JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AFP) — Former Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif arrived in the Saudi Arabian Red Sea city of Jeddah on Monday following his expulsion from Pakistan, a Saudi official told AFP.
Sharif "landed at Jeddah airport," the official said, requesting anonymity.
Sharif was deported from Pakistan just hours after returning from exile hoping to ignite a popular campaign to oust military ruler President Pervez Musharraf.
As I've said before: the less Pakistan makes headlines the better I sleep at night.
MESEBERG, Germany (AFP) — French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a joint call here on Monday for greater regulation of international financial markets.
"We cannot allow a few speculators to bring down the whole international system, borrowing under any conditions they like and buying at any price they want and without knowing who is lending," Sarkozy said at a press conference after talks with Merkel at a castle outside Berlin.
"We are in favour of transparency and regulation (of financial markets) and for a capitalism that benefits businessmen and not speculators," Sarkozy said.
I would like to see a study that does something similar with a black and white vs gray (or rather simplistic absolutes vs complex relativism) completed. How to do that? I don't know.
But I bet the results would be similar to the above study.
Despite the rampant disinformation coming from the whitehouse and the various journalists who echo WH talking points, AQI are nobodies. In the entirety of the Iraq cluster&^%$ they compromise maybe 2% of the fighters. Kevin Drum:
THE MYTH OF AQI....REVISITED....In our October issue, Andrew Tilghman argues that al-Qaeda in Iraq is much smaller than popularly believed, accounting for only "2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency." Earlier this week, Gen. James Jones testified before Congress that even this is a high end estimate:
BAYH: Our intelligence services and other experts have indicated publicly that in their opinion about...two percent or fewer of the adversaries that we're facing in Iraq and that the Iraqis are facing in Iraq are foreign jihadis or AQI affiliates, [and] 98 percent or more are Iraqis fighting amongst Iraqis for the future of Iraq. Is that consistent with your understanding?
JONES: I think we would agree with that. Yes.
AQI is a dangerous organization, but it's time to stop pretending that they're the main driver of violence in Iraq. They aren't. They're a small and unpopular group of fanatics who will almost certainly be wiped out whether we withdraw or not. AQI simply isn't a good reason to stay in Iraq, no matter how many times President Bush manages to say their name in a single speech.
AQI is frankly trivial, any decision predictaed upon their existence is a mistake. They should be rightly ignored as inconsequential, but they won't be because conflating them with AQ and pretending they are a real threat is the most direct way for bush to continue to tie Iraq to 9/11.
The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.
members to keep the numbers up beyond next spring. What about maybe formulating a plan B? I mean, if we absolutely have to pull people in the spring, if the bad guys know, won't they just hold off till we pull them then?
When will be a good time to get out of the way of Iraqi's killing each other?
And actually the same argument that the righties have been making about setting a "date certain." Certainly the sequelae of setting a date certain by choice are no different from those of a date certain set by circumstance.
Maybe Democratic representative Charlie Rangel will get his way, and the Democrats will bring back their draft. I still have my two cards!
Seems that nost people here and on other boards have no need for his testimony to decide anything about Iraq. Its only use to most is to judge the mn.
It works like this:
IF the general's testimony agrees with your view and tends to confirm your wants, then he is a great general, honest, and insightful.
IF, on the other hand, his testimony disagrees with your view, then the general is weak, dishonest, and co-opted by political forces.
Some of pour most dishonest political brpokers have decided oin advance that his testimony won't meet their won political needs. The idiots over at MoveOn have taken out the now famous "General BetrayUs" ad to express their jaundiced view. At least they have given their own lighthouse beacon to warn of the devil depths of American politics.
Look up the word 'prejudice.' You won't look so foolish.
To be clear, the definition I had in mind when I used the term is this:
"an irrational attitude of hostility against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
You are aware, absent cretinism, that the context of the thread was racial prejudice and prejudice based on sexual orientation. You sophistic attempt to use the fallacy of equivocation for reasons of personal animus here are petty and childish.
Once again, fifth request, please stay off of my stuff.
where you use your armed forces to attack, kill and occupy a nation that has in no way harmed nor threatened you.
What do you think of those devil depths of American Politics. That is the war we're talking about and disagree with. You don't hear them complaining about Afganistan. It's Iraq/Iran you hear liberals screaming bloody murder about.
My mother told me early that one doesn't justify one's sins by saying that Jack does it, too.
MoveOn hedre is not screaming bloody murder about the war, but rather making a personal attack on the integrity of a man before even hearing what he has to say. In their words, a sort of cruel play on his name in the manner of taunting schoolyard bullies, they even imply that this general may be a traitor.
When those who opposed this war were called traitors or treasonous, I expressed my opinion that this was reprehensible, unAmerican. I express the same opinion here for the same reason.
MoveOn is simply predictable oin this regard. They are sort of the Ann Coulter of the left.
Seems everyone on the committee is going to give their own two bits about the testimony before the general gets to testify. Seems my comment above about the testimony not being of any use for one's thoughts on the subject matter extends to the committee itself.
How sad that we have gotten to a government by religion, where the facts and honest testimony are accepted and rejected on the basis of its congruence with one's dogmatic political position.
Where it is more important to "get with the program" than it is to think for oneself!
What of the Iraqi troop readiness report that John Warner requested and which showed little to no progress in Iraqi troop readiness levels along with a recommendation of disbanding the Iraqi police forces and starting from scratch because they are so rife with sectarian militias?
What about the GAO report that says that the Pentagon's odd rules of counting civilian casualties, rules instituted since the start of the surge, underreport civilian casualties?
Is being skeptical of what the General reports not a feasible or defensible position given the jiggering with the numbers done by the Pentagon, according to other, independent reports?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Some of us could be laughing that certain people are gullible enough to believe the dog and pony show today has something to do with "facts and honest testimony."
There's a reason many of us have our minds made up: we know what he's going to say. It's no secret since the message has been leaked ahead of time. MS objection is irrational since it predicated on the false idea that Petreaus testimony has been kept secret.
We've had weeks to hear what he will say and to research the validity of those claims.
Yes, we could guess from what Patraeus himself was saying what he would write.
And yes, it is obvious that you disagree with that general drift, so you cannot see it as "facts and honest testimony."
And yes, we could do research of people's opinions.
And yes, you are free to pick and choose just those whose opinions you generally agree with, fxing your facts around your ideology.
What we couldn't know is what new facts and figures would be presented. Only the very dishonest wpould make up their mind in advance in that case.
Sad, sad, sad.
You are suggesting that a lecture entitled "Professor Einstein presents his evidence for the theory of relativity" could not be honest and factual because you9 know in advance that he is going to support the theory of relativity. But he just might present a few experiments, say, the pressession of Mercury's orbit, that you weren't aware of, not having access to the experimental equipment or the scientific reports.
But I am very interested in your observations from your trip to iraq last week. Please fill me in.
What we couldn't know is what new facts and figures would be presented. Only the very dishonest wpould make up their mind in advance in that case.
