) Had it indeed been the case, and b) given the call for a global currency, and c) this Koh clown at State, all point to a "disturbing" post nationalist era potentiality.
You know you can share information, and have dialogue without the giddy reveling in your response.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Why not...
... spell out your objections to Koh in a little more detail? I have seen criticism in the National Review, and from Glen Beck & Fox News, but I'm interested in hearing why he's incompetent in your opinion.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
erg!
I just wrote a long answer, and it went away!
No energy, will post something later.
Sorry.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
global currency hoax, sharia law hoax
I wonder if you've been taken in by Michelle Bachman's effective hoax regarding global currency. No serious person has suggested that the USA abandon the dollar. The only suggestion out there is with regards to reserve currencies.
Also, I wonder if you've been taken in by the "sharia law" hoax regarding Koh. Since you haven't been specific about your problem with him, I'm stuck with speculations.
Anyway, of the criticisms that I found regarding Koh, I didn't see any evidence that he wanted to allow international judicial institutions to operate within the US. It seemed that he only thought that the US should follow international law when conducting its foreign affairs.
I wonder what you mean by "post nationalist" -- does it mean loss of sovereignty by individual nations, or does it just mean the end to unilateral American domination of the world (i.e. unelected sheriff)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
No hoax of which I am aware has influenced my thinking.
When I mentioned the call for a global currency, I was referring to Russia, China, and France's call for it.
Um, I apologize, but we are not beholden to any such obligation, especially when they are not in America's best interest. Look, the UN is a joke, Koh worshipps the UN and all things international.
Oh isn't that refreshing, no Irans, or Sudans, not even a Russia, but he's got us front and center. Great qualification for the State Dept!
Hmm.
Is this a hoax?
Is your skin crawling yet?
His legal views undermine the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty. He is an appalling choice for the face of legal at State!
Koh and Soros can go to hell before we adopt their ill-concieved global love in style of politics. It doesn't work at the UN, it doesn't work for even the EU, it is not in America's interest.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
In light of the fact
that our economy is global, it is a bit homo-phobic to expect that commerce and foreign interactions that we need to have a broader more far sighted vision on international law.
American sovereignty is a bit of an oxymoron in light of the fact that we use China as our manufacturing base, and Meixcan trucks to transport goods destined for American retail stores brought into Mexican ports on Chinese ships.
It is also more and more of an oxymoron now that we can communicate with other nations via the web and in fact US companies employ workers in India at their call centers. How would I go about seeking redress if someone in India, working at a US call center, stole my personal information and used it to access my credit card? Does that fall under US law, or Indian law?
Time to update to the 21st Century. Your focus on Sharia law is a bit juevenille, imho. That is the least of our worries, although we see the hard right trying to trump such hysteria up as an issue.
I think America's sovereign values would be a more realisitic way to look at international laws.
The US has lost a bit of ground over the last few years, since the values we exported were our creative investment schemes, that have backfired. Many countries now trust the US less not more.
I'm only half stupid
Misunderstanding
You are conflating different ideas into one.
The fact that America is a politically sovereign nation is one thing unto itself. That means simply that we have our own government and that its citizens live under the laws of this country and not those of say, France, Italy or Britain or Japan....all of whom are also sovereign nations with their own governments. France's labor laws, commerce laws, restributions, marriage laws, drug laws and so on are for France...not us. Same goes for the U.S. and any other sovereign country.
Therefore, the descriptive shorthand use of "we" in this sense means "we" in that WE elect hundreds of federal officials (and even more state and local officials) who do things on our behalf...regardless of whether we agree with them. That's government.
The basic idea here (at least in the first world), of course, is that a sovereign nation governs with the intent of defending the individual sovereignty of its citizens to live freely....as we generally do (though people can argue about details and degrees of "freedom").
From there, what individuals do with their freedom to associate and interact with others...both here and abroad...deserves the shorthand use of "we" even less to not at all.
These are simply the actions of private and free people living their lives. There is no "we". "We" don't use China as a manufacturing base; certain companies made of up of free people do...while others choose to manufacture here or in other countries, or use manufactured goods from these companies to make finished goods here or elsewhere. Same goes for the transportation of goods. Companies operating here are run by people who may choose to contract a Mexican transportation company to deliver goods that will be used to sell to other free people who may want them.
I know that spelling this all out may seem a little tedious and unnecessary. But when you look at that quote of yours above, it's hardly unnecessary.
I suppose then that the fact that I use imported tomatoes from Italy (and lately from Tunisia--good price) would mean that:
"We use the Mediteranean region as an outsourced tomato farm"
or that:
"We use Italy as a romano cheese producing base"
And of course the kicker from this stream of thought is that this undermines "our" sovereignty as a nation?
National sovereignty means that I am not forced to live under Italian or Tunisian law. Individual sovereignty means I'm free to do business with whomever I please.
Let's not confuse the two concepts.
and this relates to international law
as it conflicts with US law how exactly?
That's the issue being discussed, ceding US law to foreign entities. That was the issue that was brought up as a reason to not appoint the appointee.
So why would I want to give my social security # to a firm in India that has contracted with a US Mortgage Company to do the paper work for my loan. Is that legal? If the foreign company uses my social security # to game my credit card, then what law can I use to reclaim the money? Do I report the theft to the US police, if the theft was committed in India? Should I call the police in India to report the theft? Or should I report the theft to the US Embassy in India?
I'm only half stupid
I'm not a lawyer ...
but I'll be happy to play one here. :)
I would expect that legally speaking, the answer depends on where the company is incorporated. If it is a US company then your beef with them will be governed by US law regardless of where their employees are located. If your credit card number is stolen by an employee of a Mortgage company you sue the Mortgage company, not the employee.
As for criminal charges against the employee? Those most likely depend on where the theft occured. But you as a customer don't have a role with respect to the criminal charges, other than as a witness I suppose. You can't bring criminal charges against anyone.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm referring to the quote above.
Regardless of disputes over whether our govenrment should allow itself to fall under the umbrella of some international law on a certain matter, the idea of "American Sovereignty" is still not oxymoronic for the points you mention in that quote.
I get that
which is why is was trying to point out to centinel that it is idiotic to oppose the appointee's nomination on that basis, because in this day and age we need more clarification on how all this works, between trade, countries, internets and international law.
I'm only half stupid
Well you are certainly no intellectual backhoe operater.
And I can see your sole capacity here at SC is limited merely to acting as its unofficial apologist for the Obama Administration, regardless of circumstance.
I will not expect anything more than that from you from this point going forward.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Weak, weak, weak
That makes no sense.
And your brush aside relates to international law......... how exactly?
I'm only half stupid
Centinel
Do you have links for those cites? Or did I overlook them somewhere? Thanks!
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I had made a long detailed post that was lost
so, after that disheartening event I tried my best to muster the energy to include all the references of the articles etc.
You can see them all at the various journals, publications, or blogs listed in my post.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Stein's accusation is a hoax
It has been refuted both by Koh and the person who oragnized the event at which Koh was alleged to have made those remarks.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Why would that qualify it as a hoax?
A open letter was written, an attribution made, and a subsequent refutal. Now the attribution may or may not be accurate, but that does not a hoax make my friend. The concern of course in all this is the question of whether he cares as much about , or more about, international law and integrating the American judicial system into that, than he does about protecting American interests and the US Constitution. It is clear he has some ideas that run in that direction.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
willfull misinterpretation + endless amplificatgion = hoax
When one person willfully misinterprets another person's statement, and that misinterpretation is fed into a massive propaganda machine, I call that a hoax.
This applies both to the Sharia law comment, and the assertion that the Chinese call for a global reserve currency system (based on national currencies) is equivalent to demanding a global currency.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Please provide us any evidence that was the case.
He heard him say something, and asked about it.
Obama bowed, then denied it, does that mean those that saw him bow are perpetuating a hoax?
Given the documented internationalist positions Koh has taken, there is no reason to be overly suspicious of the assertion by an otherwise reasonable attorney.
As far s I am concerned it is 50/50 probability.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
obama takes the ring of power
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Gotta go attend Passover
Gotta go attend Passover seder with family today. For those who don't know (Jewish and non-Jewish), Passover is a holiday that, as far as it's philisophical component, celebrates and promotes freedom and human rights. It does so by noting the miracles by which God destroyed an entire nation's food supply, inflicted bodily pain on a nation's entire population and its animals, killed the first-born son of every family within an entire nation, and instructed his "chosen people" to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, and subjugation of other people's to slavery. Not that any of that is discussed as such.
Well, Well, You must feel
Well, Well, You must feel real proud of yourself celebrating it.
First, obviously I'm not
First, obviously I'm not "celebrating" in the sense of expressing approval or joy (etc.), but even if you mean "celebrating" in just the sense of showing up and going through some of the motions (secular ones), I think it was clear from my comment that I do so despite my low opinion of the holiday and the story on which it is based for the sake of my family, and yes, I do feel a bit "proud" of myself for putting up with it for the sake of my family, since it's a family tradition to come together for the seder, particularly given that there are some difficult and sensitive issues within my family at the time (my mother passing 3 years ago almost to the day and my father having just gotten engaged, with his fiance's children and grandchildren coming this year).
And your point is what?
That comment was inapropiate
That comment was inapropiate of me. And I do apologize. Obviously I know what you mean by your comment, its just that your comment sounded like " hey everybody I'm going to go and participate in a holiday celebrating Genocide." and my reaction was a hasty kneejerk one.
Thanks, but no apology
Thanks, but no apology necessary.
As for my comment, it wasn't that people celebrating Passover are celebrating genocide (and the other atrocities) as a good thing in itself, but it certainly was (and is) that people are celebrating genocide as a means to an end, and doing so apparently rather thoughtlessly, which is particularly surprising given the focus (at least to a large extent) of the holiday on the philisophical message of the importance of freedom and human rights, and given that Jewish people generally seem to have a stronger than average inclination toward critical thinking, inquisitiveness, thoughtfulness and challenging of conventional, ever-repeated "wisdom".
Are you objecting to my characterization of those "acts" as "genocide", etc.?
