On the myth of "America"

[madanthonywayne]

You seem to be implying that, since the government was not designed for angels, it ought to pander to the devil.

No, just acknowledging that there are more devils among us than angels. We might as well plan for it.

Your appeal to absurdity is in itself absurd. And, so as not to waste another quote tag on it, your Lincoln reference is inappropriate. It would be more appropriate to invoke Ex Parte Quirin (1942), and even that is problematic.

I agree that the 1942 case is more on point regarding the disposition of unlawful combatants. But the point at issue was habeus corpus, which Lincoln suspended.

Regardless, Bush should have set up the military tribunals by now. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't help that process when they ruled military tribunals weren't authorized:http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/sc...als/index.html

But as to torture, I'm talking about torture. I'm talking about the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that are considered torture by international law, and that the United States has prosecuted repeatedly in the past.

Yeah, yeah, torture is bad. I agree. We certainly shouldn't be torturing random people, or normal criminals, or really very many people at all.

But how do you suggest we get information from known terrorists when we really need it? Ask nicely? I'm serious here. Would you eschew torture in the "ticking bomb" scenario?

A nuke is in LA. It's going to go off within the hour. You've got the guy who planted it in custody, but he's not talking. Are your principles worth millions of lives?

As to the t-shirt incident, last August the federal government settled for $80,000 a lawsuit brought after a Texas couple were arrested in West Virginia for wearing t-shirts criticizing President Bush to a speech he was giving.

I'm not part of the Bush administration. I'm not going to defend everything they've done. The incident you're describing sounds ridiculous, the couple shouldn't have been arrested.

And where you see liberals and progressives backsliding to regressive statist policies, I see conservatives exploiting these vaunted principles in order to bring about their antithesis.

There's the rub. I see liberals as mistaken, moving us into statism with their good intentions. While you seem to see conservatives as sinister villains twisting American ideals to bring about their antithesis.

Could you, perhaps, conceive of the notion that those on the other side of the aisle are also of good intentions?

And yet you seem to worry more about the idea that at the end of a work week, one should have the resources to pursue constructive passions instead of fretting about meeting their basic requirements.

No, not at all. I simply sincerely believe that freedom and capitalism are the best way to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number.

Whether it's healthcare, energy, housing, food, or even education, if one prefers to keep government from getting involved, we're going to need some good faith on the part of private industry. We're going to need people to check their greed. Rampant, self-obssessed individualism may seem like a good thing to those who call themselves libertarians, but they owe certain obligations to the social structure that empowers that individualism that goes beyond simply not raping or killing their neighbors.

There's a general statement I can agree with, but I fear when it comes down to specifics, we'd be in conflict.

Would you propose that a life spent working to provide for one's family is all we are entitled to in this society? Hell, we're not even entitled to that these days. .

I think of a friend of mine who finally gave up on being a performing musician because he could never keep up with his obligations. To be honest, I preferred him as a tempestuous, arrogant artist. These days he's resigned, paranoid, more selfish than he used to be, and more than a bit priggish. But he's got a job that pays him barely enough to keep a roof over his head, and because of gas prices must rely on public transportation. I'm of the opinion that everyone would be better off if he wasn't expected to devote his entire life to making executives more wealthy. But, hey, count his transition toward the dead-eyed and uninspired a victory for the American way.

Seriously, the list of artists I've known who have fallen away in order to be just another face in the working world is getting scary. Aging writers sometimes recite the litany of friends lost to death or circumstance, and it does make the "golden years" sound awfully lonely, but for the young—especially as they tread toward middle age—there is an analogy.

Those are sad stories. And I feel for your friends. No one wants to see their dreams die. But I think your real complaint is with reality. Not everyone succeeds. No matter what system we follow. I believe that freedom and capitalism give the greatest number of people the chance to succeed at doing what they love. Some will still fail. That's terrible, that's sad, that's life. Maybe in heaven we'll all be perfect and always succeed. But not on this earth.

We come back to a point that confused you earlier, and what I wrote in response to that confusion: What is the difference, to you, between freedom of religion and the freedom to make decisions about other people's lives based on your religion? I would purport that persecution by Christians in the present day is a betrayal of our religious ideals.

Again, your general statement sounds reasonable. But I believe your main beef is gay marriage, is that correct? Do you think our founding fathers had that in mind when they wrote the constitution?

Personally, I'm fine with civil unions with most of the same benefits as marriage. I just don't like the term "marriage" being applied. That term has had a specific meaning for centuries, and I don't want to change it.

Think about it this way: Had you your druthers, what would you be doing? Now, accepting the reality that we can't all just sail off into the sunset or spend our days mindlessly fucking, what would you like to be doing? Who tells their kids, "Maybe if you work really hard, you can grow up to be a network administrator"? Or, "Work hard in school so you can be a retail associate by day and a waitress in a bar at night"?

