ParanoiA

No, this is all because I want you to say "he's closing Gitmo" instead of "he closed Gitmo": All of that other stuff was Pangloss drawing the wrong conclusions.

I don't know how the right wing bloggers act as I don't read it and have no idea what they say or believe, nor do I really care. I have no intention of reminding anyone on Gitmo ever, unless they come out and say it's closed when it's not. I am going to hold Obama to the standard of reality. He doesn't get to take credit for things until they're done. And Obama isn't trying to, Bascule is. Look, Obama is not my guy and there's about 10% of what he believes that I can agree with so don't misinterpret my criticisms as a right wing spin machine. Yes the far right doesn't care much for him either, but that doesn't put us on the same team, ok? As far as the detainees are concerned I have no agenda at all. Seriously. My last post on that subject was about establishing what they are - POW's, or Combatants, or Unlawful Combatants - and no one has responded to it. I'm not up to Obama's speed here, nor do I have much of an opinion on it since I can't even get past square one - what the hell are they? Once I'm comfortable with an answer to that, then I'll probably have a position to take on the matter. For this thread, my only agenda was to call bullshit on declaring things done when they're not. I found it particularly insulting in light of how Bush was just thrashed over this for years, and here we are just mere days into Obama's administration and it's coming back the other direction.

I agree, that's not a sell out of beliefs. Ok, then I would consider that an example of him believing in his ideology. His ideology being guided moreso by pragmatism and results than political fundamentalism. I'm sure then he wouldn't abandon "concern with how well a specific program will function efficiently to the ends it was created for" because we need to "work together". And that was the point I was making. I don't want to see legislators selling our their core convictions just to pump out legislation. And again, I'm not saying it's happening, I'm just weary of it.

Yeah, I don't think you're getting what we're saying either, nothing you've stated here contradicts my argument. Let's put it this way: 1) Belief in medicine = reasonable 2) Acting on belief in medicine = ethical 2 can only be ethically correct if 1 = reasonable. Belief determines if the action is bad. 1) Belief in god = reasonable 2) Acting on belief in god = unethical?? WTF? How can 2 be ethically wrong if 1 = reasonable? I think you have to declare that 1 = unreasonable in order to say that 2 is ethically wrong. Otherwise, tell me how we conclude that acting on belief in medicine is ethically correct. From what I've experienced my entire life, it's our beliefs that determine when action is ethical or unethical. So why would any belief be "reasonable" if it were not supported by evidence? See, my issue is an inconsistency with belief and acting on belief. To say something is reasonable to believe in, but not reasonable to act on, is equivocal.

Sayo, I don't think you're really absorbing his point here. How can acting on a reasonable belief be bad? What makes the act "bad" if the belief is reasonable? Medicine is also reasonable, but you wouldn't say acting on that belief is wrong if my child died from a medical accident. Why? Because we believe medicine is effective. Our belief has justified the action. You must say that medicine is not reasonable to believe in, in order to say that acting on that belief is therefore wrong. The problem with his argument is not what you're pointing out. It appears to be the appendage "answers to prayer". It may be reasonable to believe in god, but it may not be reasonable to believe god acts on prayer. Therefore belief in god by itself does not justify the action, or inaction.

I think you're right and it's unfortunate. There are many solutions to any given problem, generally. Left and Right solutions can both "work". I can't relate with the mantra that "socialism doesn't work" or "capitalism doesn't work", because it's really just about preference. I could solve most crime if you would just give up all of your civil liberties. One could say that "works". Sure, only if your goal is to eliminate crime, but if your eye is on personal freedom, then it doesn't "work". It's all about what you're trying to achieve, and what set of advantages and disadvantages you prefer - there is no perfection to be had. So, I'd like to see us quit using the word "work" and start thinking in terms of solutions with consequences we like better than the ones currently in effect. In that way, we're forced to study the consequences themselves - their detail. The focus on what "works" invites the tentative political observer to be ignorant. So instead of promoting national healthcare as a solution that "works", promote it as a solution that is "preferred". Perhaps "preferred" will prompt someone to think about what that means and figure out the difference. See, I find that kind of confusing. Why would you endorse an ideology if its solution is weak? A pre-formed ideology that you "join" might qualify, except that I challenge your knowledge and ability to think critically if you're just joining thought clubs and therefore you shouldn't be in office. But if your ideology is formed by your own internal machinations, and I think that goes for most of us, including Obama, then why in the world would you choose to believe in a concept that you also believe is weak? I guess what I'm saying here is that I'm not talking about "party ideology", but rather individual ideology. When I say one shouldn't sell out their beliefs, I mean one shouldn't sell out their beliefs - or else they didn't really believe them.

