Sisyphus

Um, I think by "you people" he meant social conservatives, not caucasians. As in, every generation has it's social war: slavery, women's suffrage, the civil right's movement, etc., and the liberals always win, which is true, and the conservatives of the next generation have to pretend they agreed all along, speaking "politically correctly" while secretly longing for the good old days. I happen to agree that that is usually the pattern, and I expect to see them same thing happen with our generation's issues, like homosexual rights and secularization and such. Affirmative action, however, I expect to die, and rightfully so.

Holy sh!t, this is getting crazy. hotcomm, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (though it's hard) and say I don't understand what you're trying to say. How was MLK an idiot? How, exactly, would Jim Crow laws be fair? Do you think slavery never should have been abolished, or what?

No, there's no chance it will stick. That kind of violence can only stop when the culture that produces it changes, and that's a gradual process. There are relatively peaceful times and relatively violent times. This might be a sign of a relatively peaceful time. It is, at least, a prerequisite for such a time that leaders meet and make symbolic peace gestures and have "cease fires" and the like, though no agreement of leaders can stop a terrorist.

I wonder if a Shi'a state is inevitable. I mean, they're a large majority, and we've gone through a whole lot of trouble to establish elections. And all this violence seems to be polarizing the population more between Sunni and Shi'ite, so should we really be surprised if there's a Shi'a government? Are we going to establish a "democracy," and then stay there and make sure they practice it the way we want?

I'm against reparations, as well, but that's a ridiculous and offensive argument. Stick with the "people aren't responsible for things their ancestors did, nor are they owed anything for slights against those ancestors" argument. The "we were ultimately doing them a favor" argument isn't going to fly. You're confusing black culture with American culture, and, more broadly, capitalist culture. What you're talking about is a caricature. Do you know any black people? Well, yes. Those organizations were founded to even the playing field. At this point, I think it would be a fair argument to make that their mission is mostly complete, and that they do more harm than good. We don't really need an NAACP anymore. But if that's true, it's a very recent development, within the last generation. The sad truth is that, yes, a lot of people were very unhappy about the civil rights movement. They don't just change their minds because a law tells them to, and the entire power structure doesn't change overnight. People learn to speak in different ways, so you can't accuse them of overt racism, but that doesn't mean they aren't. So yes, it's reasonable to have watchdog groups looking out for minority interests, and not reasonable to have the same thing for white people. But I agree, it's time to end it. I might contest that. Only seeing problems in one group, when the problems are everywhere: racism or not? If you see the issues in terms of "us" and "them," racism or not? Do you have to know you're a racist in order to be one? We live in funny times. See, it's very hard not to take that as racist paranoia. Or at least irrational reactionism. Our "original culture?" What is that, exactly? American Indians? Culture changes, and "American culture" has always been a mix of many cultures, and I would say that's what makes it great. "Abhor the blending of cultures?" I mean, really?

I guess that depends on what you think the purpose of having one is.

Yeah, I know. That's the problem. I couldn't find any bias-free stats. The only ones I could find were from people who were trying to convince me of something - usually something drastic. It was really mostly the first one I considered important, since it so clearly runs contrary to the implication I thought you were trying to make. (The rest were just to show the ambiguity.) So yes, there are a lot more homicides than accidental deaths, but there are also far more of either than successful self-defense uses. That's all.

Well, first of all, that's not terribly convincing. I mean, Kansas? And secondly, the size of the military is irrelevant. What matters is the rate of recruitment, and how that rate has changed. It's about that that I can't seem to get any straight statistics. We're told they're consistently either meeting or nearly meeting their recruitment goals. However, they also keep lowering those goals (in wartime!), as well as other fun tricks like lowering standards for recruitment.

Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare accidental gun deaths to cases where a gun was actually used successfully for self-defense? For example, a gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense. And as well as we're throwing around statistics, these are interesting: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries: In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered: * 373 people in Germany * 151 people in Canada * 57 people in Australia * 19 people in Japan * 54 people in England and Wales, and * 11,789 people in the United States (*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings). A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present. Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries. Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States. So WHY do Americans shoot each other so much? What the hell is going on? That's a genuine question.

The typical response is that "every month is white history month." While I think affirmative actions is a deeply, deeply flawed system (I'm still pissed about much richer and much dumber kids than me getting into schools that I didn't because they were "hispanic."), even I acknowledge the naivete of thinking it's exactly the same as something like this.

Agreed, for the most part. I think most people feel that way. Of course, volunteers are anything BUT plentiful. Is the conclusion that we need to leave Iraq ASAP, in case we have to fight an actually worthwhile war?