We can't all retire at thirty-five. That's not the point. But people ought to be able to find some solace somewhere, even if it's something like gardening, or—despite the fuel crunch—musclecars. Musicians, dancers, painters, writers, inventors ....

Well, if mindless fucking is ruled out, I'd like to be doing pretty much what I'm doing. Perhaps taking more time off and traveling more. But I've wanted to be a doctor since I was a little kid, and I am. It'd also be nice if there were more supermodels involved, but then we're back to mindless fucking, so......

[iceaura]

But how do you suggest we get information from known terrorists when we really need it? Ask nicely? I'm serious here.

No you aren't. That situation has never come up, and you'll be hit by lightning before it does.

Meanwhile, you are allowing your government to torture people, hold them without charge or trial, search their homes and communications without warrant, and so forth. No ticking bombs are involved. And that erosion will eventually destroy whatever does exist of the "traditional" American government, and replace it with something else.

Could you, perhaps, conceive of the notion that those on the other side of the aisle are also of good intentions?

Some are, probably. That's not much of an excuse for their behavior - they're adults, they should know better.

You can't turn everything into money without wrecking things that do not behave like money - such as labor.

And you can't pretend you've set up a free market unless you've priced in all the costs.

You can yak all you want about everyone being free to succeed or fail, but when you aren't even starting the kids out level you're just kidding yourself.

When the cost of play is so high and expected payoff is so low that a rational person would not play the game, you are not dealing in freedom but coercion.

[Tiassa]

But how do you suggest we get information from known terrorists when we really need it? Ask nicely? I'm serious here. Would you eschew torture in the "ticking bomb" scenario?

A nuke is in LA. It's going to go off within the hour. You've got the guy who planted it in custody, but he's not talking. Are your principles worth millions of lives?

I'm going to take a different tack on this and ask you to imagine that you're a television or movie writer.

Now, here are the problems I'm having with the scene:

• Where is the suspect? Are you still out in the field, having just nabbed the suspect? Do we already happen to have him in custody? If the former, where are you going to perform the torture? If the latter, how long has he been in custody, and what assurance do you have that, as he has been captured, his associates have not changed the plan?

• How much time until the suspect breaks? What methods are you going to use? Remember, the nuke is going off in an hour. He only has to hold out for so long. What are you going to do that will provide reliable information quickly?

• Where is the bomb? Okay, so you've managed to beat a location our of the suspect. Where is it? How far away? How fast can you get a team there? And what happens when ... the bomb's not there?

At somewhere around that point, I think the bomb would be going off.

An hour. These are the immediate problems facing anyone trying to write that scene. Now here's the question: How do you want to change the scene? We need to change the period. That's about the only solution; we need more time. But how much time?

I'll try to get back to the rest of your post when I have more time. Take it easy.

[spidergoat]

Do what you have to do. When you are convicted of a war crime, maybe the judge will consider your saving of America when they sentence you.

[Fraggle Rocker]

America is not a nation defined, like most others, by race or a long history. America is an idea. Our ideals make us who we are.

Indeed. Anyone can be an American once he gets here, which admittedly is easier for some people in some eras than for other people in other eras. But my point is that those ideals change subtly over the decades, and one of the ways they change is by new people jumping into the Melting Pot. And on the balance that's a good thing.

it ended with woodrow wilson (the last man to preside over a constitutionally sound united states).

Yes. Ever since FDR took office in 1933 we've had nothing but creeping socialism and runaway authoritarianism. Both wings of the Republocrat Party have adopted the entire 1929 Communist Party platform, with the effective nationalism of the education, charity, health care, energy, transportation and many other economic sectors.

McCain is already elected. The Democrats gave him the office by allowing one of two unelectables to be their candidate. Idiot liberals.

That's how idealists are, they make no accommodations for the practical. I think Hillary could conceivably beat McCain because she's a savvy politician and mainstream enough to siphon off the votes of disgusted Republicans. They could still pull together an unbeatable ticket: Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton. The Republicans wouldn't have a chance.

And don't forget, with every election a greater portion of the eligible young voters turn out, and there's no way they're going to vote for a man who's older than me, less liberal, pro-conscription, and stands a good chance of dying in office. Who is he going to choose as a VP anyway? Talk about scary!

[kmguru]

Oh we British can see your American subjunctives and raise you a long and glorious history of superiority complex. Man, we love to look down on the rest of the world as primitive and lesser. We take pride in stupid, inane things, such as inventing the language those silly Americans bastardise and our judicial system being the best in the world. We still have this mindset like we're ruling the waves. That we're never, ever, ever, going to be slaves. Etcetera etcetera. I'm sure other nations hold the same, or similar views. I'm just glad that I eventually vomited what I was force-fed growing up.

Keep good thoughts...the days are coming for London....when the ice melts....

[Mr. G]

Those who can, do.

Those who can't do, bitch -- about how unfair "the system" (aka: the Universe) is for them.

Duh!

Funny how progressives think that progress, to be successful, needs to feed off the wealth building by-products of non-progressive producers, and not the by-products of their own "producing" progressive intelligence.