I guess I've confused myself with my own analogy. Gitmo is not closed. They signed a piece of paper promising to do it in a year - but it's not closed yet, it's still running just like the day before. I find that similar to declaring Iraq as mission accomplished, while we continue to fight the war there, just like the day before. Calling things done, when they're not done, is what I though my analogy was pointing out. And I'm shocked since so many decried Bush for declaring "mission accomplished" while people still shoot and bomb each other, yet here Bascule wants to hand Obama credit on the same basis. Fascinating. Gitmo will be closed when it's closed. Not a moment sooner, no matter how much symbolic fog you block the view with.

He closed Gitmo about as certainly as Iraq was "mission accomplished". Looks like we're taking a page out of the Bush administration handbook of spin. Oh, and why are we sending money to other countries while we're broke and running a 10 trillion dollar debt?

I'm going to be watching carefully though, because it's one thing to put partisanship aside on subjects agreed upon, it's quite another to sell out your beliefs altogether and make believe that's good government. There is a difference between the parties and neither are doing us any favors focusing on efficient output of legislation at the expense of proper debate and opposition. I find it quite fascinating really. The notion that a legislator that believes capitalist solutions and small government make the country great should pretend as if he loves the idea of nationalized healthcare. That's what I would call bullshit on. "Working together" by chucking your beliefs in the river equates to selfish opportunism to salvage one's career - putting themselves ahead of what's good for the country. Not saying any of this has happened, just advising to be weary of it. These kinds of "moods" if you will, have a tendency to push the pendulum from one extreme to another. It's a short path from legitimately working together to wholesale lopsided compromise.

This would work if it weren't for the qualifier "that responds to prayer". This took much of the steam out of my argument as well. It is reasonable to believe in deity, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to believe that god responds to prayer. Too bad too, it was a beautiful argument. I like this triad distribution of child rights approach you're advocating here. Would make an interesting thread of its own.

Yeah, I want to know the same thing. What do you think about the limited nature of condemning theological care rather than forcing medical care? The idea being that we don't force medical care, but rather prosecute for using a form of care that is proven worthless and ineffective? I'm visualizing a scientologist that reads Hubbard novels to his little one to treat their food poisoning. It would seem, at some point, we must be able to objectively conclude harm by negligence. I'm still chewing on it, but I don't see any fundamental issue with it on the surface.

I'm not avoiding a slippery slope, since I'm not arguing about fear of subsequent laws that build off of that precedence - which I happen to think will happen, but I didn't make that argument. I think if you stop right there you will have dead people eventually, that were made dead by well intentioned people that forced them into it using laws. No slippery slope required, this is a principle I feel very strongly about since it goes right to the heart of the individual versus the state. I'm never, ever going to sign on to the notion that the government knows what's good for me better than me. Even though, in isolated cases that may well be true. It is entirely antithetical to my belief of eventual non-governance to empower the state to choose what's best for me, against my wishes. We killed innocent people, including kids, to achieve that principle.

Well sure they did. They had already weighed the risk long ago when they decided god was more effective than medical care. But it doesn't matter if they or if they didn't, it still doesn't justify taking away the right to do so. My arguments aren't FOR the Neumann's, they're AGAINST the alternative - allowing the state to override the parents. I think the Neumann's are a tragedy, but I think you'll have far more disgusting tragedies if you decide the state has power over our children. I don't believe you've really thought this through. The state taking this power is far more dangerous than the parents keeping it. You can't prove that their life will be saved - but I'll agree anyway, just for argument's sake. But here, you are making the charge that magic powers of a space pixie is "completely off the map" - so can you prove they don't exist? You are making the charge, not them. They just declined what we see as the better option. Forced care is fact - they don't want it, but we're making them do it. Force has been demonstrated. How you justify that force is yours to deal with, it's an opinion. I don't disagree. But I'm not comfortable trumping parental rights because they chose an option we don't agree with. Sure, in the Neumann's case we would all be so happy this tragedy never happened - yay!! Then we'd have to contend with a different story where a child's life wasn't in danger, necessarily, yet the child was forced to receive care and due to a medical accident they died. I think it's worse for the state to cause murder than the parents. The parents can only do it once really, the state can do it over and over and over.... Isn't it dramatic to have your child taken from you, against your will, because the state insists the child be treated and they end up killing them by accident? From the parent's perspective, how is this any different than a criminal regime taking your kids and killing them? You mean the consistency in recognizing that children (age limit is debatable) are considered not to have the capacity to make these decisions, and that our government doesn't earn the credit to issue a wholesale override of parental discretion? Yes, I saw that and was quite proud of it. There's always going to be a consequence, and I choose to error on the side of individual power over state power. Again, I'm not proud of the Neumann's, I'm just not ready to toss our US Constitution in the trash over it. I think the state could do far more damage and that would be far more despicable and shameful to institutionalize. It was about what Kara needed, from their perspective. If one truly believes god will do this, then they must have cared about Kara enough to pray for god to do it. They could say the same about you if you accidentally killed her. They could say it was never about what Kara or her parents wanted or needed, the state just wanted to impose their will and they killed her. Edit: Oh, but I meant to add that I'd be FAR more open to empowering children over their parents. Snail brought up some interesting stuff, and I've since been pondering just how young a child can be and still be in charge of themselves. That's definitely something I consider as a possible fix, and it compliments the principle of individual liberty without empowering the state with direct life and death decisions. Sorry it seems that way. What I mean to be saying is that I have no desire to repeat the volumes of history associated with totalitarian power. The state only grows, it doesn't shrink. So we must be prudent when we decide to toss out old principles for new ones. Our principle that reveres the individual over the state is the preferred one as apparent from the blood we've spilled in our history achieving it. And like medicine, it too isn't perfect and will still have consequences and tragedies associated with it. So why is there an issue in turning around and doing the same thing if the medical personnel kill her? They willingly prevented theological treatment by knowingly abstaining from leaving her alone, cloaked in prayer. They did this because their science belief is that only medicine can heal. Thereforce made the decision that Kara would not receive treatment from god on the basis of their apparently false hypothesis. This is the case as long as medicine, too, is merely a preferred option to extend ones life, that carries risk of permanent injury and death. Same here, 100%, if that were the reason. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's amazing the aunt got as far as she did in a week. Now just imagine if we stopped being lazy using pen and paper to control everyone and go out there and started talking to these nutcases.