If not, are you saying that somehow the people celebrating Passover are not aware of those acts (obviously not the case in the case of the plagues; possibly the case among those not familiar with much of the story in the case of genocide, etc., as the "chosen people" took the land that God supposedly said was theirs to take)?
Hope you have a good time with your familly. NT.
NT.
Thanks. Don't feel bad about
Thanks. Don't feel bad about your earlier comment. Obviously you weren't aware of the sensitive family stuff I mentioned. And it's understandable why you would view my comment as provocative/offensive, albeit probably due to some degree of misunderstanding.
Also you seem to be saying
Also you seem to be saying fighting to be free from an opressor is all fine and dandy, just so long as nobody gets hurt.
Geez, John, it is really
Geez, John, it is really amazing how large a gap there is between how rationally and thoughtfully you consider and discuss assertions regarding secular issues vs. those regarding theological/faith issues.
That was a whopper of a misrepresentation / straw man, John, and I have to think you know that. I'll give you a chance to think about it and correct yourself. No apology necessary.
"Geez, John, it is really
"Geez, John, it is really amazing how large a gap there is between how rationally and thoughtfully you consider and discuss assertions regarding secular issues vs. those regarding theological/faith issues."
And once again you demonstrate your inability to accept arguements against your firm opinions, without calling them irrational.
An atomic bomb would have done all the things to Egypt that you don't think God should have done. You're unsure as to the morality of an atomic bomb, but when the same results happen due to what the Bible claims to be God's actions you are absolutely sure as to the immorality of it. This is despite the fact that you know very little of the coniditions of the time, the options the Israelites had... You're willing to stand as judge of actions which occured thousands of years ago, faster than you would judge the same kind of actions decades ago.
And once again you
Oh boy, John. That's disappointing. No, I call irrational argumentation irrational. I would think from all the debates you've seen me engaged in that you could manage to recall plenty of times when I disagreed strongly with people without calling their arguments irrational. Selective memory on your part, I guess. By the way, Quentin Langley from RedState and I have been debating all sorts of stuff for years now via email and we disagree strongly on many matters, but I don't call his arguments irrational. You are just being silly, John, and my guess is that it's because you are holding a grudge from our last exchange regarding same-sex marriage. If so, try to rise above that emotion and be more objective.
As for your argument re: atomic bomb vs. Egypt, Canaan, etc., once again you defend God in a way that sounds like a repeatedly battered wife who keeps making excuses for her husband's actions. Although in your case it's even worse, because you don't even offer any actual argument as to why the genocide, enslavement and other atrocities were justified, but rather assume -- as the beginning, ending and everything in between -- that if God did it, it must have been morally justified, period. As I said, discussing theological/faith matters with you is like dealing with an entirely different person with an entirely different brain than I encounter when discussing secular matters with you. I don't expect that to change, unfortunately, unless and until you someday have some revelation, so to speak.
But go ahead, if you actually do have some case to make that the terrorism, genocide, enslavement, etc. were morally justified, and if that case is not dependent on accepting your beliefs that there is a particular guy in the sky you know and he did it for this reason and this reason must constitute a moral justification because he only does things that are morally justified and therefore it must have been morally justified....yadda yadda. What's the moral justification? It had to happen so people could go to heaven or something?
Gotta run. On my way to the celebration of this bullsh*t holiday.
Actually...
Actually BR, JM is not the one who needs to make his case, it's you. All JM is saying is that the events in Egypt may or may not have been moral, just as the use of the atomic bomb may or may not have been moral. That is obviously true. You are making the claim that while the use of the atomic bomb may or may not have been moral, the events in Egypt definitely were not. Yours is the only argument here that requires substantiation.
Hope you have fun with your family! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Completely wrong. When we
Completely wrong. When we agree that terrorism on an enormous scale (killing every Egyptian first-born son), genocide, ethnic cleansing and slavery were acts that were committed, the burden of proof of moral justification is on one who claims it was morally justified (John, apparently, in this case), not on someone who either implies that it was not morally justified or who claims that folks who seem to be celebrating those events are failing to think about whether or not it was morally justified or are at least failing to provide any reasonable argument that he has heard.
If some group of people celebrated a holiday focused on Nazi Germany's conquest of Poland, including considering the murders of millions of innocent people at Auschwitz and elsewhere to be some divine miracle, and I said "Ya' know, I'm inclined to think that those murders were immoral" or "I don't think they are really thinking through the morality here, or at least I haven't seen any reasonable argument that it was morally justified", would you say to me
????
Do you believe that murder is immoral?
If so, why?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not necessarily. It could be
Not necessarily. It could be either moral or immoral, depending on the intended consequences and the degree of care applied to assessing possible consequences and associated respective probabilities.
As I wrote elsewhere on this thread (swordscrossed.org/diary/20090406/weekday-open-thread#comment-108461
), I take a consequentialist approach to morality, and I consider such an approach the only sensible approach to judging the morality of an act. Thus, no action is inherently moral or immoral.
History is written by winners, except when other sources survive
The only sources that say the Hebrews were slaves come from the Hebrews, other sources suggest the Hebrews were mercenaries and the claims by the Hebrews that they were slaves was an epic moment in hyperbole.
For the Atomic Bomb:
Bringing up what appears to be a false dichotomy:
The Choice was not A-Bomb or nothing.
It was continue dropping napalm on civilians and a land invasion, or the A-Bomb.
A military that literally encouraged soldiers to repeatedly rape women and were brainwashed by their deity to think the Americans were savage cannibals.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
"Bringing up what appears to
"Bringing up what appears to be a false dichotomy:
The Choice was not A-Bomb or nothing.
It was continue dropping napalm on civilians and a land invasion, or the A-Bomb."
Obviously in the Biblical story the choice isn't "A-bomb or nothing" either. It was A-Bomb or slavery. Now, of course you can contend they weren't slaves, but that isn't the point. The point is that people will quicly judge the morality of an action by God or by His people, when if anyone else did a similar action in modern time, they just as quckly rush to say that sometimes the ends justify the means...
I'm saying that from a historical perspective you have a lot less justification for judging acts thousands of years ago in a different time and place than we have for judging acts now. However, Bible-bashers, are more than ready to judge all kinds of things from thousands of years ago, but become much more uncertain about judging actions in the here and now.
Changing Moral Compass Defense?
There are in fact, a lot of people that think the ends don't justify the means.
An omnipotent & omniscient being really needs to commit acts of genocide to get his way?
The last part seems like is like other Christians saying:
Sure, God wanted His People do something that we think is sick and disgusting now, but it was ok then, "[our morals obviously change over time]."
ie,
we don't know exactly what God is saying, but we know there is the one true God, our God.
There are objective laws, but we just subjectively apply them, but we'd be lost without these objective laws that we wouldn't have otherwise
We don't know if it's Satan or the Holy Ghost compelling us to do something, but we know there is our God.
We don't know if it's our culture that we get certain ideas or God, but we know there is our God. We surely wouldn't have values without him.
, but it's not it matters, so long as they accept the right God [or to others, that embrace a Zoroasterism influenced version of Christianity, belief in God isn't important, it's good deeds].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Is it morality?
How do you feel about the US's actions in WWII? Or Vietnam? *
"Sick and disgusting" things often happen in conflicts between peoples. History is replete with them. I tend to consider that fact one of those unpleasant realities of the human condition.
(*rhetorical questions, btw)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I was being caustic to point out he didn't reply to what I wrote
John Mark addressed what "people" might say, I implied in kind.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Do you believe that God did it?
Why don't you just leave God out of it and look at this, er... rationally? Thousands of years ago, the Jews, who may have been enslaved at the time, brought a world of hurt onto the Egyptians, and thereafter they were free to go about their business as they pleased. Sixty-odd years ago, the Americans, who were in a bitter and bloody war, brought a world of hurt onto the Japanese, and thereafter were free to go about their business as they pleased.
Now, for which one of these events do you have enough information to formulate a complete moral judgement? I'd argue neither, but that's just me. I do think it is pretty hard to justify that you can judge the first, but not the second, though.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Excellent Comment SL
From a secular historical perspective you can't be ambivalent about the atomic bomb, but say that what the Israelites did in their history was definitely immoral. Theologicaly, one can certainly make such a point, but one has no secular grounds, as far as I can see, to judge the actions of a group of people who's circumstances are rather unclear to us, and lived thousands of years ago.
First, just to make sure this
First, just to make sure this point isn't lost, a big part of my point was that the question of the morality/immorality of these acts -- atrocities of the worst degree and on a massive scale, and I mean not only murder of Egyptian children but the subsequent genocide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement and other atrocities committed by the Hebrews/Jews against other peoples as the former conquered the latter's lands -- is generally not asked even as millions of people annually celebrate these acts, at least some explicitly and others implicitly, either making a presumption or implication that these acts WERE moral, or exhibiting an immoral form of neglect (failure to ask if such awful acts were morally justified or not).
Now,
(1) Are you saying that these acts were moral?
(2) If so, what is your secular argument that these acts were morally justified?
(3) Or are you saying that these acts -- those committed by God and those committed on orders from God -- may have been immoral (or moral), but you just don't have any idea either way, nor can anyone else have any idea either way, because it happened 3,000 years ago and we don't have enough historical information?
Sure, why not?
Yes.
The people who were killed deserved what they got. They enslaved an entire race of people and it came back to bite them on the arse. I say this was a just punishment for crimes committed.
(Just so there's no whining later about how I changed my tune, this is one of those firecrackers John was talking about. Note I'm stating as much up front.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4John Mark, please note that
John Mark, please note that I'm interested in what your reply would/will be. I don't wish to respond to GR's comment and try to engage in a worthwhile discussion/debate with him for reasons that should be obvious to all by now.
So I'll await your reply (as well as that of anyone else who isn't GR or ML)
What's not worthwhile?
If my position above is bunk, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Othewise concede the point. Regardless of whether I believe that point or not, having the debate is worthwhile. I have given you a reasoned response to your questions.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4swordscrossed.org/diary/20090
swordscrossed.org/diary/20090406/weekday-open-thread#comment-108500
applies to your above comment as well. Geez, Louise. The Egyptian boys enslaved the Hebrews and thus deserved to be killed? The inhabitants of Canaan and along the path there against whom the Hebrews/Jews committed genocide, enslavement, and other atrocities deserved it? Any chance you can see why I don't consider it worthwhile to try to discuss anything with you rationally?
