Weekend Open Thread
I hope you are enjoying your weekend!
The Iraq report is not very welcome in Iraq - Iraqi president calls panel’s report ‘dangerous’ :
“If you read this report, one would think that it is written for a young, small colony that they are imposing these conditions on,” Talabani said. “We are a sovereign country.”
Democrat who took bribes is reelected by his moronic constituents . You gotta be in a twilight zone to believe this guy is innocent of a serious crime. What a joke.
Submitted by Ender on Sat, 2006-12-09 09:56
Tags:
Comments :
Tony Blair speech on integration
The British PM made speech regarding how multiculturalism should work in the UK, here's a snip and some links are below. I've seen three different reports on the speech so far and each are a bit different. The BBC website is getting some good blog responses (their "Have Your Say" page) about this topic.
It's quite interesting to see how their society is viewing integration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6219626.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2060039.ece
Isn't part of this
immigration problem related to Iraqi refugees.
I'm only half stupid
Mormons and polygamy
I agree. Mormons are forced to abandon polygamy and follow US laws. Jehovah's witness --parents cannot refuse blood transfusion for their children.
Anyone still against
separation of church and state?
Sic semper tyrannis
there are serious suggestions
to adopt sharia law in some parts of Britain? hehehe
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The courts are already in place
Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes
Sharia courts don't have real jurisdiction as far as forcing people to use them instead of regular civil courts. They can hardly be outlawed as a similar voluntary arbitration system already exists for the Jews in form of rabbinical court. They obviously have no jurisdiction in criminal matters where the prosecution is pursued without a need for victim's complaint
Sic semper tyrannis
wow pretty dead here this weekend
I guess everyone must be out and having fun :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Busy with work =(
I've got a conference coming up in January and I need to get results for a poster. I bet everyone here who is involved in academics is feeling similar pressure as the semester winds down.
Let's worry about increasing traffic after the holidays -- we'll have enough content built up by then, we'll have all the features we want implemented, and we can decide how to target new users...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Agreed
I'm down to 175 papers and 40 tests that I need to grade. Yikes! I'll try to stop by here every once in a while, but it won't be often until next weekend.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
You need help!!!
Isn't there a teachers assistant that can at least help grade the tests!
That is grueling. No fun for you!
I'm only half stupid
Participation
has been disappointing.
I'm only half stupid
I had high hopes for New Orleans voters
Having formerly lived there I know how Byzantine politics in the Crescent City can be, but I thought that surely they would not re-elect such a craven crook as Bill Jefferson.
But apparently some things don't change.
It is now up to the Justice Department to indict Jefferson. What have they been waiting for anyway? Once he is indicted he can be expelled from the House and his seat declared vacant.
Technically, the House does not have to wait for an indictment to expel a member, but that has been the protocol.
qui tacet consentire
Wondering....
if that cold cash in the freezer, might implicate other kind and gentlemanly govt officials.
He hasn't been indicted for a reason.
I'm only half stupid
I have some serious doubts
concerning FBI's investigating capabilities. It's been a year since this guy's home was raided and the money was found in his freezer. How long does it take to indict someone? I smell incompetence and someone doing a heck of a job again... Or there are some political orders to keep Jefferson on ice so the Democrats can be jabbed for having this guy in their midst.
Sic semper tyrannis
I doubt
the political orders part, but it is surprising that it is taking this long.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Rich Lowry Genious
It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq.
Back when it was almost not too late to get things back on track, the young. healthy, ideaologue from NRO who chooses not to participate in the Iraq conflict, except with pen goes on to glorify our "winning" strategy in Iraq.
Will he now embrace the Dixie Chicks whose assessment of the war effort in Iraq was much more accurate than his own, including their "terrorist sympathizing" comments about President Bush. ""Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."
How could it be that so many in the poplation had their eyes open, were skewered mercilessly and relentlessly by the so called "liberal" media.
I'm only half stupid
Pinochet is dead...
On the one hand I support overthrowing communist regimes but on the other I do not support dictators on the right either.
Only Chileans can truly answer whether Pinochet was good or bad for their country.
I am glad Chile is doing well now.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
idea's overcome hardship. Be that hardship
bad government or bad power. Pinochet didn't use ideas. Pinochet used force against a duly elected government. For somebody who yelled at all of us that we were wrong not to support the bush43 administration and come out and say rebellion is OK if I don't like the standing government......
Don't give us any idea's Ender. You might just get more than you bargained for.
rebellion is ok
if the elected government is a communist, fascist or other repressive authoritarian regime. If you believe Bush is one of those, we don't have anything to argue over. Other than that, I have no problem with people trying to violently overthrow elected Marxists.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Allende government
was under no measure oppressive. Not even as oppressive as an average south American government, but most and foremost not even close as oppressive as the Pinochet's murderous junta that overthrew it.