So does repeating your false argument make you feel good or something? Because it remains false. There are no "new facts and figures" to be reported because the report has already been leaked to the press. I can't believe you are not able to understand this rather important detail.
See, "new" means something that, well, you didn't have before. Since the reports already leaked we had it before. Temporal relationships are pretty key to constructing logical arguments. It's why your argument here is nonsense.
You are suggesting that a lecture entitled "Professor Einstein presents his evidence for the theory of relativity" could not be honest and factual because you9 know in advance that he is going to support the theory of relativity.
I'm going to have to recommend GoRight gives you reading comprehension classes. If you wanted to be correct you'd say "What you are suggesting is that a paper entitled "Professor Einstein presents his evidence for the theory of relativity" could not be honest simply because you had already read the paper and discovered a multitude of fabrications in it."
Well yeah, I feel quite comfortable pointing out such things as falsities. See for example my various responses to you.
There's been a couple stories every week for the last several months.
here's one of the most recent:
A leaked congress document has resurfaced in advance of a report by the US commander in Iraq investigating the status of US forces there and the efficiency of the "surge strategy" adopted by George Bush, the US president.
...
The latest leak to resurface suggests that Petraeus and Crocker will tell US congress that any changes to Bush's troop surge strategy may jeopardise the situation in Iraq.
Leaked reports show that the US general will argue that major changes in US strategy in Iraq can only hinder the scant security and political progress that has been made.
Crocker is also expected to discuss the challenges of corruption, reconciliation, and de-Baathification.
Petreaus will say the strategy of 30,000 addition troops is working better than any previous effort to stem internal fighting - securing the streets for ordinary Iraqis.
These reports have been everywhere, and undoubtedly many were leaked diretly by the whitehouse in order to set expectations ahead of time. The same way that they publish the President's SOTU address and other major announcements before he gives them.
First, I know there have been other reports, and of course we don't neglect them either. We consider them all. We don't say, for instance, "Patreaus says this, so we can ignore those." Nor do we say, "those say this, so we can ignore Patreaus." To do so, one would have to chose not on the merits, but on ideology.
Second, I realize there were "leaks" of the Patreaus and Crocdker material, for instance, one saying that it would be written by White House staff. And this false leak was glommed onto by the usual ideological practitioners ofrf mental sloth (in this case, of the lefty variety, species religious antiBushites). There have leaks about what Patreaus' conclusions will be. I'm not so much interested in his conclusions, but in his data. Only a low grade idiot would say that the leaks EQUAL what Patreaus is going to say, data wise.
Your quote above confirms what I suspected with you. It wouldn't matter to you what data Patreaus had if he came to a conclusion that doesn't fit with your ideology.
Bottom line, some but not all of what he was going to say was guessed at in news stories, but that was mostly about what he was going to say in conclusion, which is, after all, the least important things he had to say.
My point, again: his report was worth listening to, but most people, on either side, have made up their mind about what he said without hearing it [for your sake, on the basis of leaks to the press, since they are always 100% accuirate, and] on the baqsis of their ideology, judging what he says by the dictates of their ideology, not the facts.
You know, Tlaloc, it doesn't really matter if you judge his presentation on ideology on the basis of an advanced copy, even, or the actual speech. The problem is letting one's ideology replace point by point thinking.
I think you showed your hand with the "dog and pony show" comment. No analysis there.
You made a false argument, I corrected it, now you blather about a bunch of stuff that alternates between incorrect and immaterial.
My analysis of his report is based on knowledge of it. What the report says is put in juxtaposition with a number of credible sources. The Petraeus report is found to be lacking in comparison. Consequently it is disregarded.
Just because you fall for the dog and pony show doesn't mean you should get pissy at those of us who are smarter. By all means listen to it if you like. Take your time to evaluate it point by point. I guess the rest of us can wait for you to catch up.
That's the difference. Personal insults especially the persistent harassing that you are demonstrating here is explicitly against the rules. Please stop.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm obviously not the biggest fan of MS since I've largely stopped responding to him, but I do have to ask what you're trying to accomplish here, CLC. If you're trying to point out inconsistency/hypocrisy, it's a fair point, but do you think you might be starting to cross from "pointing out" to "harassing"?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The point has been made. That said, discussing points of view surfaced in other comments are what this place is all about. So being asked not to comment on something placed out there for discussion is ludicrous.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
a new start since his 'second-coming', but I've had similar comments about his supposed (and humanly impossible) neutrality and objectivism in the past.
I've never claimed any super-human neutrality nor certainly objectivism. I do have more objectivity than I usually find on political sites because I have no political ideology, although I have opinions on specific topics individually.
What CLC is referring to is my comments concerning prejudice in the context of a discussion of gays and the civil rights movement.
Let's put it this way: objectivity and elimination of ideology are my constant goals. That is, they are perfectives. I am making no claim to perfection, and it is unfair to put those words in my mouth.
I don't think those are the goals of political ideologues.
ON another board, a writer was quoted as saying that the difference between the judgment of the worth of a proposition is different for those writing political opinion and journalists. Journalists, the writer said, are committed to finding the truth, and this is the bases of their judgment of a poposition.
Political writers, on the other hand, judge a proposition by its usefulness in advancing their political agenda.
In making this distinction, I don't think the writer was claiming that either were perfect in their judgments.
The observation herte is that on this board or any political board, slanted toward an ideology or not, you can find example after example of the ideology entraining facts. This topic here is a good example, made possible because the facts are few and hard to get. Those who want to leave grasp at anything they hear that is negative, and those who want to stay grasp at anything that seems positive, all with regard to the situation in Iraq.
Petraeus begins now to speak, and says that this is his testimony, written by himself, unshared with any superior, nor with anyone in the government. Yet the judgment of his testimony will come from what those of us here who have never been close to iraq during the times he describes want to believe about what he describes.
I did not mean to suggest your intent. I do think you are very mistaken about a few things so I will list those now:
Petraeus begins now to speak, and says that this is his testimony, written by himself, unshared with any superior, nor with anyone in the government.
While his testimony may be his alone, the report is not. As a matter of fact, the administration wrote the report (page 2 of the article):
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
Politics is a partisan game in which those in power (and those not) will state what they want to further their own agenda (I think we are agreed here). It is difficult to find true objective and unbiased reports at any level of government (at least the analysis of 'facts'--see below). Facts are not facts, but fodder for interpretation as has always been.
Which gets to my next point:
Let's put it this way: objectivity and elimination of ideology are my constant goals.
Unless you are a calculator (you are not a calculator, I assume), then I argue that this goal is an impossibility. As much as I would like to commend you for your effort, I not only think it is an impossibility but a gesture in bad faith too.
Perhaps we are using a different definition of 'political' here (GoRight, put away the dictionary, please). I tend to see almost everything as political (from architecture, to recreation, to words, to spirituality/religion, etc.). If politics is basically power or control (institutionalized or not is unimportant), then we can view it in almost any aspect of life.
