ParanoiA

I was hesitant about posting anything on this, as I wasn't sure how national this story has become. Locally, they're making a stink about it. The MIAC (Missouri Information Analysis Center) is a fusion center, according to Wikipedia, that merges information from Homeland security and I guess a host of various agencies, including the Missouri Highway Patrol, for fighting the war on terror. Well they released a report, The Modern Militia Movement which supposedly dishonored Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin by mentioning that militia members often sported their names on bumper stickers and the like, and supposedly suggested these symbols as a "mark" for militia identification. This created an uproar, while Alex Jones and Rush made a stink out of it and before you know it, it's a controversy. This report is heavily associated with Missouri Highway Patrol and articles read like it was generated from them. And in fact, they have officially retracted the report, apologized to the three former presidential candidates, while the Lt. Governor, Peter Kinder, conducts an investigation into the report. Here's the story: http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1109096.html So, here I am all prepared to be offended as I read the actual report only to find this little paragraph on Political Paraphernalia, top of page 7 of 8, where they mention that militia members commonly associate with 3rd party political groups, and how it's not uncommon for militia members to display essential libertarian material. And then they mention they are generally supporters of Paul, Baldwin, and Barr. I couldn't find anything that said tackle them, strip them of their rights and throw them in Gitmo. So what the hell is controversial about that? I think it's true isn't it? The report doesn't say, go out and arrest everyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker. In fact, the report doesn't say to do anything at all with that information, it's just providing the profile of modern militia members. Anyone care to comment? I'm not getting the controversy here.

Scrappy, you just admitted it's a ruling in your second sentence, which is exactly my point. Thanks for conceding. It is a fact they ruled on it. It is not a fact that it's constitutional. It's only a fact they ruled it as such. Go back to my night/day analogy. They can rule that it's always night time. That doesn't make it a fact that it's always night time. It's only a fact that they ruled on it and that we must comply with it.

Dudde, we have no right to poison you buddy. That part of your concern is entirely reasonable. And I don't think it selfish at all.

You need to read carefully. We hire people invested with the power of law to determine if something is constitutional or not. That doesn't mean they're right. Think on that. Don't jump. Sit there, and absorb that for a minute. Remember how you said everything just boils down to opinion? So how can they be right? There is NO right or wrong. There are no objective "facts" to appeal to or else we wouldn't need someone to judge. So a SCOTUS ruling is an official opinion - the legal opinion of the republic. And it's damned important, to be sure, we all must comply. But because it's an opinion, and can't be proven right or wrong, then it's damned reasonable to have an opinion of my own. I can't act on it. But I can think it. I can also call one of them up, and attempt to change their mind. And never be a hypocrite in the process. We do not agree. Prohibition of abortion has been ruled unconstitutional. I, can absolutely believe that it is constitutional. This is what you're having a hard time with. You seem to think that if SCOTUS rules on constitutionality, that I'm supposed to start BELIEVING that, from that moment forward. That's entirely, perverse, weird, twisted, and absolutely impossible to achieve. There is no force in the entire universe that can do this. No, when SCOTUS rules on constitutionality, I'm supposed to start COMPLYING with it - NOT belief. All laws tied to that ruling must COMPLY with it. The whole damn planet of humans can disagree with it, but we must comply with it because the supreme court justices have ruled as such, satisfying their charge for this republic. You really need to sit down and think this through. Remember, the same people termed "free society" are "the government". The justices, legislators, presidents - these are all free citizens operating in the capacity of law. Law guides behavior. It forces people to adhere to a behavioral standard. I can believe that murder is terrific, but I can't do it. Laws are necessary since there is no way we're all going to agree with anything. My idea of being decent to you, might be entirely different than your idea of being fair to me. Maybe I think that shooting your dog for fun is perfectly reasonable. Maybe you think burning down my house is a decent and fair way to warm yourself up. So, we invented a concept - Law. Since we can't all possibly agree on the same things, we're going to have to shoot for a lower standard - majority agreement. Then force the minority to comply with that agreement. We can't force that minority to agree with us, or we wouldn't need law in first damn place. Instead, we force their actions to comply. So, even though I think it would be great fun to poke Pangloss in the eye, the majority has said I cannot. This is the only reason why we have judges, legislators, and etc - these are common citizens charged with administering law - behavior compliance. If you really step back and look at the framework, it becomes obvious that the only difference between you and a supreme court justice, is his title - that his opinion affects law - behavior compliance. His opinion does not have jurisdiction over your mind. Or anyone else's. Only your behavior. If you want to argue that we are not qualified to determine constitutionality, then that's a fair argument. If you want to argue that we're arrogant elitist pseudo-intellectual pompous asses for presuming ourselves to be credible constitutional interpreters, then that's a fair argument. But to say we're hypocrites, makes no sense whatsoever.