Are you saying then ...
that an enslaved people don't have a right to rise up and take their freedom by force? You believe that they should have stayed slaves?
If none of the above, please explain.
Do you believe that it is immoral for a slave to rise up and demand his freedom, by force if necessary? Isn't that sort of a human rights issue by definition?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Killing a fly with a cannon that blows up the house behind it
There is one element, those slaves were the so called Chosen People of an omnipotent deity. And that deity did the killings.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
But BR wants to have a rational argument.
So deities have nothing to do with it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR doesn't grasp the simple
GR doesn't grasp the simple concepts of culpability and proportionality. But good luck trying to explain to him.
See what I mean, folks?
See what I mean, folks?
1. That's not what I have
1. That's not what I have been saying, but yes I do believe what God did, and what He commanded the Israelites to do was moral.
2. I'm challenging that there's anyway to know the morality of this issue secularly.
3. Of course I believe that what God does is moral. Not by definition, but because he does what is good. But I'm saying you take the Bible and faith out of the picture and you have no way of judging the morality of what a group of people did thousands of years ago.
And of course this conversation is headed toward you saying I'm an idiot whenever I talk about religion, I'll say you don't take disagreements well, you'll say thats stupid and you're disapppointed I'm saying such stupid stuff and that I'm acting like GR... So I suppose if we don't like that result one of us should stop arguing. But will we?
I assume that your basis for
I assume that your basis for #1 is #3, correct? And of course, notwithstanding your claim that #3 is "not by definition", your reasoning is circular (tautologous), but I've already demonstrated thoroughly on at least one previous thread (and in a nutshell on this thread), and I'm not pushing you to go through the exercise again unless you wish to.
Re: #2, that's a straw man. I'm not saying we can "know" anything with certainty. But that doesn't mean we can't have any clue, that we can't have beliefs based on whatever "facts" (as best we can determine them) and educated guesses possible, and based on those premises, have an opinion. Right? Surely you are not suggesting that without absolute certainty -- which is impossible regarding anything -- we cannot have an opinion regarding the morality/immorality of any act. Right?
Well, of course you think
Well, of course you think the idea of believing in God is circular, and no I don't see any reason to repeat that conversation. However, it most certainly is not circular to say that if there is a good loving God, He will do what is Good.
#2 What I'm challenging is that you either accept something like the Atom Bomb, or are ambigous about it. But you are relatively sure that what the Israelites did thousands of years ago is unjustified. I'm not saying you can't judge anything on a rather secular basis (though I would say one should have certain core principles which are derived from religion), but I would certainly challenge one's ability to judge what a nation of people did thousands of years ago.
I didn't say the idea of
I didn't say the idea of believing in God is circular, did I? If you think I did, point me to where. I could believe that my computer mouse is God. That's not circular. It's arguably psychotic, but not circular.
And you are missing my point regarding your circular logic, but I'm out of patience with that, at least for now.
As for your "#2" point, I have nothing to say in response to that that I haven't already said and don't wish to repeat.
Okay you think why I believe
Okay you think why I believe there's a God is circular, which is what I basically meant. However, the fact that such a God being a loving God means that he will do what is loving is certainly not circular.
Re: why you believe in God,
Re: why you believe in God, I'm unsure of what you're referring to, but if you're saying that I called something circular, tell me what I said about what, and tell me why I was wrong.
Re: the circular reasoning re: the morality/immorality stuff, here's an illustration of circular logic:
You: That genocide that God committed (or ordered) was certainly moral. I'm certain of that.
Me: How do you know?
You: Because God did it.
Me: And how do you know that just because God did it, it must have been moral?
You: Because anything God does is moral.
Me: How do you know that?
You: Because God is moral.
Me: How do you know that?
You: Because my scripture says so?
Me:
You: Because it is the word of God.
Me: And (1) how do you know that it is the word of God, and (2) even if it is, how to you know that the word of God is true?
You: (1) Because the scripture says that it is the word of God. (2) Because obviously God would only tell the truth.
Me: Re: #1, you just circled us back to my question "How do you know that what your scripture says is true?". Re: #2, .... (well, you get the picture)
"There are in fact, a lot of
"There are in fact, a lot of people that think the ends don't justify the means.
An omnipotent & omniscient being really needs to commit acts of genocide to get his way?"
I don't believe the person I was arguing with was one of those people. If someone is one of those people, than all they'd have to say is that the A-bomb was not right. If you don't believe the ends justify the means then you can't say the A-bomb was justified. Many, many innocent people died, it was genocide only on a smaller scale. It was also terrorism, considering the whole point was to use fear to stop the war. However, there are many that think that this justified because of the ends. However, if its a group you don't like ( such as the Jews of the Bible) that's described as doing it, it doesn't matter that you don't know the circumstances, you can hand down a perfect judgment.
The explanation to your second point is that God has limited Himself in what he will do that man might have freewill. God could have made us just vegatables connected to an eternal supply of morphine, and we might be happy, but life wouldn't be very meaningful. Also if I loan $100 to you and then take it back, I'm not stealing anything. Same thing with God and life, its not like God ever owed you a life in the first place, its by His mercy that you get it.
No, but circumstances change. And we still do things that we think our sick and disgusting ( For example, the A-Bomb) because of circumstances. It seems to me the only thing that's changed much about war is the size of the weapon.
The NFL cannot suspend a NBA player and say it makes sense
In order for a truly omnipotent being not to know what will happen for the things it creates, it would need to shut off it's omniscience while creating to give out "true free will."
A perfect hardware and software designer that could create a controllable environment for the hardware, would know exactly what any of his programs would do and how the hardware would react.
That creator, creating toasters with AI that sometimes "willfully" burn toast and those toasters are thrown away in a junk heap outside of town could just as easily be done as creating toasters that always work right. The Free Will that involves a hell for violations of certain deeds and involves a deity that is love, only works if all people know the deity is real and know the rules of the game.
It's like people in the Norse religion saying the point of life is to train for the battle that will end the world. And that gives life meaning. Well wants the point of Ragnarök then?
ie I don't know why there is Ragnarök, but I know there is Ragnarök. But Ragnarök only happens for those that believe Ragnarök will happen...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
In order for a truly
I'm an open theist.
God does His best without violating freewill to save everyone. Those who do not submit to God's grace, would create an eternal hell for themselves like we have on this earth if God did not destroy them. Hellfire, therefore is not only justice its also merciful.
??
What it's looks like you are saying:
In order for an all-knowing, all-powerful entity to not make one of his creations "pointless:"
He created "free will."
Free will gave rise to "evil."
In order to not create hell on earth, he created the very real threat of eternal hell.
Sending Billions of people to hell is not only needed, it's merciful, to the rest who fall into faith in that particular deity?
---
Is there no threat of hell for people already in heaven? Or do they not have free will to ask questions?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I do not believe in eternal hellfire. NT.
NT.
As far as hell/heaven
Hell at all as a figurative place of non-existence.
Heaven is a reward for what actions/thoughts?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Heaven is a reward for what
Haven't you heard? All you have to do -- and the thing you MUST do -- is to purchase our product. Hurry up and do so before you die (i.e., this is a limited time offer so order now!).
George Carlin playing the
George Carlin playing the character of Jesus being interviewed today, was asked if there is a Hell. His answer: "Oh yeah. There's also a heck -- it's less severe."
Way, way off. First, YOU are
Way, way off.
First, YOU are presenting a cherry-picked dichotomy. You refer only to slavery vs. the murder of all first-born Egyptian boys (terrorism on a massive scale, and targeted at innocent children). What about the genocide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement and other atrocities the self-proclaimed "chosen people" committed in the course of conquering land that they believed a Guy in the Sky had told them to take by such means?
As for the dichotomy you do offer, although, as one who takes a consequentialist view of morality (because it's the only one that makes sense), I don't think that terrorism is inherently immoral, there is a higher bar that must be cleared for moral justification of terrorism -- i.e., targeting innocent people (those Egyptian boys) for murder, other things equal (e.g., number of people killed). And the greater the number of innocent people targeted and murdered, the higher the bar due to that factor as well.
So let's review:
1. We presume, arguendo, that there were Hebrew slaves. I don't know how many.
2. Let's assume, arguendo, that God did not force Pharaoh to resist releasing the slaves prior to the tenth plague, but rather than Pharaoh made that choice out of free will. Let's further assume, again just arguendo (giving away plenty of benefit of the doubt in all these "arguendos"), that the ONLY way that Pharaoh would ever have chosen to release them is if a plague as terrible as the killing of all those innocent Egyptian children occured.
3. God kills every single first-born Egyptian boy. I don't know the number, so I don't know how that number compared to the number of Hebrew slaves.
4. After fleeing Egypt, the Hebrews come to believe that some guy in the sky has made them his "chosen people" and has ordered them to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement and other atrocities against the people occupying land that they believe the guy in the sky has promised them.
5. Today, Jews celebrate the overall events of the above story (some may not have learned of the genocide, etc., but many have, and all know of the murder of the innocent Egyptian boys). And they celebrate these events as the central story from which to gain an appreciation of the importance and morality of freedom and human rights.
6. I point out this incongruity (# 5), (A) implying that those acts seem immoral and (B) asserting that the whole question of whether or not they were immoral seems to be neglected in the course of celebrating these events, which is itself immoral (the failure to address the question that is) as well as extremely ironic, given what the holiday is about from a philisophical perspective.
7. John Mark apparently thinks that "A" is wrong or at least presumptuous (despite the fact that we are speaking of huge-scale terrorism -- targeted murder of, I suppose, hundreds of thousands of innocent children -- as well as genocide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement and other atrocities committed in the conquest of the lands of other peoples), and he apparently has some problem with "B" as well, which I can only speculate is that he thinks that everyone should just assume (as he does) and never doubt for a moment that anything done by his Guy in the Sky or by people who supposedly have orders from his Guy in the Sky is unquestionably morally justified and/or that he can point to all the benefits identified in a book supposedly containing the word of his Guy in the Sky and say "See, all this would not have been possible if those acts were not committed, so those acts were morally justified". If there's more to it, I haven't heard it from him yet.