If you are saying that you wish to avoid a certain organized school of thought (ideology), then that is fine, but I still doubt that you are able to do away with the lenses from which you view the world. Here are five questions to get at some of your ideologies/political perspectives:
1. What is your favored system of economy?
2. Which form of government do you find benefits a society?
3. Do you value freedom?
4. Do you value health (or safety)?
5. What is your 'moral system' (used loosely)?
All of the above are political questions (but as stated further above, these are the tip of the iceberg). If you have an opinion about any of the above, you have prejudices. There are no facts that can lead to 'correct' answers here solely by themselves (without going into other political values. For example, you may think from a certain set of data that humans live longer in capitalistic societies. That is fine, but you are still valuing health over other attributes in which this 'value' is not a 'fact' but a personal interpretation of what you find most important i.e. health).*
For the most part, politics is not even about the interpretation of objective facts. For example, how does the issue of gay marriage deal with 'facts', and how would one use those facts to answer the question of whether gays should have the right to marry? There are no relevant facts here, only interpretation of various moral systems.
I could go on for much longer, but I think you get the point. Aristotle said humans are political animals. Facts are neutral and do not lend themselves to conclusions without interpretation and prioritizing of values. No 'is' implies an 'ought' as Hume said. In other words, no description (the facts) suggests a prescription (what we should do with said facts).
Your goal is an impossibility. You are unobjective and will never be anything but. Accept and cherish it.
*(edit): Some people create categories for the above values. These we call 'ideologies', and the attempt to institutionalize these values we call political parties.
I agree that objectivity is a goal that one can't obtain. That is why i used the term 'perfective." I do not accept that because perfection is impossible, one ought to give up the goal. too convenient.
You assume:
you may think from a certain set of data that humans live longer in capitalistic societies. That is fine, but you are still valuing health over other attributes in which this 'value' is not a 'fact' but a personal interpretation of what you find most important i.e. health).*
But what if i argued that that fact alone means we should give up capitalism?
You know, Specter, I know you find this hard to believe, but I just don't have what Nietzsche (since you are name-dropping) called a "Will to a system." I have ideas, opinions, and didn't say that i didn't. the careful reader would call some of my opinions libertarian, some Marxist, some conservtive, and so on. My method is to see politics as the effort to provide practical answers to practical questions. For instance, if the goal is to cut down on infant moratility in the US, the answers would have to do with medical practice, how we access it, how that interfaces with other aspects of society, and so on. "Socialized medicine" of some form or another may be offered as an answer, but i will want to hear about the proposal in facts and figures. As soon as we get moralistic answers, (all infants should get the best care possible, in itself an impossibility), i know we are out of politics, and into morality as political ideology. In fact, whether all infants get care, or even whether reducing infant morality given all the practicalities, is the political question, decided on, in our system, by the people. What i am saying here is that ideologists tend to see things narrowly, to put things in absolute terms. Infant mortality should be (that moral wording again) the goal of society no matter what the cost. I think that the costs are always important no matter what the issue.
So, do i think that the health of babies is a valuable goal? yes. Should it be the goal of the federal government? maybe. Depends on, as you might say, the politics. All of it.
Now, take gay marriage. You are right that there are probably no facts that are relevant to this discussion. And you are right that it has become a moral issue. To my mind, it should NOT be a moral issue. It should be a political issue. But, unfortunately, we are not far in time from a place where people who think that morality should be involved in politics made laws against sodomy. The question here should be political: are gays treated equally in a constitutional sense? If not, what must be done to bring this about?
For me, morality is a set, systematic or not, of values which governs one's own behaviour, most often as ideals not fully realized. Morality is not to be used to control other people's behaviour. But in our country, the temptation to use political power to force people to behave according to one's morality has led to bad law and ppor policies by politicians of all stripes.
Aristotle said, btw, that all men by nature desire to know. Ideology is like faith: it is anti-knowledge. It provides a constant answer to which one can refer, like a bible, to respond to questions or situations in the world. it saves having to think about life as it happens.
For me, life is like jazz, you make it up as you go along, using the tools you have at the time. I have known musicians who found some happy solo that they played the rest of their lives on a certain tune. I hated working with these people. Their music wasn't alive. Since i am never the same person, never feel and know exactly the same thngs, never have the same perspective on things, why should i ever play anything the same way twice?
Likewise, why should i ever answer the same political question the same way twice? Of course, this too is an ideal. Sometimes my ideas change more slowly than I would like, because time is limited, and I can't reconsider everything every time.
Thus, for me, interesting thinkers don't repeat the same ready doctrines over and over again, like so many chanting altar boys. They think, and, I always hope, write aneww each time.
As Emerson famously said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." When i hear that "Kerry is a flip-flopper," my ears perk up. It means that he can change his ideas with circumstances, and not just come up with an idea 20 years ago, and then go brain dead. See? That's why i don't really care what a politician thought about something, or what he voted for 15 years ago. Consistency is not a decent goal, it is to be feared.
I have opinions, but lots of time, I don't draw conclusions. Like when somethng is not clear to me. This is where people rely on ideology or faith to bail them out. I have an immense tolerance for ambiguity. In fact, I was a grown person before i realized that some people had little tolerance for ambiguity, and had to have answers.
Note here that I didn't say I have no values. But i have not here in general argued that the (federal) government should put my values into law, and force others to adopt them, even though i could argue that we would all be better off adopting some of them. Heck, I could make an argument that we might even have a drop in infant mortality.
Remember, there is no virtue without freedom. To force others to behave morally, according to someone's idea of morality, will not only decrease freedom, but will decrease virtue, that is, will actually decrease moral behaviour.
On objectivity, I can say this: the old saying is that the only tragedy in science is a great theory not supported by the facts. Early in my life, I thought the theory that the moon was pulled out of the pacific basin (this is pre-Wegener) was a fantastic theory, and I loved it for the possibilities, the romance. but my dad taught my very young self that this was not the way theories work. You pick them on the data available at the time. Objectively.
If you want to go to the NAS and tell them they are unobjective, fine with me. But the scientists i've worked with have all made objectivity their goal.
As for being a calculator, I have at times actually been accused of being as cold as a calculator, treating everything as an intellectual problem with no sense of humanness. It's actually just the autism. I really have over the years developed a sense of humanness. But i still have the ability to absolutely wall it off. To almost go back to a time when only symbols mattered.
I do have some absolute values, that is, values that I don't think will change. Of course, some of what i thought were absolute values have changed in the past. as have my ideas. This is one reason I don't think my present ideas are properly presented as God-given truth. Here's a couple of values:
1) Data is sacred. One shall not manipulate or change it, nor ignore it.
2) Thou shalt not commit the second sin against science, that is, thou shalt not seek data with one's hypothesis in hand. (This one is hard to keep with google.)
3) Honesty and self-expression always; never play to the crowd, and be careful when playing what the crowd seems to like: it is easy to play for the audience instead of playing your own truth.
4) never play the same solo that you have played before. Let your music be as different as you are every time.
5) (From Thich Nhat Hanh).