SCOTUS rulings settle constitionality in terms of law, not in terms of opinion. They settle how we are to behave, and how we are to apply our laws and interpret them. They do NOT settle the question of constitutionality. Nothing does. Because there is no such power in the universe. Right, they will claim they believe that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional. I've never heard a dissenting supreme court justice change their belief based on the outcome. That's not what you said - you're changing the language because you realized you're wrong. There are only 9 people that can decide constitutionality for the federal laws of the american republic - there are over 6 billion people on the planet that can have an opinion on constitutionality. And there's nothing hypocritical about either category. You have not, and still can't, and you won't, be able to support the miserably obvious flawed notion of hypocrisy by disagreeing with a SCOTUS ruling. If SCOTUS ruled that it's always night time, you're not going to disagree right? In the light of day, there you'll be, insisting we're hypocrites for wearing sunglasses? But hey, you won't be a hypocrite. (What I wouldn't give for a country full of sheep like that to control and exploit...)

Correction..we'll know what has been officially ruled constitutional for the laws of the republic, which governs actions. Whether it's actually constitutional or not, is always up for debate. There is no arbiter of opinion.

I like it, Padren. Although I would make sure that both parties are accountable, in that it isn't just Obama that needs to act, it's all of them. And see, that's a reasonable argument. The best I could do would be to dig up some numbers on jailed pot smokers and growers and attempt to make a case that the "injustice" is on a scale that raises its priority. I haven't done that...yet. I think you're absolutely right, in the long run. Unfortunately, since our government has abandoned any requirement of "objective damage" when writing laws, they are fully invested in social engineering and moral legislation. This means that our countrymen have been perverted into looking to the state for legitimacy. So, legalizing pot equates to saying it's safe to use and abuse. I do believe we will see a spike in usage. But like you said, the "illegal" sheen will have been removed, and after a bit of time it will be no more special than alcohol. Potheads currently going broke buying dope off the street can start growing it in their house and we won't even see them. They'll have money for their cereal and cheetos and won't need to drain off of our entitlement system. Just seems good, all the way around.

Analytically speaking, I think compromise with democrats resembles the failed McCain/Palin "moderate/centrist" campaign too much. They tried to act like democrats - though I personally believe McCain is mostly genuine about his partisan compromise - and appeal to the rejection of Bush style partisanship. I think they may have missed the point a bit. They didn't need to abandon conservatism, they needed to abandon Bush's method. I think they get this now, and so are trying to come back to conservative principles, which presently takes the form of staying contrary to liberal ideas and pushing their own agenda. Personally, I only support them in the capacity of being some kind of resistance to the socialist ideas being rolled out right now. It's working for the democrats, so I don't see why not. Appealing to emotion is, unfortunately, probably the most powerful weapon in politics. The democrats have done an effective job at demonizing the upper class, taking advantage of people's natural tendency to externalize all of their ills. The "rich" are the politically correct minority to bigot. One look at the AIG mellodrama confirms, at the very least, an elementary level operating capacity in judgement by the american public. So, I imagine the republicans will do what both parties have been doing all of my life, and continue to cater to the lowest common denominator and capitalize off of their inherent prejudices. Whether it's envy for the rich and successful, or fury for out-group integration, it's always the same. I'm reminded of Leoben..."All of this has happened before...and will happen again". Until of course, you're tired of it and start electing statesmen instead of salesmen.

I don't understand why members of a science forum are investing so much in specious reasoning. This is open and shut, fiduciary mechanics. Nothing to see here folks. If they didn't do this, it would be blatant incompetence. They are right. They have a duty to their shareholders, and us, to get their taxes right. Whether they paid too much, or not enough. Yeah, yeah, I get the whole bailout insult with tax payer money, yadda yadda yadda, and that still doesn't resolve voluntary incompetence; voluntary pissing money out the door "cause we're afraid the public might get super duper mad, now". All while we're judging them for....well, pissing money out the door. Make up your minds. You want them to make money or not? They must make money for the bailout to be successful, so careful how you answer.