(A curious side-note: If I recall correctly, before the last plague -- the murder of every first-born Egyptian boy -- Pharaoh was going to let the Hebrews go, but God "hardened Pharoah's heart" (made him change his mind). This point isn't central to this topic, and my guess is that John Mark can present some more favorable version of this Biblical event, but if correct, it adds a wrinkle to the moral calculus.)
It's kinda complicated
Where do you draw the line in what you include in making your moral judgement? What about the murder of all the innocent Hebrew boys as ordered by the Pharaoh when Moses was born? You certainly seem willing to stretch the timeline to later events. The Hebrews didn't even arrive in Palestine for something like 40 years after the Exodus from Israel, and the other atrocities you mention stretched over at least a period of 100 years.
The point is that it doesn't involve invoking a "guy in the sky" to be unsure about whether the Hebrews were justified in doing what they did to escape from Egypt. It's not irrational to find the whole thing morally ambiguous, especially given the unreliability of 3000 year old information.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Re: "timeline", I am talking
Re: "timeline", I am talking about the Passover holiday and related events. I don't know what you mean when you say I'm "stretching the timeline to later events". When judging the morality of an act, one can (and should when possible) consider all consequences caused by some act regardless of time frame, but I don't see what your point is with regard to my arguments. If your point is that I am only applying that principle selectively -- i.e., that I am only considering some "harms" but not others in my moral calculus, I'd be glad to discuss and flesh out whatever should be factored in. I don't know whether or not you wish to go through such an exercise, and your point may simply be that there is "moral ambiguity", but I'm not inclined to just view as some sort of coin flip "ambiguous" matter, considering the degree and scale of these atrocities, and considering that millions of people every year celebrate at least some of these acts explicitly and others implicitly as glorious events, and do so ironically while claiming that the moral of the story is that freedom and human rights are extremely important.
Note, too, that, as I've said, a big part of my point, in addition to my implication that such acts seem immoral to me, is that the question of the morality/immorality of these acts -- atrocities of the highest order -- is a question that is generally not even asked and considered by the people celebrating these acts and/or the general events directly linked to them, and on occasions when it is asked, the arguments that these acts were moral seem dependent on the tautological reasoning that God is always moral so these acts must have been moral, or that the benefits God offers are great enough as to justify the harm done by these acts, and God could only provide these benefits if these acts were committed. Needless to say, I find such arguments for genocide, terrorism on a massive scale, ethnic cleansing, enslavement, etc., to be hardly reflective of a legitimate and moral approach to morality.
And where is the archeological evidence for the exodus?
Why would one believe in the exodus any more than the other fairy tales in the bible?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I know you weren't replying
I know you weren't replying to me, but as an FYI to all, the point I'm making doesn't involve challenges to the accuracy of the Bible, however legitimate those challenges may be. My point pertains to the lessons drawn from the Biblical story related to Passover (exodus and conquest of Canaan), so for my purpose I grant arguendo the account of events presented in the Bible.
Why would one believe in the
Sheesh, I'm just amazed at how this site attracts unbelievers. If it wasn't for my having joined this site, it'd almost be a complete echo chamber in this regard. And maybe that would be a better thing. I kind of wonder if someone like me, who's life revolves around religion really belongs in a place like this... But then again I do enjoy some of the conversation.
Not that it matters, but
Not that it matters, but wouldn't you say the same if you were on a politics/philosophy blog whose participants were all/mostly from some nation in which just about everyone was a firm "believer" in a religion whose accounts of events, description of deity/deities and the demands of that/those deity/deities conflicted with those of your particular religion?
If such a blog had nothing to
If such a blog had nothing to with said religion I would be somewhat amazed by the fact. I'll probably stick around. Even the religous debates are fun for a little while. I don't know whether they are ultimately a good thing though. It also seems to me that at least on the internet the religous folks are nicer to the unbelievers than the unbelievers are to them.
Huh? If you were, say in
Huh? If you were, say in India on a politics/philosophy blog originating there and whose participants were almost all Indians, you'd be "somewhat amazed" that all or almost all were Hindu (or Hindu or Muslim)?
Anyway, my question was: Would you make the same comment about that blog -- "I kind of wonder if someone like me, who's life revolves around religion really belongs in a place like this" -- that you just did about SC (but substituting "my religion" for "religion", or something like that)? In other words, wouldn't you feel the same way if the group were rejecting your religious views/beliefs because they have other, conflicting religious views/beliefs rather than because they reject all religious views/beliefs?
India's predominantly Hindu
India's predominantly Hindu country, so of course I wouldn't be suprised to find majority Hindus. This is an American blog, and last time I checked you guys aren't a majority. I also didn't mean to imply that I was absolutely totally freakin amazed or anything, just rather fascinated - and it was on by the new person being yet another atheist.
The reason is obvious, JM.
You run into atheists on the blogs because the atheists are looking for answers, whereas the theists already have them! :) *
----------------------
* For the record I am agnostic. It is the only truly rational belief system.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Tis a fascination
BR, and to some degree Brutus, seem to have unresolved issues with religion in their personal lives. BR might be struggling with reconciling his desire for "rationality" with his Jewish family history and family traditions ("how can the people I love be so stupid!"), while Brutus has a family member of the very fundamentalist sort who apparently regularly belittles those who do not share his religious fervor---'twould be something akin to living with a rabid dittohead, I imagine; somewhat uncomfortable, at the very least.
The rest of us seem to have made our peace with our own "religiousity" and have no need to attack others' beliefs to prop up our own.
It's kinda like homophobia. Religious people are different and scary and therefore must be belittled.
(p.s. why mess around with firecrackers when ya can set off the big ones? ;-) )
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Kaboom!
:)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ya, that's the ticket
I suppose people who are perplexed on dead religions like the Romans or Greeks have unresolved issues with religion too.
Archaeologist have unresolved issues with skeletons.
People that try to expose Scientology as a profit [no pun intended] making scheme, have unresolved issues with buying stuff from Billy Mayes.
People who wonder how someone can believe the Great Lakes are in Iowa, must have issues with geography. All should find peace with geography and stop talking about it.
(ps just as witting comments too :P)
btw, my brother wasn't a fundie till relatively recent.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
BR, and to some degree
I don't think the term "unresolved issues" fits. What is "unresolved"?
Yes, I do find it Twilight Zony that someone like my father, an exceptionally intelligent guy (no surprise to anyone here, I'm sure
), and an exceptionally thoughtful guy (thoughtful in a critical thinking sense, particularly with regard to moral/ethical questions, which have been a major part of his career, part of which has been as a bioethics expert), would buy into the whole religious faith silliness. And yes, more broadly, the same applies to American Jews, generally speaking (notable and praiseworthy exception being en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism 
).
And yes, I find it disturbing that people, particularly people with such traits, as well as an inclination toward raising moral questions and engaging in related discussion/debate, at least annually celebrate the Passover holiday generally without even raising the moral question that I've raised, or (I think to a lesser extent) simply presuming that those acts were moral solely on the basis that God did them, meaning no consideration or attempt at moral calculus on their part would be worthwhile or even appropriate.
But what is "unresolved"? If you simply mean that I have no idea how to reconcile the above, that's an erroneous presumption on your part. I think I understand how it happens. The aforementioned people -- like other intelligent, otherwise rational, critical thinkers who suddenly and consistently put their brain in a jar as soon as someone puts a book in their hands and tells them it's the word of some Guy in the Sky and they "feel" the presence of that Guy in the Sky -- are, consciously or not, putting emotion above reason. They are overriding their normal rational approach to evaluating the credibility of claims, which they apply to all other matters, to serve their emotional needs (reduce fear, increase comfort, etc.).
One analogy is the grieving process in which one spends time in the "denial" stage. All the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that some loved one has been killed (or whatever), yet, while in this stage, the person overrides his normal rationality to serve some emotional need. Religious faith is like a persistent version of that "denial" stage.
So, am I missing something re: "unresolved" or have I shown you that the term doesn't fit?
Well, I assume from your presence on a combative politics/philosophy blog that in other categories of beliefs and opinion you do have a desire to point out that others' beliefs and/or opinions way, way wrong if that is how you see it, right? Is there some reason why someone doing the same with others regarding the latter's religious faith is so different that you should categorize that person in a derogatory manner as "not at peace" with his views regarding religious faith while not categorizing, say, a liberal as "not at peace" with his ideology?
Also, I feel no need to "prop up" my beliefs regarding religious faith by attacking religious faith or via any other means, assuming that by "propping up" you mean strengthening my belief by doing so. That seems like a silly comment, unless I'm missing something, in which case you could explain.
Unresolved
"Unreasolved" in this context means that you are not OK with it. You certainly have an intellectual rationalization for it, but it still bugs you on some level, as you admit in your post. Thus, it is unresolved. Once it quits feeling "Twilight Zone-y" to you, then it will no longer be an unresolved issue.
No, not really. And I think you can read back and discover that. (Although, come to think of it, I might have told Ender point-blank that he was wrong to vote for George in 2004). It's impolite to tell people they are wrong.* Usually, I just put my two cents out there and let them make of it what they will. It is usually possible to express disagreement with someone without demeaning their positions / beliefs.
(* Yes, that's old-fashioned and girly, but I am both, and I don't expect anyone but me to follow my personal creed on that. I'm not always that good at following it myself.)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Re: "unresolved" as in
Re: "unresolved" as in "unresolved issues" being defined as "not being OK with something", I find that to be strange semantics, but whatever.
As for you in particular, perhaps not challenging the beliefs and opinions of others with in a demeaning tone (and I'll take your word for it), that still doesn't address the essence of my question, which is why you are (if indeed you are) singling out and criticizing such "demeaning" criticism of religious beliefs/opinions in ways that you would not when the beliefs/opinions in question are secular. Again:
It seems you are trying to force the notion that those of us who demean religious beliefs/opinions are somehow demonstrating that we are emotionally troubled, at least in a way that you would not attribute to, say, a liberal who demeans some belief popular among conservatives or some opinion or policy preference of conservatives.