[In times of injustice, conflict, or war], try to see that every person involved in the conflict is a victim. See that no person, including all those in the warring parties or in what appear to be opposing sides, desires the suffering to continue. See that it is not only one or a few persons who are to blame for the situation. See that the situation is possible because of the clinging to ideologies and to an unjust world economic system which is upheld by every person through ignorance or through lack of resolve to change it. See that two sides in a conflict are not really opposing, but two aspects of the same reality.
The Master is hard. One "try", and an insistence that we see the rest, no excuses!
6) [A method to allow one to work with the worst of criminals.] See that even the worst of actions have an underlying noble motive.
......
One's reach should always extend beyonds his grasp.
2) Any form of government can benefit people. I don't like to use the term 'society,' which is best defined as "everyone bu me." As in, "you have to sacrifice for society." the Marxist ontology, which reifies society over individuals is the source of much muddy think and human misery. Society is a convenient collective noun, not something which can think, feel, or have benefits given to it.
3) Freedom is the ultimate value if one believes that one owns his own lives, as does everyone else own their own lives. Freedom is not, however, a value that is absolute.
4) Sure, I place a value on health and safety. I don't walk blindfolded down the freeway while eating salted pork rinds.
5) Moral system? none. I have some moral precepts today that i follow. May be different tomorrow, but I grow old. I try to see the Buddha in everyone. I try to present my moral views as personal preferences, rather than rules others should follow.
I'm probably pretty conventional for an old hippy.
You know, specter, this is something that i say in many more words here a lot. So often, the fight on political boards is about facts because people think that admitting a fact will lead to the opposing political view.
We often hear that such and such a fact can't be true, because it would just lead to some policy that the writer does not agree with.
As sort of an example, while the fact that the world is warming noiw cannot be denied, the argument is about whether the warming is anthropogenic.
but the fact is, there is no need to answer that question at all. If we perceive a problem, we might set ourselves to find solutions to the problem.
But for some reason, those who don't like certain solutions seek to argue whether the warming is anthropogenic. Why? And why do those who favour these measures zargue that the warming is anthropogenic?
It's a bit like insisting that because a certain diseasese has been shown to be genetic, we should cure it by removing all genetic material from the person so afflicted. That would certainly work, but we may want to give serious thought to side effects.
The lack of the latter almost led us into the idiocy of the Kyoto agreement, instead of something that actually had some thought and purpose, and may have actually helped.
patreaus said directly that he wrote the report, etc. Now, this is the place for you to directly call him a liar based on leaks prior to his delivering his report.
Since you think he would lie about that, i can see why you would simply dismiss anything he said.
Me, I'm a bit of a skeptic. years ago, before a live presidential speech, the leaks said that the president was going to talk about his plans for his run for the presidency and what plans he had to end the war. Instead, the president announced that he would not run at all. Even his staff were surprised.
So, Patreaus said that he wrote the report. You calling him a liar?
The term 'jerk' was obviously applied to the jerk's behaviour. Had he shouted "keep the troops in iraq forever" and disrupted the start of the proceedings, he would be a jerk, right wing style.
See how easy it is?
Now, sixth time, please stay off of my stuff. I will stay off of yours, as i have.
were thrown out. I didn't hear what one shouted, nor could i read the sign referred to by the chairman, so I coan't report whether the jerks were winged or not.
I understand the point. It is a matter of judging when civil disobedience is called for, and when civility is called for.
here, I am judging that civility is clled for, partly because civil disobedience will serve no purpose, and certainly no purpose that any honest protestor, or even anyone in favor of the war, would have.
These people could express their freedom of speech outside the committee room. In fact, someone could actually hear their message in that case. You can be sure that the Clinton News Network would cover it.
These political movements always have their self-indulgent, spotlight-seeking members.
btw, they just announced that Cindy Sheehan was among those previously thrown out.
And I have to say that among protestors of Vietnam, but even more today, there are those who don't realize that being arrested is the purpose. (Those not arrested and charged are said to suffer "subpoenas envy.)
Somehow, we have grown a crop of protestors who think that there should be no penalty for civil disobedience. This is a dishonour to the fine American tradition of civil disobedience.
Somehow, we have grown a crop of protestors who think that there should be no penalty for civil disobedience.
maybe they shouldn't have read the constitution.
Getting arrested is not the point. The point is to exercise free specch and assembly rights so as to express a point of view. Getting arrested is what happens when the government over reacts and engages in unconstitutional actions.
They absolutely should be able to expect no penalties for exercising their rights. That they can't is a clear and direct indictment of a government refusing to follow it's charter.
means just that. It means disobeying a law. One doesn't get arrested for exercising their rights. One gets arrested for disobeying some law or civil rule.
When the war protestor sits in the streets to block traffic, he is certainly exercising his right to express his opinion, and, if he is with others, to assemble. But he will be arrested for bocking traffic, which is against the law.
Now, Tlaloc, why do you think we chose to sit in the streets and block traffic to exercise our rights, rather than, say, getting a permit for a demonstration and gathering in the park right next to the street?
Thoureau, the standard of American civil disobedience, sets the bar high: in cases of injustice, he suggests that we disobey the laws of the government at any cost. In fact, it is the commitment to the cost that makes it effective. Gandhi, in his hunger strikes, imposed even more of a cost.
Note that Sen. McCarthy had Thoreau's book on civil disobedience removed from school libraries.
So, I disagree. if the object were merely to exercise one's right to free speech and assembly, this could be done without breaking the law. Purposely breaking the law to call attention to your cause IS the point. As the term "civil disobedience" implies.
It is hard for me to see simply enforcing the law or civil rules as "unconstitutional actions."
And i can tell you that if the police chief had told us in advance that he would take no action if we sat on Oak Avenue to block traffic, we would have immediately abandoned those plans, and, perhaps moved the protest sit-in to Broad Street, where he could not ignore us.
The idea is to effective express one's ideas, show one's commitment and seriousness, not to whine.
Civil Disobedience
means just that. It means disobeying a law.
You're wrong. It means disobeying authority. There is no requirement that it be illegal.
One doesn't get arrested for exercising their rights. One gets arrested for disobeying some law or civil rule.
Ideally you'd be correct, in the real world though you are still wrong. Very often protestors get arrested for exercising their rights. Vague and subjective laws, such as disturbing the peace, are used to give a veneer of propriety to the arrest.
Comments :
Well *that* didn't last long
As I've said before: the less Pakistan makes headlines the better I sleep at night.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Undoubtedly this will irritate some
story
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Damn socialists!
Oh, wait... They're conservatives!
Go figure...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Another article on neurological differences
between liberals and conservatives.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Great article
Thanks.
I would like to see a study that does something similar with a black and white vs gray (or rather simplistic absolutes vs complex relativism) completed. How to do that? I don't know.
But I bet the results would be similar to the above study.
AQI who?