I understand what you're saying here, but "hyprocritical" is not the right word, try "hubris". See if this helps...If the dissenting supreme court justices still retain the constitutional view counter to the majority decision, are they hypocrites too? You seem to believe that SCOTUS is the only qualified arbiter of the constitution. Which of course is not true. They are the ony appointed arbiter of the constitution. So to disagree with their ruling on constitutionality, is to presume to be equally qualified. Which could be arrogant. But, it says nothing about hypocrisy.

Seems to miss the point of incarceration and punishment though. If this is standard practice and a reasonable response for aviation, then I'll happily concede. I don't know enough about all of this to have too strong of an opinion. My gut, though is telling me they're punishing him because people died, not because he actually did something wrong - as if his actions were distress-free conscious choices. I suppose there's some precedence for that though. I'm not real comfortable with punishing people for not responding perfectly in a crisis. That's a consistent theme of mine. Maybe I'm a bit soft there, but I find it almost insulting to judge people's actions, after the fact, far from danger, that are largely dictated by biological emergency response.

I agree 100%. So, should he be jailed upon discovery of his ineptitude?

Edit: Ok, I just cross posted with Sayo...seems this little point occurred to all of us. Yeah, I'm with Sayo on this. However, there's one thing that kind of bothers me... This is a media report, so I'm not sure how pedantic we can really be and still be accurate to the true events, but if the guy panicked, then I'm not sure how criminally negligent that really is. Sure, he has no business in a cockpit if he's going to panic in an emergency with other's lives at stake, but I don't think I can go along with considering that criminal negligence, unless that's not the charge.

You may be right... http://www.mcclatchydc.com/200/story/61862.html Missouri is my state, although not by choice. I can't wait to drive through this little town on my way down to visit Oklahoma...with my windows rolled down. (on second thought..maybe I shouldn't be driving)

In other words, he can't support his hypocrisy charges - at all. We've made ourselves clear as well, pages ago - but that didn't stop scrappy from asking loaded questions and returning unsupportable charges. This is just an arbitrary stopping point since he's frustrated.

Well, this would be true for those who believe it's right to restrict access to drugs, presumably for safety and general welfare intentions. For them, my post is perverted logic, I'm sure. For those of us who don't believe it's right to restrict drug use, it's icing on the cake. We see it as righting a wrong, and thereby solving all of these other problems that wrong contributed to. To us, the mistake was in the approach used to dealing with drug use - criminalization. Just think of all the downstream criminal markets created from "victimless" crimes, and all of the resources used to pseudo-enforce them. Consenting adults interfered with by the state. I'm not sure how today's present filth is better than staying out of their business.

No, one would be of a different opinion than the justices as to it's unconstitutionality. It is not a conflict of purported virtues and princples, it is a conflict of application of those virtues and principles. Personal opinion that differs from SCOTUS is not a repudiation of the concept of our republic, and does not even remotely imply, by any stretch, any fraudulent statement of belief in the principles and virtues associated with it. Countering actions would prove hypocrisy, not opinions and thoughts. It's the opposite. One would be fabulously informed about the principles of a constitutional republic when one embraces their power to disagree with everyone else, SCOTUS, god, and anything else you can imagine, yet follow the rule of said republic.

I was hoping the meltdown of order in Mexico with the drug cartel and Clinton's comments about Americans' insatiable appetites for "illegal" drugs might trigger some thought in folks. The drug cartel is put out of business the moment you legalize this stuff. Not just MJ, as I'm not sure if MJ is even a major product for the drug cartel there. American demand for illegal drugs from all over the world will drop instantly once they can purchase this stuff legally. And then we can benefit from safety regulations, like with any drug manufacturer in the US. Eventually, one day, we're going to have to stop acting like the moral police if we want a civilized society, relatively safe from the threat of the criminal element. Right now, criminals dominate the whole market. People debase themselves for lifelong addictions to horrid drugs that are made with the least care for safe human consumption and most care for profit, just like any corporation. Only we can regulate business enough to make them "care" since they benefit exponentially by existing legally. With the criminal element, there is no method to do that. We could have drugs that cost a fraction of the black market cost, with a monster economic framework to provoke competition and innovation in how these drugs are administered. Without the inflated cost that illegal products are subjected to, there's hardly the same cost when humans abuse them. If a crack fix costs 2 bucks at the convenience store, I doubt that will lead people to debase themselves, and lose their life savings just to afford the habit. They will still lose much in life, no doubt, and there's nothing anyone can do about that, legal or not.