No
No, that's not what I said.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I'll try again for an
I'll try again for an answer:
If a liberal says that some common belief among conservatives is clearly wrong, and he seems irritated by this misconception on their part (as he sees it), would you post a comment saying that that liberal "has unresolved issues with ideology (or with the issue to which the claimed misconception relates)" and that he is "not at peace with his ideology" and that his thinking and commenting behavior is "kinda like homophobia. [Conservatives] are different and scary and therefore must be belittled" ?
If not, why did you say that about the same commenting behavior with regard to religious beliefs?
Or have I somehow misrepresented what you said?
Why?
Are you truly puzzled, or just looking for a reason to say I'm illogical? ;-)
If you don't get what I said the first time, no additional exposition on my part will make it any clearer, and this will just (continue?) to bore everyone else. I find it hard to believe that anyone reaches adulthood without an understanding of what "unresolved issues" and "being at peace with something" mean.
I'll let you have the last word.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I think my questions are
I think my questions are clear, relevant and reasonable. It's up to you if you wish not to answer them -- i.e., if you don't want to clarify/defend/modify/correct/etc. whatever it is that your point was.
There's a differnt between
There's a differnt between vigorous disagreement and saying that those who disagree with you are insane idiots. Just like there's a difference between me vigorously disagreeing with TLALOC and having a polite conversation about it, and Michael Savage caling liberalism a mental disorder.
Indeed, and believing in
Indeed, and believing in something with absolutely no rational basis whatsoever is different from holding a belief or having an opinion based on a different selection of accepted facts/assumptions/probabilities, different values/priorities, etc., so I call each what it is. If I told you that the Fresca bottle in front of me right now (I usually use Pepsi, but there's actually a Fresca bottle in front of me right now, and the realism add too much drama to resist) is the creator of the universe, has a particular history (which I believe because of something in some book I saw) is omiscient and omnipotent, and has commanded all of us to do various specific things and not to do various other things, and will reward or punish us accordingly, I don't think disagreement with those beliefs/assertions of mine should be as respectful and as open to the potential validity of those assertions as it should be if I say we should increase taxes or lower taxes (based on a difference in economic assumptions, or a difference in values/priorities perhaps related to ideology, etc.)
Not all disagreement must be as open-minded and respectful of the assertions in question as you seem to be suggesting. Some beliefs/assertions are "insane" or "delusional" and devoid of any rational basis, just as some premises are very clearly at odds with well-established fact, and some argumentation is clearly, flat-out illogical.
Basically you seem to be
Basically you seem to be saying that you're respect is dependent upon your uncertainty about an issue. Being tolerant of what you are unsure about, doesn't show much of an accomplishment. Its being tolerant of people having different views than your core convictions and worldviews that shows tolerance.
That sounds nice, but it's
That sounds nice, but it's just a misleading fudge. As I think I've already made clear, there are differences in beliefs and differences of opinion and differences in goals/priorities, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs, assertions and arguments are worthy of substantial serious consideration and/or responses that indicate respect for those beliefs/assertions even in disagreement. See my prior comment for reasons why. I'd rather not have to be (more) repetitive. [edit: Oh, and please spare me some argument that is essentially that none of us can, with any reliability, determine that any belief/assertion is not worthy of serious consideration because we don't know everything and we're not infallible yadda yadda and therefore my view is merely subjective and imperfect yadda yadda and threfore I should treat any belief/assertion as worthy of serious consideration and I should comment on that belief/assertion in the spirit of open-mindedness and the assumption that there is significant plausibility that it is valid blah blah blah]
And your slipping in of the word "tolerance" -- three times! -- is a straw man (hmm, a straw man X 3 or a straw man cubed. I guess cubed would be better, since one can get actual straw in cube form). Tolerance is a word with much farther reaching meaning and connotations than what we're talking about here. Let's keep our discussion at an appropriate level of accuracy and precision rather than using terms loosely just to make an argument sound stronger artificially via straw men.
Very, very sloppy, John.
Very, very sloppy, John. Re-read if you wish to see how you have totally missed the point. My question still stands (notwithstanding the entirely unnecessary detour on which you've taken us) if you wish to answer it.
I asked initially:
And then I repeated the question, with some elaboration:
Hopefully we've established now that such a blog (such a scenario) could possibly exist (not that it was necessary, since you could have just answered it as a hypothetical), feel free to answer the question. If you simply don't want to, just say so, so I don't waste time trying to pull a tooth that just won't come out.
Your premise is flawed.
There is nothing incongruous about this statement. Slaves rising up to overcome their oppression is unquestionably a symbol that celebrates morality as applied to the concept of freedom and human rights.
(Note that this is a continuation of the firecracker tossed above ... only I actually DO believe this statement.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR's uncontrollable idiocy on
GR's uncontrollable idiocy on display once again. If anyone else wants to try to push some sense into his noggin (i.e, to try to get him to properly distinguish among principles and related arguments), be my guest.
Stop with the ad hominems.
You have been whining for days that you wanted to raise the level of debate here at SC. Here's your chance. I have not attacked you and I have provided a reasoned response. Either defend your position or concede the point. Put up or shut up on the "oh you can't get a reasonable debate around here schtick."
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You made a stupid comment
You made a stupid comment that showed once again that you have little to no ability to properly distinguish among principles, arguments, etc., thus reinforcing my well-founded belief that it won't be possible to have an exchange of logical, relevant, responsive arguments with you, and that it would be extremely tedious to try. So I informed you that I won't reply and informed you and others that the preceding is the reason.
Fine, run away then.
But don't complain about the level if discourse here if you aren't willing to even engage the argument. That's just lame.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4non sequitur. Amazing how you
non sequitur. Amazing how you can't help it.
Honestly BR, drop it.
Honestly BR, drop it. Regardless of the quality of GR's arguement ( and considering that I've had some arguements that were fine and you called idiotic, I'm rather skeptical that all of GR's arguements are so bad) nobody that doesn't already know the quality of his arguements cares to look. And you look at best like an OCD nutcase, and at worse like an OCD nutcase who's an intolerant jerk. I really don't want to offend you, but since you're a person who loves the truth, and I think you can handle my being blunt...
A bit of truth for you, too,
A bit of truth for you, John. Or at least something that seem highly likely. You have apparently been holding a grudge against me since that same-sex marriage thread, probably exacerbated by our exchange on this thread, and it's showing. It's apparently reducing your objectivity and leading you to interject with the kind of comment you just made. As I said earlier today (or yesterday), try to rise above it.
As for any arguments of yours that I've called idiotic, I'm fairly sure that they almost certainly were idiotic.
And something you should note (because it seems quite possible that you haven't noticed): If I just ignore a reply (some counterargument, to use the term very loosely) to a comment of mine by GR, (1) people may not know why I'm not responding, and thus may consider it a breach of blogging etiquette (yeah, yeah, I know, as is, arguably, calling a comment or person "stupid"), and (2) his next step is to follow up his own comment with the observation that I didn't reply and to contend that the lack of a reply proves that he had the better argument. Yeah, I could just ignore that, but I'd rather let everyone know upfront why I'm not going to respond to a GR comment that seems right off the bat to be the just the first of many, many nonsensical and/or irrelevant arguments from him if I try to have a rational discussion/debate with him.
I wouldn't call it a grudge,
I wouldn't call it a grudge, as I certainly feel no anger, nor do I wish you any harm. My opinion of your debating has certainly been lowered since some of our discussions, as your has of mine; while that's a rather lamentable fact, its not a grudge. I hold no ill feelings toward you and I hope you do not toward me. I likely would have interjected with my comment whether you had been calling me irrational and so on, anyway. I really do think you've become too obsessed with GR, and I don't think GR and I are the only ones that think this. You can either chalk this up to some the deteriotation of reason; or accept that sometimes you've just got to learn to agree to disagree.
Oh, I definitely think many,
Oh, I definitely think many, probably most regulars who have observed my comments addressed to and about GR think that I'm spent too much time criticizing him and discussing his adverse effect on SC. I don't intend to continue spending anywhere near the amount of time on the subject as I have over the last couple of days. I was making an effort to get the SC community to change course from what I see as a steep downward trend to a positive trend, and I focused on a big part of the problem. Having done so and seen that others don't see the problem as I do, as I've said a couple of times already, I won't keep it up to anything like the degree I have over the last couple of days.
As far as my view of your debating, as you may already understand, my view is compartmentalized: There is the John Mark discussing/debating secular issues, who, as far as I know, is still solid with regard to logical, relevant, responsive arguments/comments, and there is the John Mark discussing/debating matters of faith/theology, who is a totally different animal.
If I just ignore a reply
I'm fairly sure there's no such point of etiquitte in blogging. Thousands, perhaps millions of comment threads end every day when someone simply fails to respond for whatever reason.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The problem is, you seem to
The problem is, you seem to arguing how little sense the Passover makes if you look at from a purely secular perspective. Excuse me, but DUH!. Its a religous holiday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume orthodox Jews who keep this holiday for religous reasons, believe somewhat like I do that God ultimitately knows best, and even we don't see the end that justifies the means, God does. And considering that we're thousands of years removed the Biblical story it might even make sense to us if we there at their time, just like we can see some justification for killing millions of innocent Japaneese.
Nitpicking
Unless you are including the military deaths, it was around 580,000 Japanese civilians
That's under .8%
You may notice the civilian deaths of the countries Japan invaded.
China
16,200,000 civilians deaths, 3.1%
civil war was going on, conflict was longer that US-Japan theater
Buurma
250,000, 1.5%
Korea
378,000, 1.6%
Micronesia
57,000, 3%
Singapore
50,000, 6.8%
Malaya
100,000, 2.2%
Portuguese Timor
55,000, 11%
Philippines
90,000 .5%
Only the Philippines had a lower civilian death percentage.
That death rate would have likely sky rocketed with a land invasion, even after taking the about 220,000 that died in the two atomic bomb blast.
Plus the US isn't omnipotent, the US cannot turn a war into victory out of nowhere.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Okay, I really need to learn
Okay, I really need to learn my history better ( especially since I'm a history major) I wasn't sure and thought about writing, many, many, guess that just didn't sound as good though.
Yes, but God's dealing with free choice.