Despite the rampant disinformation coming from the whitehouse and the various journalists who echo WH talking points, AQI are nobodies. In the entirety of the Iraq cluster&^%$ they compromise maybe 2% of the fighters. Kevin Drum:
post here (including the links I'm too lazy to embed)
AQI is frankly trivial, any decision predictaed upon their existence is a mistake. They should be rightly ignored as inconsequential, but they won't be because conflating them with AQ and pretending they are a real threat is the most direct way for bush to continue to tie Iraq to 9/11.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And General Patreus's report?
Well if the BBC is to be believed, 70% of Iraqi's think security has deteriorated during "the surge"
. That breaks down to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia.
Well, in that event, throw another Freidman Unit on the Barbie! We'll see what the Iraqi people really think in another 6 months.
Whaddo those Iraqis know?
They haven't seen Petraeus' PowerPoint presentation! They have no idea how good they have it!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Petraeus will urge delay
Link
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I've read that the Army and the Marines don't have enough
members to keep the numbers up beyond next spring. What about maybe formulating a plan B? I mean, if we absolutely have to pull people in the spring, if the bad guys know, won't they just hold off till we pull them then?
When will be a good time to get out of the way of Iraqi's killing each other?
I ask this question in good faith as a majority of Iraqi's now think it's a good thing to attack US GI's
.
I'd imagine
that Petraeus actually is much better aware of whether Army and Marines have enough troops to be there through spring or/and beyond.
That said I don't have answers on when it's a good time.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Maybe Bush is going to reinstitute the draft!
Heh-heh...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Good point, kindness
And actually the same argument that the righties have been making about setting a "date certain." Certainly the sequelae of setting a date certain by choice are no different from those of a date certain set by circumstance.
Maybe Democratic representative Charlie Rangel will get his way, and the Democrats will bring back their draft. I still have my two cards!
As Rangel has made clear, the fastest way to end the war...
... is to reintroduce the draft.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Eighth request
Please stay off of my stuff, as i have stayed off of yours.
Again, you have no right to demand that I not comment on posts
...you put up. It is your choice to respond, but if you put a comment up, it is open for discussion. That's how this place works.
You commented on Rangel and the draft and I added a comment. If you have a problem with that, it's your problem, not mine.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
The Petraeus testimony
Seems that nost people here and on other boards have no need for his testimony to decide anything about Iraq. Its only use to most is to judge the mn.
It works like this:
IF the general's testimony agrees with your view and tends to confirm your wants, then he is a great general, honest, and insightful.
IF, on the other hand, his testimony disagrees with your view, then the general is weak, dishonest, and co-opted by political forces.
Some of pour most dishonest political brpokers have decided oin advance that his testimony won't meet their won political needs. The idiots over at MoveOn have taken out the now famous "General BetrayUs" ad to express their jaundiced view. At least they have given their own lighthouse beacon to warn of the devil depths of American politics.
"... idiots at MoveOn..."
This from the guy who claimed just a couple of days ago that he didn't "have a prejudiced bone in my body" and you con;t know how you are so blessed.
Hypocrite.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Fifth nice request
Please stay off my stuff.
Look up the word 'prejudice.' You won't look so foolish.
To be clear, the definition I had in mind when I used the term is this:
"an irrational attitude of hostility against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
You are aware, absent cretinism, that the context of the thread was racial prejudice and prejudice based on sexual orientation. You sophistic attempt to use the fallacy of equivocation for reasons of personal animus here are petty and childish.
Once again, fifth request, please stay off of my stuff.
"irrational attitude of hostility..."
Fits your words here this morning perfectly.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
As opposed to the bush43/Cheney metric
where you use your armed forces to attack, kill and occupy a nation that has in no way harmed nor threatened you.
What do you think of those devil depths of American Politics. That is the war we're talking about and disagree with. You don't hear them complaining about Afganistan. It's Iraq/Iran you hear liberals screaming bloody murder about.
Get with the program MS.
kindness
My mother told me early that one doesn't justify one's sins by saying that Jack does it, too.
MoveOn hedre is not screaming bloody murder about the war, but rather making a personal attack on the integrity of a man before even hearing what he has to say. In their words, a sort of cruel play on his name in the manner of taunting schoolyard bullies, they even imply that this general may be a traitor.
When those who opposed this war were called traitors or treasonous, I expressed my opinion that this was reprehensible, unAmerican. I express the same opinion here for the same reason.
MoveOn is simply predictable oin this regard. They are sort of the Ann Coulter of the left.
Proud?
The testimony begins....
Took a mere 30 seconds for the first jerk expressing the far left view to be tossed from the hearing room!!!!
I wish I could watch it
but being at work I actually gotta do some work... Sucks. Hope someone on dkos at least live blogs it. Thanks for a nice highlight.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well, Ender
Seems everyone on the committee is going to give their own two bits about the testimony before the general gets to testify. Seems my comment above about the testimony not being of any use for one's thoughts on the subject matter extends to the committee itself.
How sad that we have gotten to a government by religion, where the facts and honest testimony are accepted and rejected on the basis of its congruence with one's dogmatic political position.
Where it is more important to "get with the program" than it is to think for oneself!
indeed
Why are all congressmen even there if they already made up their minds?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
His report is not the only report.
What of the Iraqi troop readiness report that John Warner requested and which showed little to no progress in Iraqi troop readiness levels along with a recommendation of disbanding the Iraqi police forces and starting from scratch because they are so rife with sectarian militias?
What about the GAO report that says that the Pentagon's odd rules of counting civilian casualties, rules instituted since the start of the surge, underreport civilian casualties?
Is being skeptical of what the General reports not a feasible or defensible position given the jiggering with the numbers done by the Pentagon, according to other, independent reports?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Maddy,
your thoughtful words will just howl in the wind...neglected for not being fun and emotionally satisfying.
But I appreciate it nonetheless. I actually chuckled because I was thinking the same thing as my eyes perused over the dialog.
Yeah, or...
Some of us could be laughing that certain people are gullible enough to believe the dog and pony show today has something to do with "facts and honest testimony."
There's a reason many of us have our minds made up: we know what he's going to say. It's no secret since the message has been leaked ahead of time. MS objection is irrational since it predicated on the false idea that Petreaus testimony has been kept secret.
We've had weeks to hear what he will say and to research the validity of those claims.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thank you, Tlaloc
for proving my point.
Yes, we could guess from what Patraeus himself was saying what he would write.
And yes, it is obvious that you disagree with that general drift, so you cannot see it as "facts and honest testimony."
And yes, we could do research of people's opinions.
And yes, you are free to pick and choose just those whose opinions you generally agree with, fxing your facts around your ideology.
What we couldn't know is what new facts and figures would be presented. Only the very dishonest wpould make up their mind in advance in that case.
Sad, sad, sad.
You are suggesting that a lecture entitled "Professor Einstein presents his evidence for the theory of relativity" could not be honest and factual because you9 know in advance that he is going to support the theory of relativity. But he just might present a few experiments, say, the pressession of Mercury's orbit, that you weren't aware of, not having access to the experimental equipment or the scientific reports.
But I am very interested in your observations from your trip to iraq last week. Please fill me in.