Aye. The same for if we all had Wolverine-like mutant regeneration powers.

But there are reasonable limits, right? I mean, you wouldn't be in favor of allowing private citizens to build nuclear weapons, would you? Or buying anti-aircraft missles? And as for WHO should be allowed, should a retarded schizophrenic be sold an uzi? Should a suspected terrorist be allowed to carry an RPG into Times Square? Should anyone? See, I agree with the principle, but I think it becomes ridiculous when it's inflexible. There IS a pragmatic balance that must be struck. If you're worried about a slippery slope, then, well, too bad. The extreme positions simply are not options, so you have to draw the line somewhere. The analogy in free speech might be the famous "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. It can be legislated since the immediate danger of permitting it is simply too high. Well, that sort of question becomes much more prominent and occurs much more often when you're talking about machines designed to be as dangerous as possible to other people. I don't think some basic reasonable limits, including guarantees that the possessor is not obviously an immediate danger, are too much.

Outstanding.

See, that doesn't sound bad. I've definitely waited around in hospital waiting rooms for hours. Privatized medicine is hardly immune to horror stories. And anyway, if its more crowded because more people go to the doctor sooner, that's a good thing. People are healthier, and it costs less overall, because preventing ailments is almost always an order of magnitude cheaper than curing them.

There's no way in Hell Giuliani can win a Republican primary. I don't really think he could win any election outside of NYC, for that matter. He's far too, well, mean. Or at least that's how he'll likely be perceived. The traits that make a successful New York politician tend not to translate well elsewhere. You need a strong socially liberal sensibility, but also a caustic and aggressive manner. You kind of have to be a bully. I can't see that playing on the national level. Also, it's quite easy to spin the crime thing. Giuliani was a strong authoritarian in a lot of ways. If he decides to run for anything, you'll be hearing a lot of comparisons to Mussolini, who did, of course make the trains run on time....

My plans changed many times, as well. I think you'll find that's true of most people. Things rarely work out the way you expect them to.

If it's a red herring, it's not a very good one, since most people don't even care/understand. They must know that there's no way it will ever happen barring a series of very public and outrageous abuses (well, even more...), but it would at least be good in principle. Compare that to something like flag-burning amendments, which, giving the Republican congress any credit at all, they must understand is a stupid and unnecessary erosion of liberty, and yet actually might pass some day. Nobody looks good, but come on, they're not the same.

I agree that pharmaceutical companies research with aims to profit, which means expensive treatments and not necessarily better treatments (although if some other company comes up with a better treatment...), but I don't really understand what your position is. Are you actually suggesting forbidding private medical research?

I'm rereading Thucydides' History of the Peloponessian War, just 'cus it's so awesome. I also recently read through the complete fictions of Jorge Luis Borges, who I now think is one of my favorite authors (if you like Kafka you should definitely check him out). I've been reading a lot of Kierkegaard recently as well. I finally read Morte D'Arthur last week (I've been an Arthurian legend nerd all my life, but I never read the damn definitive work!) I've been reading the Icelandic Sagas. I'm making a strong effort on Heisenburg's Physical Principles of Quantum Theory. And about 20 minutes ago I finished Contact, by Carl Sagan (which I read this weekend ). ...I read a lot.......

Or at least misleading. As you say, clearly a communist state can accomplish a great deal. Like becoming a global superpower and going toe to toe with another such superpower, one with every conceivable unrelated advantage, for half a century. Remember, the U.S.S.R. started out basically at zero, besieged from all sides, and in the meantime took the brunt of the most destructive war in the history of mankind, not to mention a couple crazy-ass leaders. That they were able to do anything at all is an astounding accomplishment. By comparison the United States had it ridiculously easy, and was fortunate in all the ways the Soviets were not.

It's not a matter of putting down the books - I rarely see movies (and I don't even have a television), so I make sure the ones I do see are classics.

Man you guys have bad taste. Devil's Rejects? Saw? Ugh. Anyway, some of my favorites: The end of All Quiet on the Western Front. King Kong! Agreed with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Cool Hand Luke. The end of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Psycho shower scene. The end of Life of Brian (well, imminent death, anyway, and definitely best song about death. Also, has distinction of only non-hackneyed death in a Christ pose.) And, of course, the best death scene ever, the end of Dr. Strangelove. I know there are some great ones I'm forgetting....

I think we should start an official tally of the number of times ecoli mentions his girlfriend.

Again, why would they? The main concerns were about the potential for malicious tampering, no?