The reason why many people in South America turned Marxist is that the "we the people" failded and left them no other alternatives, supporting brutal authoritarian rulers in our sphere of influence.
Sic semper tyrannis
I was not passing judgement
on any particular government but just speaking in general. I don't know much about Allende but was he nationalizing anything?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sure
after all he was a socialist. He also continued with the land reform started under the previous president.
Sic semper tyrannis
Is that sort of like
Democracy is okay unless Hamas wins the popular vote or unless someone wins I don't agree with?
I'm only half stupid
yeah democracy is ok
until it elects people who are criminals or terrorists. Then those elected leaders should be targets.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
To some
our leaders fall into those categories.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
there are always
those some.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What I'm saying
is that you are leaving the door open for perpetual rebellion, because you will never satisfy all people. Why not let people choose the leaders they want and suffer the consequences themselves so they pick better leaders next time. Why is it always war first for you?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
well rebellion is always a possibility
but I am talking about objective values that people should not compromise on. If US elected a communist (heh) I would be disappearing into the woods and joining up with militias.
I am not talking about us - I am talking about those other people. Some of them might've chosen those criminal opressive leaders, but that doesn't mean that minority who didn't shouldn't stand up and fight for what is right. I'd send them some cash too.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think we are talking past each other
I agree that people should overthrow violent governments that blatantly repress their people.
I just start questioning the 'voted in' remark. Not all democratic elections are fair, as woodsman pointed out, but I also think we should let people choose their own government, unless they harm us directly.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
well we mostly agree then
I don't care if people choose their own government, but I might be displeased with that government's shape even if they do not threaten us directly. In that case I would personally support the minority's right to rebel.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well
that is how this argument started. We attacked democratically elected Allende
to put in someone who actually did do all the things you are discussion. The only difference is that one allowed the US to run our corrupt businesses (mostly fruit) and the other didn't. One was also a genocidal murderer (the capitalist); the other wasn't.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
I'd agree
that if the government is democratically elected and than proceeds to outlaw any opposition to itself in order to assure it's rule forever - it effectively makes 3 of the four boxes of freedom unavailable to the people - thus leaving them only the box of cartridges to reclaim their unalienable rights.
Sic semper tyrannis
Ok
I agree with you here, but i don't think that is what Ender is saying. He wants to violently overthrow any government that doesn't satisfy what Ender thinks a government should look like. He is police, judge, and executioner, no matter what the people want.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
well no
I am closer to what woodsman is saying. For example if a capitalist country elects a communist who begins a program of nationalization of private property and jailing those who dare to stand up to it and refuse, then that government's mandate is forfeit.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
To you
any taxation is arguably 'nationalization', so again, the question becomes to what extent? National healthcare? Estate tax?
Who is going to argue over overthrowing a murderous dictator that takes away people's homes? Not me. I'm saying that we can't go around fixing everyone's elections if we have minor qualms with some social programs.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
nationalization
has a pretty set definition. Nationalization is when a government appropriates private property by force without any reasonable justification (criminal enterprise) and without any compensation.
So if for example a government decides to appropriate oil industry because it suddenly feels they are just a bunch of greedy capitalists who are exploiting workers - that is nationalization. That's what commies (and socialists to a lesser degree) do.
When stuff starts getting nationalized, that is when you know sh*t has hit the fan and it's time to either leave or take up arms.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I know what nationaization means
and taxation technically falls under it: changing something from private to state ownership or control. To what extent is the issue.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
alright, technically true
unjust taxation can be that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I know what it means, but
I just can't spell it.
Question: every once in a while, I write a comment (or in this case, I tried to fix my comment), but when I hit 'Post Comment' it says, "You are not authorized to post comments," and boots me out of my signed-in status. It is really frustrating when the comment is long and it erases.
I think this last one was because you were responding, but it has happened when I was just making a regular comment also. Do you know what is up?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
hmmmm very weird...
I am checking if there is some sort of automatic logoff time for inactivity... Does anyone else have this sort of problem?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
LOL
Is protecting corporate profits worth killing people? Silly question.
Sic semper tyrannis
heh of course not
only if it's protecting against the government trying to take it over.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I have no problem
with government taking away something that was not gained fairly and squarely in the first place. I see no difference between someone who build his business on drug trade, slave labor, king of Spain or corrupted governments granting them mineral rights, land, property or monopolies, exploitation of labor, destroying the environment, or regular plain highway robbery - it's ALL theft to me.
Sic semper tyrannis
it's not that I completely disagree with you
because I would never justify anything that was gotten or earned or created unfairly. I think we just have slightly different definitions of what is fair.