Delusional as ever.
So does repeating your false argument make you feel good or something? Because it remains false. There are no "new facts and figures" to be reported because the report has already been leaked to the press. I can't believe you are not able to understand this rather important detail.
See, "new" means something that, well, you didn't have before. Since the reports already leaked we had it before. Temporal relationships are pretty key to constructing logical arguments. It's why your argument here is nonsense.
I'm going to have to recommend GoRight gives you reading comprehension classes. If you wanted to be correct you'd say "What you are suggesting is that a paper entitled "Professor Einstein presents his evidence for the theory of relativity" could not be honest simply because you had already read the paper and discovered a multitude of fabrications in it."
Well yeah, I feel quite comfortable pointing out such things as falsities. See for example my various responses to you.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Never mind the fact that other, independent reports
... have already come out which paint a different picture than Petraeus' testimony.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Link please (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Are you joking?
There's been a couple stories every week for the last several months.
here's one of the most recent:
story
These reports have been everywhere, and undoubtedly many were leaked diretly by the whitehouse in order to set expectations ahead of time. The same way that they publish the President's SOTU address and other major announcements before he gives them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
OK, Tlaloc
I ignored your fogging above, you will notice.
First, I know there have been other reports, and of course we don't neglect them either. We consider them all. We don't say, for instance, "Patreaus says this, so we can ignore those." Nor do we say, "those say this, so we can ignore Patreaus." To do so, one would have to chose not on the merits, but on ideology.
Second, I realize there were "leaks" of the Patreaus and Crocdker material, for instance, one saying that it would be written by White House staff. And this false leak was glommed onto by the usual ideological practitioners ofrf mental sloth (in this case, of the lefty variety, species religious antiBushites). There have leaks about what Patreaus' conclusions will be. I'm not so much interested in his conclusions, but in his data. Only a low grade idiot would say that the leaks EQUAL what Patreaus is going to say, data wise.
Your quote above confirms what I suspected with you. It wouldn't matter to you what data Patreaus had if he came to a conclusion that doesn't fit with your ideology.
Bottom line, some but not all of what he was going to say was guessed at in news stories, but that was mostly about what he was going to say in conclusion, which is, after all, the least important things he had to say.
My point, again: his report was worth listening to, but most people, on either side, have made up their mind about what he said without hearing it [for your sake, on the basis of leaks to the press, since they are always 100% accuirate, and] on the baqsis of their ideology, judging what he says by the dictates of their ideology, not the facts.
You know, Tlaloc, it doesn't really matter if you judge his presentation on ideology on the basis of an advanced copy, even, or the actual speech. The problem is letting one's ideology replace point by point thinking.
I think you showed your hand with the "dog and pony show" comment. No analysis there.
Typical blathering
You made a false argument, I corrected it, now you blather about a bunch of stuff that alternates between incorrect and immaterial.
My analysis of his report is based on knowledge of it. What the report says is put in juxtaposition with a number of credible sources. The Petraeus report is found to be lacking in comparison. Consequently it is disregarded.
Just because you fall for the dog and pony show doesn't mean you should get pissy at those of us who are smarter. By all means listen to it if you like. Take your time to evaluate it point by point. I guess the rest of us can wait for you to catch up.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Belated thanks, John
Nice to hear something positive amongst the din.
Oh, look! There he goes again!
"Not a prejudiced bone in my body..."
You phony. You are so full of hate, it's oozing from your pores and probably soiling your desk chair.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
dude
stop attacking him already... Not just the rightwingers dislike the morons from MoveOn and Code Pink! You are getting too personal here.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hey, just trying to hold him to his own words, Ender.
Is that too much to ask?
He claimed just a few short days ago that he was above all of this kind of talk. Yet, here he is, name-calling.
What a f***in' phony...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
he is not calling *you* names
That's the difference. Personal insults especially the persistent harassing that you are demonstrating here is explicitly against the rules. Please stop.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hey, when someone claims to be something they're not
... over and over, they open themselves up to this criticism.
Period.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
it's not the criticism that's not ok
it's the way you make it personal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It is personal.
It's about a person.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You know,
I'm obviously not the biggest fan of MS since I've largely stopped responding to him, but I do have to ask what you're trying to accomplish here, CLC. If you're trying to point out inconsistency/hypocrisy, it's a fair point, but do you think you might be starting to cross from "pointing out" to "harassing"?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Oh, no.
My last two posts commenting on relevant issues in a thread were met with the posters' request that I not comment.
Please show me where either one of these was "harassing."
If this is a place for discussion, then let's discuss.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Overheated.
If the other person's not responding, and consistently not responding, then maybe a breather's in order?
By all means question consistency, but at least today is it getting you anywhere?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am no longer questioning his consistency.
The point has been made. That said, discussing points of view surfaced in other comments are what this place is all about. So being asked not to comment on something placed out there for discussion is ludicrous.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I'm attempting
a new start since his 'second-coming', but I've had similar comments about his supposed (and humanly impossible) neutrality and objectivism in the past.
Specter
I've never claimed any super-human neutrality nor certainly objectivism. I do have more objectivity than I usually find on political sites because I have no political ideology, although I have opinions on specific topics individually.
What CLC is referring to is my comments concerning prejudice in the context of a discussion of gays and the civil rights movement.
Let's put it this way: objectivity and elimination of ideology are my constant goals. That is, they are perfectives. I am making no claim to perfection, and it is unfair to put those words in my mouth.
I don't think those are the goals of political ideologues.
ON another board, a writer was quoted as saying that the difference between the judgment of the worth of a proposition is different for those writing political opinion and journalists. Journalists, the writer said, are committed to finding the truth, and this is the bases of their judgment of a poposition.
Political writers, on the other hand, judge a proposition by its usefulness in advancing their political agenda.
In making this distinction, I don't think the writer was claiming that either were perfect in their judgments.
The observation herte is that on this board or any political board, slanted toward an ideology or not, you can find example after example of the ideology entraining facts. This topic here is a good example, made possible because the facts are few and hard to get. Those who want to leave grasp at anything they hear that is negative, and those who want to stay grasp at anything that seems positive, all with regard to the situation in Iraq.
Petraeus begins now to speak, and says that this is his testimony, written by himself, unshared with any superior, nor with anyone in the government. Yet the judgment of his testimony will come from what those of us here who have never been close to iraq during the times he describes want to believe about what he describes.
That's my point.
It is rather obvious.
Madscientist
I did not mean to suggest your intent. I do think you are very mistaken about a few things so I will list those now:
While his testimony may be his alone, the report is not. As a matter of fact, the administration wrote the report
(page 2 of the article):
Politics is a partisan game in which those in power (and those not) will state what they want to further their own agenda (I think we are agreed here). It is difficult to find true objective and unbiased reports at any level of government (at least the analysis of 'facts'--see below). Facts are not facts, but fodder for interpretation as has always been.
Which gets to my next point:
Unless you are a calculator (you are not a calculator, I assume), then I argue that this goal is an impossibility. As much as I would like to commend you for your effort, I not only think it is an impossibility but a gesture in bad faith too.