The problem is, you seem to
The problem is, you seem to arguing how little sense the Passover makes if you look at from a purely secular perspective. Excuse me, but DUH!. Its a religous holiday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume orthodox Jews who keep this holiday for religous reasons, believe somewhat like I do that God ultimitately knows best, and even we don't see the end that justifies the means, God does. And considering that we're thousands of years removed the Biblical story it might even make sense to us if we there at their time, just like we can see some justification for killing millions of innocent Japaneese.
No, no, no. Sorry, Charlie (You're too young to get that Starkist Tuna ad reference). Many -- I'd say most -- people who celebrate Passover and who are "people of faith" in general draw lessons from scripture and related teachings regarding what sort of behavior is moral vs. immoral. And by lessons I mean, of course, the application of principles and some framework for moral calculus to individual cases. It's not like people celebrating Passover say simply:
"God did X -- Yay! It must have been a great thing to do! We have know way of knowing why, but God did it, so Yay! Oh, but there's no lesson to be learned regarding moral vs. immoral behavior that we can apply. We're just celebrating what must have been a wonderful bunch of acts because they must have been wonderful because God did them (or ordered his people to do them). We're not saying that denying someone freedom or human rights is immoral unless there is some sufficiently compensating mitigation of some other harm or anything along the lines of such a moral calculus. Nah, we're just celebrating the killing of all those Egyptian boys and the genocide, enslavement and other atrocities committed against other peoples who had the bad luck to be in our "promised land" because we know it must have been a great thing because God did it. End of thinking, end of discussion"
No, the events related to Passover are celebrated as wonderful because God freed enslaved people and guided them to a wonderful land they could enjoy, and the lessons that are drawn are the importance of freedom and human rights.
edit: Oh and
is a three-pronged cop-out. First, you point to differences in eras as an argument that we cannot reasonably have any opinion on whether or not those atrocities were morally justified simply because our values and view of morality today are different than those of people at that time, which is, at best turning a matter of degree (an arguable need to factor in such differences) into an absolute (that we just can't have any clue and cannot judge the morality/immorality). Second, you seem to be using (here and/or elsewhere in this discussion) the argument that we don't have nearly all the facts due how long ago events took place, but I've been willing to grant you, arguendo, that whatever the Bible says happened did happen, and to assess the morality on that basis, plus whatever other considerations you may want to add. Third, you try to pull a bait & switch: You argue that, because it was a different era with different values (etc.) and because our historical knowledge is incomplete, we just can't possibly have any clue re: the morality/immorality of those acts, but hey, there is a way we can know those acts were moral...drumroll...because God did them! (cue tautological reasoning)
This is getting tiresome.
It seems to me the only
It seems to me the only application that's being made to modern days is that freedom is a good thing, and the assumption is that God's way of getting there was best, but of course unless God clearly directs us specifically in politics now, we get to the same ends with different means. I assume Jews are not making modern day applications based on how God brought about freedom, except perhaps that God should be in charge of the process. If your problem with the holiday is that it supports a theistic view of moral values, than that goes back to my point that of course a religous holiday is not going to make sense to an unbeliever.
1. Nobody holding a gun to your head forcing you into this conversation
2. You've got love the irony of this conversation - A Christian who ultimately doesn't believe in Passover defending Passover to an agnostic Jew who particpates in the event.Somebody has to be rolling over in their grave. :-)
Re: #1, no sh*t. Just my way
Re: #1, no sh*t. Just my way of telling you I'm just about out of patience and probably won't want to continue much further.
Re: #2, I know that was just a light-hearted comment, but the points are irrelevant, and you know why I participate. How's that for party-pooping?
Re: #2, I know that was
Let me rephrase this: " I know you weren't trying to make a real point, but you know you just didn't really make a real point." Huh? I wouldn't call it a party pooping, just puzzling. :-)
oh geez, John. Something can
oh geez, John. Something can be a light-hearted comment and still make a sensible, relevant, logical, factually-based point and be intended as such. Or something can be offered as a such and be based on false premises, irrelevancies, etc. You're too intelligent to be "puzzled" by that.
What point do you think I was
What point do you think I was trying to make? My point was that this is fascinatingly ironic. Now, I guess irony is in the eye of the beholder, but still that was my only point. Not everything I say is based on some lofty philosophical idea.
An assertion that something
An assertion that something is ironic must be based on valid, relevant premises and correct logic. But enough with this meta meta matter.
Everything has good reasons
Everything has good reasons for it, and you anaylyze the reaons than I don't think the phenomenon would be that ironic. In other words using your standard for irony I don't you'd truly find anything Ironic.
I don't know what that is
I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but that's ok. As I said, this is deep meta discussion (and by deep I most certainly do not mean "profound").
is a three-pronged cop-out.
Its not just a matter of changing morals - though that does make a difference in what God does, as he has to work with people, its a matter of changing circumstances. For example, wiping out other nations was likely a matter of survival for the Israelites, its not like they could just come to America where noone would bother them.
We can't know everything about conditions by the Bible. Plus if you want to grant arguendo that the Bible is accurate, then you have to accept arguendo that there's a certain spiritual benefit in saving people for eternal life and in having the Israelite people survive and preserve God's message, and you can't put a value on that.
Book of Mormon
Not if you're a Mormon.
And it's not like God could hard wire the knowledge into some other culture, instead relying on the Hebrews to spread the word just like every other so called false religion. Would that be giving it away? If the Hebrews got killed off and low and behold, a bunch of Japanese are the new chosen people the next day?
No need to eat with Jesus after he came from the dead to know he's back again, one is better just to accept without seeing with their own two eyes.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Nah, they could either come
Nah, they could either come to America or they couldn't. My being a Mormon would not change that; it would change what I believed about it, but it wouldn't change the facts.
Barney Frank arguing with a Harvard Law Student
From the FEE Blog
:
That student was then interviewed
on Fox:
John, am I correct in
John, am I correct in assuming that you are presenting this video as an incident in which Barney Frank "lost" a debate? If so, I don't see what you're seeing at all. Judging just from the content of the exchange in the video, in terms of who outdebated whom, Barney Frank totally smoked that kid. The kid (1) had nuthin' valid and (2) the stuff he threw out was invalid (incorrect factually and/or irrelevant to the point and thus a non sequitur), and Frank quickly and clearly revealed both to be the case.
All I gleaned was Barney was a trained Lawyer
Barney didn't answer what was likely the underlying question of the student. He answered the question as it could be reasonably be assumed to be asking.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Not sure I understand. I
Not sure I understand. I think Frank was correct that the student was making a thinly-veiled charge, an implication that Frank was significantly responsible for the sub-prime crisis. Frank initially skirted the question via his own implicit implication that the (apparent) charge was either mostly or completely invalid by asking the student to put up or shut up. If he was indeed making that charge, what was his argument? The kid had none, or at least none that were both factually correct and relevant (i.e, that supported the charge). Eventually, Frank gave an example of something he did that was a mistake -- still short of providing an overall "grade" or degree to which he saw himself as responsible, but at least more than total denial of any responsibility, and, by implication, not a mistake that is dwarfed by some much larger mistake (or presumably, if he was discussing in good faith, he would have chosen the larger mistake as the example).
Bottom line:
Pretty much saying the same thing, I think.
The kid went on a phishing expedition and Barney didn't bite.
A lot highly paid talking heads do similar types of questions a lot.
Ask a fairly vague question, that is disguised to look like a simple yes/no question at first glance, in hopes to get your foot in the door.
The talking heads, once they get there foot in the door, if they proceed to rip apart a straw man and leave the guest trying to go "off topic" by bringing up that the talking head is connecting dots that aren't there.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
No. Wrong assumption.
I just thought it was funny to see Frank's hostility to the question...regardless of whether it was a loaded question or not.
And I think Brutus covered it quite well already. There was a deliberate attempt by Frank to scuttle answering the question at face value by instead answering it on a very narrowly defined path that allowed him to twist the topic around a bit.
And no, I don't think he smoked the student because he avoided answering the student's question head-on in accordance to how the question was asked and intended.
That's not to say that Frank didn't make some ancillary points for the student and listeners to consider on the details of the matter but that doesn't mean he handled the question properly.
Avoiding the student's real point and instead going off on a related tangent...and being very aggressive about it....made Frank look like a defensive bully.
hmm, and how do you think the
hmm, and how do you think the student did as a debater or in argumentation in general?
Do you agree with me that the student implied the charge that Frank bore significant responsibility for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, but offered nothing that was apparently factual and relevant in support of this charge?
he didn't do too well. He could have done better and worse.
He got some his facts wrong...or at least used sloppy thinking in his efforts to make his point or get an answer. His opening question was more or less OK. His persistence in politely pointing out that Frank was avoiding his real question was good. But when he had a chance to clarify and ask more, his sloppy use of words allowed Frank an avenue to go further away from where the student wanted to be.
I think the student obviously thinks that Frank (and others who pushed for certain policies) had some responsibility. He asked his question and wasn't sharp enough to think on his feet and back it up with the right follow-ups. Frank pounced on it and avoided what the kid was really getting at.
I'm sure that student went back and looked up and/or thought about his choice of words and points in his follow-up and wished he could have that moment back to insert the right follow-ups but it's too late now.
But anyone watching with any awareness of Frank's role in all this (and that of his abetting colleagues) could see this.
Frank may have avoided the point based on the student's slip up but the points are still to see there regardless of debating technique.
I don't know why you are
I don't know why* you are letting the kid off the hook by focusing on his supposedly poor "choice of words". The kid made an implicit assertion. He had absolutely nothing that was both factual and relevant to back it up. Semantics schmemantics, the kid just plain had nuthin'. Right?
* Well, I mean I don't see why you would other than because you're on his side on the issue.
I'm not letting him off the hook.
I'm simply not condemning with a forcefulness and vigor to suit your tastes.
The kid failed to make his follow up correctly. The fact that he could have done better means that there was a way to make the point he was trying to make. He failed in this respect.
It's like someone giving the wrong answer on Jeopardy or "Who wants to be a Millionaire?" to question that know but failed to correctly answer in the heat of the moment. It doesn't mean that there was no right answer....it simply means that he didn't give it at that moment.
Same thing here with Frank and the student.
But from my POV, the fact that he failed to correctly pin down Frank with the right follow up doesn't change the fact that Frank knew what he meant and succeeded only in avoiding it at that moment on that day.