It's all about that comedy/tragedy duality thingy.

Cold...dead...hand.

[pjdude1219]

Those who can, do.

Those who can't do, bitch -- about how unfair "the system" (aka: the Universe) is for them.

Duh!

Funny how progressives think that progress, to be successful, needs to feed off the wealth building by-products of non-progressive producers, and not the by-products of their own "producing" progressive intelligence.

It's all about that comedy/tragedy duality thingy.

Cold...dead...hand.

where do you come up with this stuff g your a riot

[S.A.M.]

McCain is already elected. The Democrats gave him the office by allowing one of two unelectables to be their candidate.

Idiot liberals.

If its Obama vs McCain, its gonna be a very close call.

[iceaura]

McCain is already elected. The Democrats gave him the office by allowing one of two unelectables to be their candidate.

Idiot liberals.

If the generally slightly left, shading libertarian US voters reject a somewhat right, solidly authoritarian candidate like Clinton or Obama, in favor of a further right, significantly more authoritarian candidate like McCain,

it isn't the liberals who were the idiots.

[Mr. G]

where do you come up with this stuff g your a riot

Why, from the Sciforums residents' tragedy/comedy-thingy parades.

[Mr. G]

it isn't the liberals who were the idiots.

Nor does sh't find itself aromatically offensive.

Euphemistically speaking, so to speak.

[madanthonywayne]

If the generally slightly left, shading libertarian US voters reject a somewhat right, solidly authoritarian candidate like Clinton or Obama, in favor of a further right, significantly more authoritarian candidate like McCain,

Are you accessing the internet from some parallel universe, or what? Because that's the only way that post makes any sense.

[Mr. G]

Are you accessing the internet from some parallel universe, or what?

Insane in the Membrane is a relevant term.

[iceaura]

Are you accessing the internet from some parallel universe, or what? Because that's the only way that post makes any sense.

It's called "reality-based" use of language.

It's the language you have when you use words like "left" and "right" and "authoritarian" and "libertarian" as if they had reference in an established reality - basically the same meaning from one decade to the next, referring to the same features of a political position or executive approach today as they did yesterday and the day before.

For example: a health care plan that worked by having people pay for-profit private corporations to provide health care would be "right" (corporate based, private property, for profit = "right") and if it legally required everyone to sign up for it it would be "authoritarian" (governmental authority, police, etc = "authoritarian"). And someone whose governing approach featured several such proposals in various arenas would be a "right authoritarian" politcian.

It can take a while to get used to reality based language, but I recommend the effort.

[superstring01]

It can take a while to get used to reality based language, but I recommend the effort.

There is no legal authority, and certainly not one single social authority, that decides what is and what is not the English language (like, say, the Academie Frances). Whatever the people speak, is English. How are the terms used now, rather than what they once were? What do most people accept? You're so obsessed with a fixed language that you become an anacronism like the obsessive definitions you use.

You can just stop being an elitist on a mission ("make everybody use the vernacular I want them to use!") and just use the terms as they are generally accepted by the audience.

Seriously, get a clue.

~String

[hypewaders]

Fiore

[madanthonywayne]

It's called "reality-based" use of language.

For example: a health care plan that worked by having people pay for-profit private corporations to provide health care would be "right" (corporate based, private property, for profit = "right") and if it legally required everyone to sign up for it it would be "authoritarian" (governmental authority, police, etc = "authoritarian"). And someone whose governing approach featured several such proposals in various arenas would be a "right authoritarian" politcian.

As String pointed out, some allowance should be made for the normal usage of terms if you are to use language for its intended purpose (communication).

For instance, a container marked "highly inflamable" should, logically, not contain anything liable to catch on fire. Yet, for some reason, flamable and inflamable have come to mean the same thing. (Unlike credible and incredible.)

Regarding your specific example, socialized medicine, or any increase in government control over medicine, is widely viewed to be a liberal position. Any increase in the size of government having to do with anything other than the police or military is considered liberal.

You can go on claiming Obama and Clinton to be candidates of the right if you want; but it just makes you look like a kook to most people.

[Buffalo Roam]

As String pointed out, some allowance should be made for the normal usage of terms if you are to use language for its intended purpose (communication).

For instance, a container marked "highly inflamable" should, logically, not contain anything liable to catch on fire. Yet, for some reason, flamable and inflamable have come to mean the same thing. (Unlike credible and incredible.)

Regarding your specific example, socialized medicine, or any increase in government control over medicine, is widely viewed to be a liberal position. Any increase in the size of government having to do with anything other than the police or military is considered liberal.

You can go on claiming Obama and Clinton to be candidates of the right if you want; but it just makes you look like a kook to most people.

Actually Mad A, he is right, every where else in the world a Conservative is a liberal, wanting more government, higher taxes to pay for it, and more control of the lives of people's lives by making them dependent on the government, here for some reason we have reverse the use of the terms here .