No apologies required, you did fine. We're on the same page, although we disagree - surprise! I don't believe it should. Medical treatment carries risk also - risk of death or permanent damage. I don't think it's right to remove the Neumann's rights to weigh the risk of medical treatment. Forcing our will to let strangers violate their children's privacy, cut them up and inject drugs into them is not any more ethical. It doesn't serve us any better to override parental discretion. Are you prepared to jail every medical person that touched a child should they end up dead from forced care? That's state sponsored murder / manslaughter. Their child was taken from them by the state, and killed by strangers - all against their will. I know we want to save these kids, but overriding parental discretion by the state is a nasty, nasty line to be crossing. The cost of crossing that line is shockingly distasteful. Imagine reading headlines about medical personnel stripping children from the clutches of their parents only to return them a dead body. Good luck getting these folks to listen to us then. And how does the situation get any better? Does this sort of thing really happen enough to risk that kind of power exchange entrusted to a bureaucracy? Were the Neumanns persuaded by any child advocate? Did anyone have a chance to talk to these people, or is all of this after the fact? I know, it's easier just to cancel their rights with pen and paper than it is to actually convince them we're right, but if the principle of individual liberty is to be maintained - if individuals are truly the keepers of the ultimate power, which is necessary for our republic (since we govern ourselves), then we must respect each other's rights to determine their own fate, including that of their children. I realize you're not from the US, of course.

What makes you think he hasn't? Seriously though, I think the point he's trying to make is that you don't take a gun out to play with it, you take it out to shoot it. The people that get hurt from escalating a situation by pulling their weapon, tend to be people that didn't really want to shoot it, but rather thought that brandishing it would end the conflict and they wouldn't be challenged to actually use it. Most criminals are far more willing to indulge in violence than law abiding victims so wielding your weapon is not good enough in a close confrontation, like a mugging - you must use it, immediately. Or else don't pull it out at all. As far as home intruders go, I disagree with his kill-the-perp plan. Oh, I have no issues in killing an intruder, but I think hunting them down in your house is a bit too Hollywood.

I won't be fumbling the phone, it's on my night stand and I can simply toss it to her as I'm taking my step to my opened gun cabinet (with my keys inside) to retrieve my shotgun as I proceed to the hallway to wake my boys while I stay drawn on the hallway entrance - the only passage way. I figure to stay in that position until the authorities show up. It's not as much movement as you're thinking. Our kids are just across the hall, both wake to my voice by custom since I'm their alarm clock. It's just a few steps and I'll have a barrel on that hallway. The crack of that shotgun will send a terrific message about my intent, particularly when I follow it up with my pre-arranged testosterone packed Eastwood style one liner that gives them their options. I like all of that better than shooting my dad, who got drunk and drove to the wrong home. Or my son, who was trying to sneak back in with his friends, but it was one of his friends that I ran into in the dark first. Or..any number of scenarios. I prefer to play a defensive role and just be Dirty Harry when they choose the wrong option.

But they're not prisoners of war though, at least per the Geneva Convention. And, apparently they're not a combatant either... They're more like an unlawful combatant... Which appears to be Obama's plan. However you are certainly right about them being treated as POW's: But, I won't pretend to have combed through all of this detail. The subject came up at work today since I kept referring to them as prisoners of war, so I was doing some reading on it.