The quality of some kid's performance is less meaningful than the subject that was brushed on and Frank's behavior.
If that exchange had been about a pet issue of yours (like tax cuts always paying for themselves) whose details you know well and that kid had failed to make that point as you would have to nail a sanctimonious supply-sider politician to the wall, the real matter behind the bickering would matter more than the strict evaluation of the kid's performance.
If some supply sider had skillfully avoided such a point because the kid followed up with the wrong detail, you wouldn't see it the same way you see this matter, methinks.
If a contestant on Jeopardy
If a contestant on Jeopardy kept guessing wrong answers or didn't have any answers and got smoked by the other contestants, I'd say that he got smoked. Whether or not he knew the answers but just choked is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he got smoked (although it could introduce a new, catchy term, "choke smoke")
All I'm saying is something quite simple: the kid made an implicit charge and, when asked for substantiation or even some kind of supporting argument, the kid said absolutely nothing that was factual and relevant (as far as I can tell) to support that charge. That's what I would call getting smoked. And it wasn't a matter of poor "choices of words", it was a complete failure to offer any support for his charge. By the end, he was just a tiny pile of smoldering ashes, a guy who started out seeming like a hero with an important point and ended up like some combination of Mr. Wrong, Mr. illogical, and Mr. Nuthin'.
Now, whether or not there were arguments he could have made, as seems to be your contention, is an entirely different question from the question of how he did -- debate-wise -- vs. Frank.
Like I said,
That simple point matters less to me. I'm looking more at the topic (both what was said and failed to be said) and Frank's reaction to it and his borderline obtuse way of bullying the kid and avoiding the real point by pouncing on his error...and thereby moving further away from the real question.
What I find more interesting is the topic this exchange touched on and Frank's obvious awareness of it. I thought he handled himself like a bully who succeeded only in avoiding the initial point by virtue of the kid's mistake. That context tarnishes any honor or "victory" by Frank. He still never addressed the original question.
You seem more interested in the narrow point you made. That's fine. I'm not contesting that point. I just don't find it very interesting compared to the larger issue....which is why I posted the video.
ok, fair enough, I agree that
ok, fair enough, I agree that the more important matter is Frank's behavior.
I see two questions off-hand regarding criticism of Frank's behavior:
(1) Did he resist and avoid answering the question to a degree that is inappropriate for an elected representative that was in a position of authority in an area in which something awful happened?
(2) Did he inappropriately "bully" a student (i.e., was his style inappropriate)?
Re: #1, I'd say yes, but I think his initially turning the question back on someone who (I think) was making a thinly veiled charge, and asking for him to provide his basis for that charge, was not so terrible, given that he probably -- and rightly -- suspected that this kid was one of many who (probably for partisan purposes and/or due to partisan bias) blame him without having any legitimate reason (which isn't to say that others don't have at least arguably legitimate reasons; just that some/many don't, at least not for the nature and degree of charges they throw at him, as this kid seemed to demonstrate, inadvertently and much to his surprise). And, in addition to his question of the kid -- somewhat rhetorical in nature -- implying that he doesn't consider himself greatly responsible and thinks that people who so think are greatly, unfairly exaggerating, after trying for a while to get an answer from the kid, Frank did offer at least an example of a mistake of his (i.e., some responsibility), and by implication gave a very rough idea of the extent to which he holds himself responsible. Do I think he should have explicitly given himself some sort of overall "grade" (degree of responsibility), as he was asked to do? Sure. But I don't think the content and sequence of his comments in the context of the exchange were anything so egregious in terms of refusal to answer a question that his conduct warrants being singled out for criticism per your initial post.
Re: #2, I don't have a big problem with that, as long as the assumption that the kid was really making a thinly-veiled charge is a valid assumption. We only heard parts of the wording of the question referred to by Frank (e.g., that the sub-prime crisis happened "on your watch"), but my sense is that it was reasonable for Frank to make that assumption. Given that assumption, and the broader context of many people making charges that Frank considers unsubstantiated and very unfair, I don't think it's so terrible for Frank to say basically "Listen, it sounds to me like you're asserting that I bore great responsibility for the crisis occurring, so tell me what your basis is for that assertion."
If I may.
Would not a good question be considering the underlying implication be;
Is Rep Frank one of a handful of people who acted in such a grossly negligent way as to be as directly responsible as any one person could be in precipitating the housing crisis, and it's global consequences?
and if so,
To what degree has Rep Frank gone to in obfuscating his duplicity?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I'm not sure what you're
I'm not sure what you're asking me. Is that a good question for someone to ask Frank? I don't know. Frankly (no pun intended), I haven't read up on the Congressional culprits as much as I should have by now, so I'm not informed well enough to allocate blame. But it seems that that kid implied essentially the same think your rhetorical question implies, and had absolutely nothing to support that assertion (other than stuff that was irrelevant and/or apparently incorrect [that is, apparently based on Frank's replies]).
The young man did not have enough time in the format to
meet your subsequent criteria.
But if we predispose the above question perhaps we can provide the missing elements that are troubling you.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Oh come on. The kid was asked
Oh come on. The kid was asked several times for something -- ANYTHING -- that would support his implied charge that Frank bore great responsibility for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. And he kept responding with stuff that was obviously irrelevant and/or incorrect.
Ok BR, are you looking to answer the larger Q, or crucify
a kid?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
huh? Get a grip, man.
huh? Get a grip, man.
Fair enough
I'll just add that I think Frank is a dishonest coward for using any means to avoid the real argument against him and play off the crowd's possible ignorance of issue. He knows what that argument is and he is shameless in his avoidance of it.
I only wish the kid had had better a command of the details to nail down that sly and slippery Frank.
Frank got lucky. I would have prepared myself, rehearsed every possible come back he would give and pounded him if I knew I might have a chance to address him and question him.
I would have ... pounded
I dunno. Frank might enjoy getting pounded by you.
(sorry folks, I know that's juvenile and possibly offensive to gays or on behalf of gays. If so, sorry. Hopefully you are all aware of how strongly I feel about equal rights for gays, for whatever that's worth, and I don't personally treat gays differently in any adverse way, either. Also, sorry for any imagery that may trigger. Just having a little -- hopefully harmless -- fun.)
But back to seriousness, you do raise a legitimate point: If he knows that there are at least arguably strong arguments that he bears a great deal of responsibility, it would have been more appropriate and decent of him to volunteer those arguments and address them rather than to limit the conversation to whatever would be the toughest argument the kid could come up with. How bad (how inappopriate and indecent) that tactic of his was depends largely on the extent to which one believes that there obviously are such strong (or at least arguably strong) arguments. You apparently have such a strong belief. I don't know enough about Frank's culpability to have an opinion (and my relative ignorance may be why I can perhaps more objectively judge Frank's and the kid's conduct and content based only on the video).
kinky....
I'd much rather pound Alan Greenspan, on why he thought it unnecessary to have any kind of regulation or capital requirements for Credit Default Swaps. Greenspan's excuse that only the sophisticated investor would understand them was naive at best.
I'm only half stupid
Greenspan
I would lock in a room with me and question him heavily for about 5-6 hours til I was satisified and heard all I can hear.
I would be rude but fair. That's my only promise.
The Charismatic Greenspan
would win you over after 10 minutes. You would come out nodding your head in a euphoric daze, mumbling to yourself some seemingly meaningful passage from an Ayn Rand novel. The assimilation would be complete.
=)
I'm only half stupid
No.
No way. He's wrong and he was wrong. He'll never convince me. His excuses in context would simply keep me going backwards in time until he was cornered.
And I'll disregard the Ayn Rand with the assumption that you know what's wrong with that statement in your heart of hearts. You should read up on their falling out and the subsequent path he took. You'd then rethink the sense in always pointing out their former relationship.
I'd rather not get into it. Just read up on it since you like to reference it so much.
\
You would be a total pushover
All he would have to do is say, "Regulate greed, ha! Try it. It will never work."
I'm only half stupid
I'll assume your kidding
both about me and about what Greenspan would say.
No I am not kidding
I am drunk. Just ask centinel. hiccup (kidding)
I'm only half stupid
Oh thats rich! ML calling Alan Greenspan naive!
Think of him what you will, it will be hard to top that one, even for you ML!
He was a stud for many, many years, and without the Barney Frank's, Maxine Water's, and Chris Dodd's of the world hedging their bets by altering the level of the playing field, he did pretty damn well.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Greenspan made mistakes
His biggest mistake was believing he could trascend what he used to know to be true regarding monetary policy. Hubris.
I say no more. I've said enough over the past year or so.
Agreed, he left me behind too, but please.
ML wouldn't know monetary policy from an ATM machine.
Her vacuous condemnation of Greenspan is based entirely on her daily cocktail of RW + LW meme's as evidenced by her hyper-partisan economic beliefs.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Yes. Perhaps.
But I think she gets more than she cares to comfortably acknowledge.
But all that aside, I would be ignoring a simple point to be made if I didn't say that about Greenspan.
I'm no fan of his...both for what he did wrong and for the off-the-mark comments his actions provoke from leftists.
Pluhlease....
His missed the boat. He is the chief architect of the meltdown because he failed to understand human nature.
I'm only half stupid
He failed to respect basic monetary policy.
that failure allowed human nature to run awry in bad directions.
Human nature responds to the incentives put before it. The Pied Piper led the rats out of town...but he could have led them anywhere.
He thought that high end
investment bankers were more evolved than than the rest.
Throw a wallet on the ground and wait and watch.
The response will vary, in spite of what you claim to be some sort of universal principle of human incentive.
I'm only half stupid
Why add that in?
I don't claim it. It's not something I made up. Anyone would acknowledge that from Krugman to Friedman. The differences lie elsewhere.
Find me any economist who denies that people respond to incentives.
Over 15,000 results to "people respond to incentives" on Google.
Look it up as an exact phrase.
peruse them at your leisure.
Why argue indisputable basic crap akin to 1+1=2? There's so much grey out there.
More soda - less liquor ML.
Pluhlease trust me on this!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I don't drink
I am not off my meds, because I don't take any.
And I am not fat with warts.