Perhaps we are using a different definition of 'political' here (GoRight, put away the dictionary, please). I tend to see almost everything as political (from architecture, to recreation, to words, to spirituality/religion, etc.). If politics is basically power or control (institutionalized or not is unimportant), then we can view it in almost any aspect of life.
If you are saying that you wish to avoid a certain organized school of thought (ideology), then that is fine, but I still doubt that you are able to do away with the lenses from which you view the world. Here are five questions to get at some of your ideologies/political perspectives:
1. What is your favored system of economy?
2. Which form of government do you find benefits a society?
3. Do you value freedom?
4. Do you value health (or safety)?
5. What is your 'moral system' (used loosely)?
All of the above are political questions (but as stated further above, these are the tip of the iceberg). If you have an opinion about any of the above, you have prejudices. There are no facts that can lead to 'correct' answers here solely by themselves (without going into other political values. For example, you may think from a certain set of data that humans live longer in capitalistic societies. That is fine, but you are still valuing health over other attributes in which this 'value' is not a 'fact' but a personal interpretation of what you find most important i.e. health).*
For the most part, politics is not even about the interpretation of objective facts. For example, how does the issue of gay marriage deal with 'facts', and how would one use those facts to answer the question of whether gays should have the right to marry? There are no relevant facts here, only interpretation of various moral systems.
I could go on for much longer, but I think you get the point. Aristotle said humans are political animals. Facts are neutral and do not lend themselves to conclusions without interpretation and prioritizing of values. No 'is' implies an 'ought'
as Hume said. In other words, no description (the facts) suggests a prescription (what we should do with said facts).
Your goal is an impossibility. You are unobjective and will never be anything but. Accept and cherish it.
*(edit): Some people create categories for the above values. These we call 'ideologies', and the attempt to institutionalize these values we call political parties.
Heard it before
I agree that objectivity is a goal that one can't obtain. That is why i used the term 'perfective." I do not accept that because perfection is impossible, one ought to give up the goal. too convenient.
You assume:
But what if i argued that that fact alone means we should give up capitalism?
You know, Specter, I know you find this hard to believe, but I just don't have what Nietzsche (since you are name-dropping) called a "Will to a system." I have ideas, opinions, and didn't say that i didn't. the careful reader would call some of my opinions libertarian, some Marxist, some conservtive, and so on. My method is to see politics as the effort to provide practical answers to practical questions. For instance, if the goal is to cut down on infant moratility in the US, the answers would have to do with medical practice, how we access it, how that interfaces with other aspects of society, and so on. "Socialized medicine" of some form or another may be offered as an answer, but i will want to hear about the proposal in facts and figures. As soon as we get moralistic answers, (all infants should get the best care possible, in itself an impossibility), i know we are out of politics, and into morality as political ideology. In fact, whether all infants get care, or even whether reducing infant morality given all the practicalities, is the political question, decided on, in our system, by the people. What i am saying here is that ideologists tend to see things narrowly, to put things in absolute terms. Infant mortality should be (that moral wording again) the goal of society no matter what the cost. I think that the costs are always important no matter what the issue.
So, do i think that the health of babies is a valuable goal? yes. Should it be the goal of the federal government? maybe. Depends on, as you might say, the politics. All of it.
Now, take gay marriage. You are right that there are probably no facts that are relevant to this discussion. And you are right that it has become a moral issue. To my mind, it should NOT be a moral issue. It should be a political issue. But, unfortunately, we are not far in time from a place where people who think that morality should be involved in politics made laws against sodomy. The question here should be political: are gays treated equally in a constitutional sense? If not, what must be done to bring this about?
For me, morality is a set, systematic or not, of values which governs one's own behaviour, most often as ideals not fully realized. Morality is not to be used to control other people's behaviour. But in our country, the temptation to use political power to force people to behave according to one's morality has led to bad law and ppor policies by politicians of all stripes.
Aristotle said, btw, that all men by nature desire to know. Ideology is like faith: it is anti-knowledge. It provides a constant answer to which one can refer, like a bible, to respond to questions or situations in the world. it saves having to think about life as it happens.
For me, life is like jazz, you make it up as you go along, using the tools you have at the time. I have known musicians who found some happy solo that they played the rest of their lives on a certain tune. I hated working with these people. Their music wasn't alive. Since i am never the same person, never feel and know exactly the same thngs, never have the same perspective on things, why should i ever play anything the same way twice?
Likewise, why should i ever answer the same political question the same way twice? Of course, this too is an ideal. Sometimes my ideas change more slowly than I would like, because time is limited, and I can't reconsider everything every time.
Thus, for me, interesting thinkers don't repeat the same ready doctrines over and over again, like so many chanting altar boys. They think, and, I always hope, write aneww each time.
As Emerson famously said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." When i hear that "Kerry is a flip-flopper," my ears perk up. It means that he can change his ideas with circumstances, and not just come up with an idea 20 years ago, and then go brain dead. See? That's why i don't really care what a politician thought about something, or what he voted for 15 years ago. Consistency is not a decent goal, it is to be feared.
I have opinions, but lots of time, I don't draw conclusions. Like when somethng is not clear to me. This is where people rely on ideology or faith to bail them out. I have an immense tolerance for ambiguity. In fact, I was a grown person before i realized that some people had little tolerance for ambiguity, and had to have answers.
Note here that I didn't say I have no values. But i have not here in general argued that the (federal) government should put my values into law, and force others to adopt them, even though i could argue that we would all be better off adopting some of them. Heck, I could make an argument that we might even have a drop in infant mortality.
Remember, there is no virtue without freedom. To force others to behave morally, according to someone's idea of morality, will not only decrease freedom, but will decrease virtue, that is, will actually decrease moral behaviour.
On objectivity, I can say this: the old saying is that the only tragedy in science is a great theory not supported by the facts. Early in my life, I thought the theory that the moon was pulled out of the pacific basin (this is pre-Wegener) was a fantastic theory, and I loved it for the possibilities, the romance. but my dad taught my very young self that this was not the way theories work. You pick them on the data available at the time. Objectively.
If you want to go to the NAS and tell them they are unobjective, fine with me. But the scientists i've worked with have all made objectivity their goal.
As for being a calculator, I have at times actually been accused of being as cold as a calculator, treating everything as an intellectual problem with no sense of humanness. It's actually just the autism. I really have over the years developed a sense of humanness. But i still have the ability to absolutely wall it off. To almost go back to a time when only symbols mattered.
I do have some absolute values, that is, values that I don't think will change. Of course, some of what i thought were absolute values have changed in the past. as have my ideas. This is one reason I don't think my present ideas are properly presented as God-given truth. Here's a couple of values:
1) Data is sacred. One shall not manipulate or change it, nor ignore it.
2) Thou shalt not commit the second sin against science, that is, thou shalt not seek data with one's hypothesis in hand. (This one is hard to keep with google.)