Overall I have a big problem with the use of class warfare language like "exploitation of labor". Unless those workers were slaves without any choice but to work without pay, in my view they could not have been exploited.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Protection from Outside Govt Takeover
Don't know what the similarities would be to Iraq/Iran and Halliburton. I have often pondered the thought that Iraq fights so that their culture won't be filled with Wal-Marts, and MacDonalds of Arabia. Some people resist these sorts of assualts on their culture.
I'm only half stupid
Why don't you let people
elect the government they want? If they are hostile to another country or violent to their own people, then action is warranted. Overthrowing an 'elected' government just because you think you know what is best for people is the antithesis of freedom, since you are taking the most fundamental freedom away from the people: the decision to choose their own government and representative organization.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
I am just saying
that rebellion is justified in those cases. Our intervention is only justified if we feel that the government in question is a threat. Direct intervention that is - like invasion. In case of communists being elected I have no problem with covert help to the opposition.
They have the freedom to choose whatever government they wish, and we have the freedom to act in our own best interests which might include getting rid of their government if it is a pain in our ass.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
How is rebellion justified
when those leaders are voted in?
I'm going to ignore the imperialist statement that we can mess with other countries' business if it is in our best interest/preemptive attack remark, since I think we can see the result of that in Iraq.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
rebellion is justified
when the new government (voted in or otherwise) is about restricting individual rights, nationalizing their property, repression and murder. Democracy is not some absolute moral value that somehow overrides and exhonerates everything it produces. If Democracy produces garbage like terrorist government of the palestinian territories, then it should be destroyed.
Democracy's products should be critically judged and evaluated against the standards of upholding and defending individual human rights. If it fails then the people not only have the right, but should rebel and wipe away the scum.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Murder?
I have no problem with that (as I stated in my comment).
As far as repression and restricting individual rights, I think you are overgeneralizing again. Our government is repressing some of our rights right now, but I do not think you are calling for its overthrow.
I agree with your latter statement, but I think we might argue over what the standards of individual rights are.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
a lot of it is a matter of degree
So for example if we had an Opression scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the most opressive government imaginable, I would be, for example, supportive of rebellion if this index (based on objective evaluation of available individual rights) was in the 70-100 range.
If I were to rate some countries (without all that much evaluation, but an idea of what individuals endure):
North Korea: 100
Cuba: 90
Iran: 85
Saudi Arabia: 75
China: 65
Venezuela: 60
Russia: 50
Germany: 20
England: 10
US: 10
This will give you an idea of why I am not terribly supportive of rebelling in US.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't see any problem
nationalizing industries that were build by exploiting workers and on taxpayers' subsidies, or war profiteering - mining - steel - railroads - shipbuilding come to mind.
And BTW, did we actually pay the Indians anything for their land or the industries they were running when we took over?
Sic semper tyrannis
what industries
did we take over for Indians?
I don't care to rehash centuries old stuff that I had no part of so the question of taking Indian land is of about zero interest to me. I am sure there were some injustices perpetrated here and there, but that is hardly news in this world.
What is exploiting workers to some, is legitimate business to others. You try to nationalize something that a decent amount consider legitimate business and it won't be pretty.
I pretty much couldn't care less for any argument that has "exploiting workers" in it because in those cases I automatically support the exploiters.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Further proof
that only the good die young.
qui tacet consentire
the gleeful croaking over Jeane Kirkpatrick's death
is here
...
Sad stuff.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Lack of Respect You Say?
Red State can't get enough of trashing Carter.
No respect for the office of the Presidency here
Why I hate Jimmy Carter
Carter Still Hates Jews
Never Criticize Israel Mr. Ex-President Carter
I suppose everyone has their own favorite target they like to snarl at. So it is not like it is exclusive to one side.
I'm only half stupid
did Carter die or something?
is that similar to being happy after someone just died?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Will you be sorry
when he does?
Or will you continue to trash him after he passes.
I can't imagine you being anything less than joyous.
I'm only half stupid
I certainly wouldn't be
writing the hateful garbage that I see on dkos... Even if I was happy I wouldn't be saying it - that's just wrong.
The problem is some on the left view some republican leaders as worse than the worst dictators of the world. Rabid stuff.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Rabid Stuff Like
Looking for every excuse to hate a man that is working for peace.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy
Speaking of vacuous rabid drivel.
I'm only half stupid
there are plenty of reasons
to dislike the man for. The man is hardly an angel that the left tries to portray him as.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Odious Writings
I find this article especially distasteful.
(See "this" below)
It has the flavor of a Judith Miller panic attack, written in the NYT used as a referance guide for our unsuccessful remaking of Iraq.
THIS
I'm only half stupid