Reasonable people can disagree. Someday maybe you will grow up and accept that fact.
Just because people disagree with you does not mean that you have to try and paint them in a negative light.
I'm only half stupid
Ha! Fat and worts aside.
You leave me at a loss. I can not say I truly disagree with you because you simply will not stay on tack long enough to discover that fact, or not. I question you only because of that fact, and would much rather had found some fruition on any number of subjects all of which you abandoned.
So be it then.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Jonah Goldberg is being coy
and perhaps a tad obtuse with Will WIlkinson.
Will's blog entry
.
Jonah apparently found this from Will to be "unlibertarian":
Huh, Jonah?
Somehow Jonah has decided to be cute and focus so intently and narrowly on the classical liberal idea that people are individuals and should be treated as such that Will is being unlibertarian by noticing that drug laws disproportionally affect a racial minority. That's rich, Jonah.
Part of Will's answer says it best:
Obviously treating people as individuals involves a certain level of color blindness. That said, not acknowledging the effects of drug laws on a racial minority is simply BLINDNESS.
I have always found this to be interesting.
On a statistical level I think that this is true pretty much on its face. But I always fail to understand the point that is being made with this observation. Can someone explain to me what people are supposed to take away from this observation?
I always walk away thinking that whomever was saying that this is obviously evidence of racism and discrimination, but there is no logical connection between the two. This is not proof that discrimination exists in any way shape for form as far as I can tell.
Do we have any reason to believe that the percentage of poor black men convicted of these crimes is somehow out of proportion to the number of poor black men commiting these crimes? (And no this is not meant to imply anything either way, I am simply asking.)
Consider the following hypothetical scenario for a particular group:
So, in a fair system we would expect X = Y. So, in the case of the group of poor black men do we have any reason to think that X doesn't equal Y?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The thing is
a big part of the issue is sentencing disparity between crimes that tend to be committed by whites (such snorting powder coke) vs. blacks (such as smoking crack).
Your X-Y comparison only works if the average prison sentence is the same. For example, if poor blacks and whites were committing crimes at the same rate but blacks received on average triple the sentence, the prison population at any given time would have three times as many blacks as whites.
But in either case, prisons would result in a higher proportion of blacks. As to your original question, well, I don't know (but I'm sure that type of study exists). I would guess that any demonstrable overt racial factors are diminishing over time while economic ones are remaining the same.
Poor Man's Bill of Attainder
From what I took from it, the authors perceived the laws as de facto bill of attainder to arrest minorities, and fallen whites.
There is the fact that Yellow Journalism created stories of crazed negroes hoped up on drugs [including pot that somehow made people act hyper] and went around raping white women, which fed the drug prohibition craze.
ASFAIK, a relatively higher percentage of minorities, in general, get arrested on drug charges due to relatively higher percentage of poor minorities [not that drugs are only a poor thing].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
OK, GR
That our drug laws exacerbate a problem that already hurts black communities. Yes, drug laws exacerbate problems for all people who get caught up in them but it's worse for the black community.
Having a bunch of junkies is bad enough but when the violence from the black market sales of drugs are adding insult to injury in already struggling black communities, it's even worse. It's insult to injury.
AND, Having a bunch of junkies is bad enough without making them criminals and sending them to jail where they are likely to come out even worse than before. Meanwhile, whatever struggling semblance of a family unit that there may be is torn and damaged more than it already was.
Again, this is true for any color but the concentration of it is higher in black communities. Now, if we want to delve into WHY this is so much more of a problem in black communities, we can do that. But that's another matter. In the mean time, we would do well to make matters worse and create even more problems via our drug laws which are pennies wise and pound foolish.
Also, this may be a bit of conjecture but I'm sure the laws do not equally hit poor blacks (and the poor in general) as they do more affluent types with means to avoid legal consequences...not to mention that these people of means are less liekly to be the radar of drug enforcement.
This isn't a play of the politics of victimization on my part. I'm simply pointing out that a law should be removed because of what it does in general..and to racial minorities in particular.
I would legalize pot, but why not just stop the flow of drugs,
illegal immigrants, terrorists, etc. from coming into the country by bringing our military home, establishing a defendable border, and have our the army and navy protect and defend our country like they're supposed to?
I'd rather spend money on a real border, have towers and safe electronic monitoring, then have ill trained and equipped border patrol running around in the dark deserts of our own country chasing boogie men!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Stopping the flow of drugs and illegals is nearly
impossible.
Where there's a will there's a way and unless you want to commit tens upon tens of thousands of soldiers to the entire southern border, it will never work and even then, it probably won't work and will still be incredibly expensive and harmful.
Moreover, I'm against that entire idea.
Why do we want a closed off, military zone at our border?
Tis far easier to simply let them in and save the resources. Then there are no longer "illegals" and the drugs will travel on more traditional routes.That's what a checkpoint SHOULD BE for.
BTW, terrorists come here legally through airports...like the 9/11 hijackers did.
You lost the astuteness I have seen prior in this post John.
Cut a 200 foot line in the sand with barriers on either side, monitor it electronically, and have a station every X miles, or where necessary, it would solve the problem, and be very cost effective.
I do not here about smuggling going into or out of N.Korea via the DMZ.
Where there is a will there is a way, remember.
We want a secure border John for the obvious un-libertarian reasoning.
And yes terrorists do come here via airports, but we are taking our shoes off to get on a plane nowadays. Airports are at least trying, our borders should be following suit.
The classical libertarian position in this respect, in this day and age, is antiquated, irresponsible, and dangerous.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Cut a 200 foot line in the
Cut a 200 foot line in the sand with barriers on either side, monitor it electronically, and have a station every X miles, or where necessary, it would solve the problem, and be very cost effective.
Until someone discovers the rediscovers the lost knowledge of oceanic travel.
The US would need to do similar things along the entire coast.
I don't see too many people trying to go into North Korea, I don't see North Korea allowing people to do things to get out.
I do see Mexico allowing allowing people to have boats.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Brutus, think Navy.
nt.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Sorry don't agree
I was on my way out and was rather quick with my answer. I might have elaborated more to spell out the obvious grey areas but the gist of my take would have been the same.
I don't believe in a militarized fence across the southern border...besides the fact that it is expensive to build and maintain.
And to what end?
To stop illegals who would simply come through a checkpoint if it were easy to enter.
To stop drugs that shouldn't be prohibited and would simply come through the roads and pass through customs like tequlia and corona and dos equis.
I don't agree with either. A valid ID with the customary checks at a checkpoint is a far easier and less expensive way to handle this.
And yes, the terrorists came in here legally at airports. That was the point. A wall across the mexican border wouldn't have stopped 9/11. That's a simple of the FBI and CIA doing their job and liasing properly with points of entry like airports. Funny how they saw the highjackers on cameras and noticed them after the fact and knew where they were satying all those months.
Your fence isn't the issue.
Once you make passage at the border easier for people looking for work and legalize the sale of these drugs, 99.99999% of what occupies the border patrol vanishes and their jobs become a lot easier.
I don't believe in a
False, it is far cheaper.In lives, dollars, risk, etc........................
What you claim is unproven and IMO untrue. Those with criminal backgrounds, those with drugs, Those that wish to conceal their identities, those with contrband such as WMD etc. will not just pony up to a checkpoint, anymore then they do now. What will it take, a catastrophic attack from accross the border for you to throw tht into the old "it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 routine. 9/11 was a warning, the sd failure of our government to heed it is travesty!
I would prefer no heroin and no cocaine thank you. Here again, the libertarian meme assumes much that we would then pay dearly for in practice.
In your limited theoretical opinion.
That is the point John, the terrorists would not be able to execute their plan today, because we changed. If it wasn't for 9/11 you and you libertarian friends would be claiming we should have open airports with a simple checkpoint to enter. Don't lie! It sounds stupid now, but the collateral is true!
No, it's the solution!
Fortunately, that bizarre point is not a goal of mine????
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I simply don't agree.
Based on what?
Price?
How's it cheaper
Lives??
If you're referring to illegals (which I doubt you are), it's better to just let them pass through the checkpoint.
If you referring to Amercians, I have no idea what you're talking about. Your gut feeling about some hypothetical doesn't count.
How so? Are you saying they WOULDN'T simply come to checkpoint and flassh a passport?
As for that rest of that section, we already don't have much in the way of what you would like down there. We never have. Where's the problem that requires your draconian idea? WMD?? Come on. Why hasn't happened already?
To each his own. Without any solid to respond to, I can't say much to your conviction and conjecture.
You have to do better than that.
The fence is no solution. I realize you think it is but I don't.
No. The terrorists wouldn't be able to excecute their plan because the proper agencies WOKE UP. 9/11 struck me as extremely avoidable. We already had the system in place to deal with it: FBI, CIA, watch lists, airport security etc.. It wasn't working properly...big surprise there...now it's working better. The only systemic "change" was a more thorough protocol at airports. That's fine. I understand. But my point was/is that those highjackers came here legally with visas and were all watch lists and nothing was happening. That is a failure of a system that had what it needed to do its job and fumbled.
You are a victim of libertarian denial.
Yes, way. way cheaper! In cost to taxpayers, the lives of everyone who comes anywhere near the border in fact. How many N Koreans do you know who died in vans crossing into S Korea? In the wilderness, held in safe houses in S Korea? Guards shot? Its a much safer, secure, and cleaner operating border.
Sure the regular worker my come through the checkpoint, but what in the world makes you think anyone else would? Do you foresee a plague of ignorance will sweep over the bad guys?
As far as your frightening naivety with respect to WMD, oh, lets just say because we have done a half way decent job of containing nuclear proliferation! But with Iran and N Korea and a bunch of folks who'd like to do the dirty work for them, we're fucking lucky sport! Does your need to be a libertarian deny you the ability to think straight or what? Do you not think if, or when in your world, the WMD are available, it won't happen? I'll see you chang'in your tune on the the other side, too bad it'll be way too late then!
Listen man, safety and caution is a better exploratory method then some arrogant theorem from a wholly untested idea, with no track record, and a big down side should your ides go wrong!
You and the libertarian whoevers can spout Utopian hogwash all day long, but if you want me to stake my kids lives on it you my want to run trial or do better than just say it is what you think is right?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!