3) Honesty and self-expression always; never play to the crowd, and be careful when playing what the crowd seems to like: it is easy to play for the audience instead of playing your own truth.
4) never play the same solo that you have played before. Let your music be as different as you are every time.
5) (From Thich Nhat Hanh).
The Master is hard. One "try", and an insistence that we see the rest, no excuses!
6) [A method to allow one to work with the worst of criminals.] See that even the worst of actions have an underlying noble motive.
......
One's reach should always extend beyonds his grasp.
I guess that makes me a Progressive.
I'll try to anhswser the questions.
1) I don't believe in systems of economy.
2) Any form of government can benefit people. I don't like to use the term 'society,' which is best defined as "everyone bu me." As in, "you have to sacrifice for society." the Marxist ontology, which reifies society over individuals is the source of much muddy think and human misery. Society is a convenient collective noun, not something which can think, feel, or have benefits given to it.
3) Freedom is the ultimate value if one believes that one owns his own lives, as does everyone else own their own lives. Freedom is not, however, a value that is absolute.
4) Sure, I place a value on health and safety. I don't walk blindfolded down the freeway while eating salted pork rinds.
5) Moral system? none. I have some moral precepts today that i follow. May be different tomorrow, but I grow old. I try to see the Buddha in everyone. I try to present my moral views as personal preferences, rather than rules others should follow.
I'm probably pretty conventional for an old hippy.
And the Hume
No 'is' implies an ought.
You know, specter, this is something that i say in many more words here a lot. So often, the fight on political boards is about facts because people think that admitting a fact will lead to the opposing political view.
We often hear that such and such a fact can't be true, because it would just lead to some policy that the writer does not agree with.
As sort of an example, while the fact that the world is warming noiw cannot be denied, the argument is about whether the warming is anthropogenic.
but the fact is, there is no need to answer that question at all. If we perceive a problem, we might set ourselves to find solutions to the problem.
But for some reason, those who don't like certain solutions seek to argue whether the warming is anthropogenic. Why? And why do those who favour these measures zargue that the warming is anthropogenic?
It's a bit like insisting that because a certain diseasese has been shown to be genetic, we should cure it by removing all genetic material from the person so afflicted. That would certainly work, but we may want to give serious thought to side effects.
The lack of the latter almost led us into the idiocy of the Kyoto agreement, instead of something that actually had some thought and purpose, and may have actually helped.
btw, specter
patreaus said directly that he wrote the report, etc. Now, this is the place for you to directly call him a liar based on leaks prior to his delivering his report.
Since you think he would lie about that, i can see why you would simply dismiss anything he said.
Me, I'm a bit of a skeptic. years ago, before a live presidential speech, the leaks said that the president was going to talk about his plans for his run for the presidency and what plans he had to end the war. Instead, the president announced that he would not run at all. Even his staff were surprised.
So, Patreaus said that he wrote the report. You calling him a liar?
Obvious explanation and sixth request
The term 'jerk' was obviously applied to the jerk's behaviour. Had he shouted "keep the troops in iraq forever" and disrupted the start of the proceedings, he would be a jerk, right wing style.
See how easy it is?
Now, sixth time, please stay off of my stuff. I will stay off of yours, as i have.
Another "Friedman Unit" named in honor of Thomas Friedman
... Iraq war cheerleader and constant back-pedaler who has been saying for years, "The next six months are critical..."
He should be honored that General Petraeus has adopted the "Friedman Unit" as his own.
It's all about the "Friedman Units" until January of `09 when Bush can dump this mess in the lap of the next president.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
More jerks
were thrown out. I didn't hear what one shouted, nor could i read the sign referred to by the chairman, so I coan't report whether the jerks were winged or not.
were they hippyesque?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Chastising those he once was.
Humorous, that.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I was a hippy? :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Heh-heh.
That'll be the day.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
hippyesque
one had longish hair, but not nearly so long as mine!
Another group just got tossed, but i didn't see them nor hear exactly what they said.
Were they
trying to voice their freedom of speech in a political forum to state their disagreement with government policy?*
*Not that I advocate disrupting government functions, but there is something to say for civil disobedience (hippies or not is irrelevent).
Specter
I understand the point. It is a matter of judging when civil disobedience is called for, and when civility is called for.
here, I am judging that civility is clled for, partly because civil disobedience will serve no purpose, and certainly no purpose that any honest protestor, or even anyone in favor of the war, would have.
These people could express their freedom of speech outside the committee room. In fact, someone could actually hear their message in that case. You can be sure that the Clinton News Network would cover it.
These political movements always have their self-indulgent, spotlight-seeking members.
btw, they just announced that Cindy Sheehan was among those previously thrown out.
And I have to say that among protestors of Vietnam, but even more today, there are those who don't realize that being arrested is the purpose. (Those not arrested and charged are said to suffer "subpoenas envy.)
Somehow, we have grown a crop of protestors who think that there should be no penalty for civil disobedience. This is a dishonour to the fine American tradition of civil disobedience.
Gee
maybe they shouldn't have read the constitution.
Getting arrested is not the point. The point is to exercise free specch and assembly rights so as to express a point of view. Getting arrested is what happens when the government over reacts and engages in unconstitutional actions.
They absolutely should be able to expect no penalties for exercising their rights. That they can't is a clear and direct indictment of a government refusing to follow it's charter.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Civil Disobedience
means just that. It means disobeying a law. One doesn't get arrested for exercising their rights. One gets arrested for disobeying some law or civil rule.
When the war protestor sits in the streets to block traffic, he is certainly exercising his right to express his opinion, and, if he is with others, to assemble. But he will be arrested for bocking traffic, which is against the law.
Now, Tlaloc, why do you think we chose to sit in the streets and block traffic to exercise our rights, rather than, say, getting a permit for a demonstration and gathering in the park right next to the street?
Thoureau, the standard of American civil disobedience, sets the bar high: in cases of injustice, he suggests that we disobey the laws of the government at any cost. In fact, it is the commitment to the cost that makes it effective. Gandhi, in his hunger strikes, imposed even more of a cost.
Note that Sen. McCarthy had Thoreau's book on civil disobedience removed from school libraries.
So, I disagree. if the object were merely to exercise one's right to free speech and assembly, this could be done without breaking the law. Purposely breaking the law to call attention to your cause IS the point. As the term "civil disobedience" implies.
It is hard for me to see simply enforcing the law or civil rules as "unconstitutional actions."
And i can tell you that if the police chief had told us in advance that he would take no action if we sat on Oak Avenue to block traffic, we would have immediately abandoned those plans, and, perhaps moved the protest sit-in to Broad Street, where he could not ignore us.
The idea is to effective express one's ideas, show one's commitment and seriousness, not to whine.
No it doesn't
You're wrong. It means disobeying authority. There is no requirement that it be illegal.
Ideally you'd be correct, in the real world though you are still wrong. Very often protestors get arrested for exercising their rights. Vague and subjective laws, such as disturbing the peace, are used to give a veneer of propriety to the arrest.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.