Oh, well if he's trying to do that, I would start by eliminating the market that empowers the "mowers". Try legalizing victimless crime and see how impotent they become. I don't see too many black market beer pushers on the streets in KC.

Well it's only a misnomer if it doesn't become action. Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but I only characterized "forced medical treatment" as a proposed preventative measure where we, the state, force the parents to get medical treatment for their children over depending on god to do it. Presumably, the children are too young to make their own decision, and the parents are overridden by the state. In that scenario, that's forced medical treatment. At the very least, that's forcing the parents to give up their right to weigh the risk of medical error, as D H provided numbers for above, not to mention the level of personal violation required for many medical treatments. Again, it's just common for us, it's not common for all and their capacity for fear and trauma obligate us to respect that.

And I like that. Children aren't the delicate' date=' incapacitated boobs, we tend to treat them in these discussions. They can be damn smart and way ahead of the adults. Yes, it would be less moral. I agree with you on this. My take on forced medical treatment is based on the government overriding parental consent to treat a child - that's what I'm against. What a gut-wrenching story. I'm really shocked. I'm not sure if I'm impressed or disappointed. I think this definitely highlights the flaw in using age to determine capacity for informed choice. Clearly this girl made an impression that I doubt most 13 year olds could match. Mental maturity definitely seems the better option. Interesting Snail. I hadn't really thought much about children's say in these matters. Would be interesting to see a kid demand treatment in the face of his parents objections. I'm sure it's happened, and I'm surprised there hasn't been an episode of "House" on it. Nice post, and no, I don't think you do.

I don't know that it deserves exemption from critique and ridicule. Only that it doesn't persuade the indoctrinated, but rather empowers their them-against-the-world romantic illusion. Essentially, it's the same reason why we don't think that war in Iraq will reduce terrorism. Agitating your opponent, and thus validating their propoganda, isn't always the best option. The main reason why I believe religion has earned the tolerance it demands though, is simply because of the numbers. If half the country thought the earth was flat and the other half knew better but flat earthers couldn't be convinced then you'd eventually have to face the reality that half of you disagrees with the other half - and neither of you are the tie breaking authority. They're just as convinced it's flat as you are that it's round (yeah, yeah, don't get picky with me now, it's freaking round!). So you either accept their stupidity and entertain it in law - and thereby gain their productive output in all of its forms in your society. Or, you refuse to let it go, and fight wars - or at the very least you become two smaller societies, both the poorer for their refusal to accept each other. I think we tolerate religion and religion tolerates us because we are more alike than we are different. We need each other more than we don't. We gain by accepting each other's stupidities, moreso than if we didn't.

Ah, maybe you need to read my post again, because I created a logical partition between those paragraphs, in that the first is my belief in the left's general desire for approval by European governments and societies. The second is my honest take on the liberal committment to gun control - I think they believe it's a common sense thing, like Sisyphus said. How about we do this like girly-men and gossip about our duel?

I used to hold that against them as well, until I considered the incremental nature of the state. It's only a reasonable compromise today. Twenty years from now, the next "reasonable compromise" would be an even further reaching regulatory consequence - until a 'reasonable compromise' becomes soft rubber bullets for soft guns over hard rubber bullets for soft guns - while the criminal element still enjoys cold steel revolvers. So, I actually appreciate the long term intent behind standing against anything and everything the state attempts. Sorry, but laws only grow, they don't shrink. Gun laws are only obeyed by people who obey laws anyway. Criminals, by definition, choose to ignore laws. If your concern is to regulate guns within the law abiding citizenry, then gun laws are great. Otherwise, its misguided and immoral. People must be allowed to build tools to protect themselves from things the state cannot - at the very least. And right now, the state cannot get to my house within seconds of a home invasion. After we're dead they do a great job, though. I actually don't think that's the main reason, I was really just being more flippant about what I see as a bad trend - the need to be ego stroked by Europe. I do think today's liberal admires Europe and aspires to be like them. And I do think american liberals are ashamed of their "unsophisticated" foils - the redneck republican element. In a way, I can relate, as I'm quite put off by my wife's family - they live 10 or more to a house, no toothbrush is welcome, don't add up to a 6th grade education and they have no idea how stupid they are. But I think their resistance to guns is more like how you put it. It's an ideological thing rooted in that "common sense" tone they take with so many things - some of which are not 'common sense', but rather just seem like it (like Torture - it only seems like a simple common sense dilemma). Not that I'm picking on them, republicans are bad about this as well - see their appeals to Global Warming - it's all about how silly it sounds to presume man can change the climate. A small minded dismissal based on convenient logic. Specious reasoning is talented at disguising itself as simple common sense.