Yes that hurts. I'm finding less reasons to like Obama every day. It's weird, because he has such an admirable method mixed with a repulsive ideology. That's not to imply this is all his fault, or that he shouldn't prioritize this sort of thing lower on the list, but he has such strength right now that I'm almost sure he could legalize cyanide over-the-counter. Would really be honorable if he used his influence on this. I think it's time to join NORML and redirect my focus.

Now you see why I kept asking him why he thought we suddenly would stop following the rule of law? I couldn't and still don't understand the idea that my mind must agree with the rule of the state. Governing is about regulating actions, not thoughts. So, yeah, our actions will comply with the SCOTUS ruling. My thoughts may or may not. Right now, my thoughts reject half of our laws, if not more.

Yeah, it was made up and put in dictionaries. Here's some: Here's some synonyms: management, direction, control; surveillance. Different language ought to be used if the intent doesn't match the verbiage. They are essentially calling for more "management, direction, control, surveillance". If it's just about assessing risk, then why use terminology that implies much more? And what IS risk assessment? What is the consequence of a bad risk assessment? Gee, I wonder if "seizure" and "take over" might have something to do with the answer....maybe not. Are you prepared to gamble with your own liberties like this? From the warrantless wiretapping threads, I believe the answer is an emphatic NO. I can only speculate that since it isn't your liberties being "overseen", then you're picking this thread to death with lawyer objections. But, of course, now we are getting into specifics and details that are not available. That's why I focused my attention on the insult that "oversight" of such liberties should even be open for debate.

How about their salary then? Should they not get that either? See, this is the point I think waitforufo is trying to make. We're only kicking on bonuses because of the word bonus. Because we always associate "bonus" with some kind of profit measurement, is our fault - it does not redefine the concept itself. Bonus is merely a type of compensation that is tied to a particular task, or dynamic of function as opposed to general compensation that only requires one to show up, otherwise known as salary. There is nothing that inherently associates the concept to profitability. So, then what you're really saying is that when you bail out a company, you believe those folks should not be entitled to any kind of compensation that is tied directly to a task or function - money for their labor - but only general / hourly compensation. And that's just a strange line to draw. Why deny someone compensation for their labor merely because it isn't gauranteed hourly wage? I would qualify that a bit, and require the bonus to be based on some kind of profit measurement before I'd stand against it. After all, that's the whole point about being pissed off about all of this right? No one was up in arms because we had to pay people's wages. Hell, most waitress jobs, like Hooters, as far as I know, don't even pay minimum wage and count on tips to get a decent income. If they happened to call tips "bonuses", then you'd deny those angels their tips if we had to bail out Hooters? What kind of man does that?

Great post waitforufo. I guess I shouldn't get my attendance bonus since my department didn't make a profit. Oh wait...my department is an expense by it's very nature, we don't EVER make any money for the company. Those threats are insane, albeit childish. They're more brave on the internet than in person. These same people, would be bent out shape if they were treated the same way; termed guilty without the respect of even reasonable substantiation. At this point, I'd be impressed if any of these idiots could even produce half-assed concern for any sense of substantiated guilt.

I'm perfectly willing to accept an argument that supposes the article is incorrect and misrepresenting Obama's intents with sloppy language. The media is a business that profits from sensationalism, so it's always possible. Other than that, I'm just commenting on the article. It states, clearly, that oversight of compensation is the mission here. No further details are necessary to see the clear violation of a principle I hold in high esteem. Just like no details are necessary to conclude a will to violate rights if the administration were to announce their desire to oversee the rights exercised by asian americans. The mere mention of that kind of intent, with no quantified value yet, is an assault on equality. No details are necessary to see that, and attack such nonsense.

Right. What you did is trivialize the degree to which they're going to violate property rights. It's fascinating watching people think themselves around principles. No, I don't agree with disrespecting our rights because it's just a itty bitty bit, as far as you're concerned. I suppose then, you won't mind if we draft some legislation to keep homosexuals off the beach. It's not the 18th century, revisited. The south isn't rising again. The confederacy is still dead. It's just a small little infringement that will give us security at the beaches by keeping jocks from beating them up. No problems, right? Much of my thinking comes from the realization that we will likely not recognize our fallacy if we were to institutionalize bigotry again, like slavery. It requires somewhat static truths to measure up to, to avoid prejudice with legal might. I don't believe in the concept of thinking around principles that serve as that truth. Property rights and freedom of speech are too dear and too close to the business end of any potential legalized oppression.